Essendon 2011

[Slattery_20]

have to say I am not really sure what you're getting at here, as in I really don't understand.

As in Campo was half the reason all of our midfielders ran only one way; Knights promised a win over Adelaide - the one team more than any other who capitalised on that game-plan (compared to how good they are vs everyone else); now Campo is working for you lot I assume based on a glowing reference.
It's a joke. Not a very good one, but then again I always thought the same of Campo.
With me now?

however, you have an awful, truly terrible, wretched midfield. which is going to take some while to correct. you have no elite midfielders, and don't look like you've got any in the pipeline either. if you could put Watson & stanton back to being 3rd/4th midfielders in your rotation, where they really belong, you'd be looking a lot better.

I think you're team is unbalanced, and you're not going anywhere until its fixed

But this is my point.
I know full well we don't have a great midfield; and we need to push Stanton etc down the list.
I don't think any of the mid-table sides do, right up to Hawthorn & Freo in 5th & 6th. Good on their day; but beatable by most sides.
I'd take issue with 'terrible' etc. but that's pretty much just beside the point.

Who would you say, from Melbourne, Norf, your lot, Port, actually has, right now,an elite midfielder?
I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to make a case that any of Vince, Moloney, Scully, Harvey, Boak are, right now, a class above Jobe Watson in terms of output, influence, ability.

It's that middle bunch of teams IMHO we need to press. And really, bar you lot, we competed pretty well against all of them; although lacking class to put sides away.

As for the pipeline; who knows. From Zaha, Heppell, Howlett, Colyer & Melksham, I think there's very very good prospects for at least the first 3.

 

[Slattery_20]

I thought this was simple, whenever we win the opposition has played their worst ever game in 100 odd years. It's lucky we keep coming up against these worst ever performances.

It's apparently our rucks and tall forwards.
I could've sworn I saw our rucks beaten about 12 or 14 times last year & I could've sworn just about everyone had talls kicking more goals; but bf tells me all we have is talls.
Baaaah.

 

[Crow-mo]

I have asked before but no one ever answers.

If our midfield is sooo bad how do we actually win a game?

that's because its a stupid question.

firstly, you don't win many games for a start. you were statistically the worst finalist in over a decade in 2009, and there haven't been so many wins outside that.

secondly you also need to consider your game plan, a fast, hard running (forward) attack only model. that is always going to match up better against some teams, in some conditions, and on some grounds. you had such an extreme game plan, you couldn't not get your tail up and win some games. its also why you get utterly destroyed in some matchups too. when you guys got beaten, sometimes it was by huge margins for that very reason.

I also think, the nature of the game is that even bad teams win occasionally. whether opposition underestimates them, things just go right, injury, who knows, a raft of things.

even the 1995 Fitzroy team won 2 games, and if you don't think they were the worst outfit of modern times, then I don't know what to tell you.

but as we all know, its not about the odd fluke its about having the quality to challenge through 25 rounds of footy right to the end.

you'll always win the odd game for any and all of the reasons mentioned above. it just doesn't mean anything until you're good enough to do it consistently.

 

[Crow-mo]

That's BS as it depends on the quality. Tell Martin, Palmer, Rich that.

are you 12 or something? none of those guys are prime movers for their teams. neither is Scully, Hill, Cotchin whoever. they're contributors at this stage, and over the next couple of years they'll take on more responsibility.

and did you really mention Palmer? seriously?

just because they're contributing, doesn't mean they're carrying the load.

Watson is not a 3rd or 4th grader.

that's not what I said. he's better off being your 3rd best midfielder, because if you lack the quality where he has to be your main guy, he's not good enough. he's never going to be the no.1 midfielder in a successful team.

How do you know we don't have an elite midfielder on our list already.

While i am not saying they are it is possible that Melksham, Colyer or Heppell could be elite. Heppell won the MVP for the finals series and won a game off his own boot while playing Midfield in i think the PF.

Melksham was best on ground during the TAC cup GF.

None of that guarantees success but it's a good start.

they're just players, every team has players. I'm not seeing any Judd/Cousins; Ablett/Bartel; Swan/Pendlebury combo there.

but hey maybe you aunty is your uncle, and their 2 headed love child from mars just won the lottery. there is always random possibility but its not an argument.

 

[Kings Army]

If our midfield is sooo bad how do we actually win a game?

Our Midfield is nowhere near as bad as what BF makes out.

Your midfield carried you to 14th. It is that bad.

 

[The Nostradamus]

i don't rate anyone in their forward line. Gumby has not shown much and am glad we got hansen, neagle,jetta,davey all below average. Flecther turning 37 so this is probably his last year which would leave a hole in their defence.
Hille 30 years old is starting to decline and won't be around much longer either. Their midfield is average apart from watson.
only watson would make our midfield which consists of
Boomer,swallow,anthony,ziebell,bastinac,greenwood,adams, wells,cunnington

 

[GuzzLG]

that's because its a stupid question.

firstly, you don't win many games for a start. you were statistically the worst finalist in over a decade in 2009, and there haven't been so many wins outside that.

Statistically we won more games that year than half the league.

 

[Crow-mo]

I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to make a case that any of Vince, Moloney, Scully, Harvey, Boak are, right now, a class above Jobe Watson in terms of output, influence, ability.

that's a pretty odd list. but Vince, Scully and Boak are definitely in a higher class of player. Watson is more mature.

As for the pipeline; who knows. From Zaha, Heppell, Howlett, Colyer & Melksham, I think there's very very good prospects for at least the first 3.

the problem is that if we assume, more or less, than your primary midfield engine consists of 5 guys. we know that's not 100% the case, but broadly it holds. they're not all equal, in role. and you can sensibly order them 1-5 in terms of their front line responsibilities.

to be successful, all teams need frontline mids in their top 2 spots. your 3 best midfielder, might still be a #1 quality guy, like didak or Montagna for instance, and if that reflects your overall rotation you're in good shape.

the reverse is not true though, your best guy isn't necessarily a no.1 or 2 calibre guy just cause there aint anything better.

Take Adelaide or Brisbane's big 4 onballers. Aker was the #4 guy for Brisbane, but gee whiz the bastard can play. he's a #1. and that illustrates the mismatch. for years Adelaide fielded Ricciuto, McLeod and Goodwin. heck Goodwin was far and away the worst of those 3, but he's an elite onballer. so he sits at #3, and the fact that he is no way a #3 is a huge advantage to us - or was. Tyson edwards was probably a #2 quality guy, but was our 4th best.

Watson is not a #1 midfielder quality, he's just not. I personally don't think a guy so limited by foot, is really a #2 level either but for argument maybe I could be persuaded. but he's on the cusp. he needs to be at #3 in your rotations to be an advantage to you. and stanton could be a very good #4.

if Joel Selwood circa 2007/8 was Geelong's best midfielder they're in trouble, but as their 3rd/4th best, he's a weapon. you can't tag the ****er, because you got others to worry about. you start shutting down players that deep into the rotation and you've lost all sight of your own gameplan.

Daniel Kerr was the perfect example of a #3 type, who flourished in that spot, and not at the front of charge.

of course, these rankings are conceptual and its not like a baseball pitching rotation or the new ball pair at the cricket, but it holds.

Peter Siddle is not a new ball bowler and Jobe Watson is not one of the 2 best mids in a front line, successful team. doesn't mean they don't have qualities or merits, but in the right context.

 

[Crow-mo]

Statistically we won more games that year than half the league.

whoooossssshhhhh....

 

[Slattery_20]

Boomer,swallow,anthony,ziebell,bastinac,greenwood,adams, wells,cunnington

I must've misread the thread title.

 

[hank31]

whoooossssshhhhh....

Have you ever considered a carrer in politics?

 

[Slattery_20]

that's a pretty odd list. but Vince, Scully and Boak are definitely in a higher class of player. Watson is more mature.

It was a hotch-potch of output, influence, quality. (Swallow's omission was an oversight).
Class vs good.

Watson is not a #1 midfielder quality, he's just not. I personally don't think a guy so limited by foot, is really a #2 level either but for argument maybe I could be persuaded. but he's on the cusp. he needs to be at #3 in your rotations to be an advantage to you. and stanton could be a very good #4.

You're not wrong. I just think we're talking differnt contexts.
You're comparing us to very good, or great sides and yeah, we don't stack up.

We won't be a top side until we have guys with better skill levels & better able to physically cope: ie Melksham, Myers, and so on - in there. No shock there. Hence the draft picks & games thrown at Melksham & so on.
They're not ready yet (altho Zaha & Howlett aren't far off ). Bleeding obvious.
Neither is any area of our list. Again, bleeding obvious.

My comparison - and most others - has been with the other sides who most slot into that area we're hoping for. 8th-12th.
I say, Winderlich fit (another guy who'd be a really good #4 - decent #3, pinch-hits as a 2 for us and does good things the 8 weeks a year he's fit touch wood) - we're right in there.

 

[Wernumberone]

that's because its a stupid question.

firstly, you don't win many games for a start. you were statistically the worst finalist in over a decade in 2009, and there haven't been so many wins outside that.

secondly you also need to consider your game plan, a fast, hard running (forward) attack only model. that is always going to match up better against some teams, in some conditions, and on some grounds. you had such an extreme game plan, you couldn't not get your tail up and win some games. its also why you get utterly destroyed in some matchups too. when you guys got beaten, sometimes it was by huge margins for that very reason.

I also think, the nature of the game is that even bad teams win occasionally. whether opposition underestimates them, things just go right, injury, who knows, a raft of things.

even the 1995 Fitzroy team won 2 games, and if you don't think they were the worst outfit of modern times, then I don't know what to tell you.

but as we all know, its not about the odd fluke its about having the quality to challenge through 25 rounds of footy right to the end.

you'll always win the odd game for any and all of the reasons mentioned above. it just doesn't mean anything until you're good enough to do it consistently.

It is not a stupid question, you just can't answer it without admitting our midfield isn't as bad as what you and BF say it is.

BF belief is that the midfield is the most important area of the ground and this is now also footy think and correct.

BF belief, and your belief, is that our midfield is attrocious. You believe that Watson is only a 3rd o 4th mid rotation quality.

If that was correct the only way we could win games is by having an outstanding defence or a gun forward or two.

We have neither.

Watson is an elite CLEARANCE player and would only be bettered in this area by one or two players and only just.

but as we all know, its not about the odd fluke its about having the quality to challenge through 25 rounds of footy right to the end.

That is not what we are arguing about and i know we are not a good team and have called us poor on here before but my argument is that our Midfield is not as bad as what it is made out to be.

 

[Wernumberone]

are you 12 or something? none of those guys are prime movers for their teams. neither is Scully, Hill, Cotchin whoever. they're contributors at this stage, and over the next couple of years they'll take on more responsibility.

and did you really mention Palmer? seriously?

just because they're contributing, doesn't mean they're carrying the load.



that's not what I said. he's better off being your 3rd best midfielder, because if you lack the quality where he has to be your main guy, he's not good enough. he's never going to be the no.1 midfielder in a successful team.




they're just players, every team has players. I'm not seeing any Judd/Cousins; Ablett/Bartel; Swan/Pendlebury combo there.

but hey maybe you aunty is your uncle, and their 2 headed love child from mars just won the lottery. there is always random possibility but its not an argument.

Maybe you are 12 and miss games because you aren't allowed to stay up late enough to watch some of them.

Martin was Richmonds best Mid last year. Palmer carried Freos Midfield in 2009, winning the RS, before he did his knee and Rich was outstanding in 2009 also.

 

[In the Outer]

Im happy with the direction the club is taking.
We are starting to get back on track after having lost our way.

Our drafting strategy has been to go for the KP players first as they take longer to develop and now we are adding the mids and addressing other areas of concern such as small defenders.
Carlton are doing the opposite with the mids first and now going tall.
Time will tell which strategy pays off in the long run.

Knights had to go. The gameplan had gone off the rails and he had the inability to strategise and make counter moves on matchday.

Hird was an extremely smart footballer who read the play and the opposition well. I believe he will be a fine tactical coach and he has the benefit of Bomber as well.

Everyone goes on about the midfield. Watson is a star. Not yet elite, but definitely A-Grade. anyone who says otherwise is crazy. Carries the Essendon midfield in a manner befitting Atlas holding the world upon his shoulders in Greek mythology. If Stanton and Winderlich can improve and show the consistency that Watson does then the midfield starts looking better. Jetta, Zaharakis, Melksham, Colyer, Howlett and hopefully Myers and Dempsey (God I hope they play him in a Stephen Hill type role) will rotate through the middle and will improve.

The young KP players look great. Hurley is exceptional and will be our next elite player IMO. Gumby is stringing games together and getting more confident. Pears must have been close to being AA in '09 and if he can get back from injury is one of the best young backmen in the comp. Hooker has really surprised me as I initially never thought he'd make it. Ryder is the frustrating one. If he could just find the will to impose himself and take the game head on he could be one of the all time greats.

Add to this the one of the best KP prospects in a decade in Joe Daniher and there is reason to be bullish about the future.

This will be a year to assess the playing list and to develop our young players further. If the team can efficiently execute Hirdy's more defensive gameplan then we should hopefully sneak up a few spots on the ladder, say 10th - 12th...

 

[MightyTiger]

Maybe you are 12 and miss games because you aren't allowed to stay up late enough to watch some of them.

Martin was Richmonds best Mid last year. Palmer carried Freos Midfield in 2009, winning the RS, before he did his knee and Rich was outstanding in 2009 also.

If you actually bothered to ready Crow-mo's posts you would realize this is exactly what he was talking about, the only reason why Martin was allowed to play the way he did was because he wasn't our #1 Midfielder hence he never got tagged, Cotchin got tagged every single game last year and Martin was third in line hence the reason why he was allowed to run around freely.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

If you actually bothered to ready Crow-mo's posts you would realize this is exactly what he was talking about, the only reason why Martin was allowed to play the way he did was because he wasn't our #1 Midfielder hence he never got tagged, Cotchin got tagged every single game last year and Martin was third in line hence the reason why he was allowed to run around freely.

yeah, but are you suggesting that Watson and Stanton won't be the first tagged, thus not allowing some of our younger midfielders to shine?

 

[MightyTiger]

yeah, but are you suggesting that Watson and Stanton won't be the first tagged, thus not allowing some of our younger midfielders to shine?

Does Watson get tagged? IIRC Stanton was the one getting heavily blanketed and thus had to move to HBF. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's what I remember from watching Essendon games last year.

 

[theflea]

It isn't the better assistants, as the development roles played by Hickmott and Prescott weren't exactly that bad in reality. Same with having Grant at Bendigo too.

It's more the lack of spending in the entire football department that is the worry. No doubt had we spent the most of all clubs in terms of the football department, that would have made Knighta's job so much easier. But, under Jackson, we became known for our penny pinching in that area.

I also don't buy the inexperienced line about Knights either. He coached SANFL for a year and VFL for 3 more years before being appointed. I'm sorry, but, that is as good a preparation for senior coaching at the highest level as you can get. And given everything that was against him over that 4 year period - the lack of respect from Port Adelaide and having to meet the demands of what Sheedy wanted the players at Bendigo to do, he performed admirably and finals came.

He is only 10% of the problem.

jeez be careful mate you might get lynched

 

[The Bomb]

that's a pretty odd list. but Vince, Scully and Boak are definitely in a higher class of player. Watson is more mature.




the problem is that if we assume, more or less, than your primary midfield engine consists of 5 guys. we know that's not 100% the case, but broadly it holds. they're not all equal, in role. and you can sensibly order them 1-5 in terms of their front line responsibilities.

to be successful, all teams need frontline mids in their top 2 spots. your 3 best midfielder, might still be a #1 quality guy, like didak or Montagna for instance, and if that reflects your overall rotation you're in good shape.

the reverse is not true though, your best guy isn't necessarily a no.1 or 2 calibre guy just cause there aint anything better.

Take Adelaide or Brisbane's big 4 onballers. Aker was the #4 guy for Brisbane, but gee whiz the bastard can play. he's a #1. and that illustrates the mismatch. for years Adelaide fielded Ricciuto, McLeod and Goodwin. heck Goodwin was far and away the worst of those 3, but he's an elite onballer. so he sits at #3, and the fact that he is no way a #3 is a huge advantage to us - or was. Tyson edwards was probably a #2 quality guy, but was our 4th best.

Watson is not a #1 midfielder quality, he's just not. I personally don't think a guy so limited by foot, is really a #2 level either but for argument maybe I could be persuaded. but he's on the cusp. he needs to be at #3 in your rotations to be an advantage to you. and stanton could be a very good #4.

if Joel Selwood circa 2007/8 was Geelong's best midfielder they're in trouble, but as their 3rd/4th best, he's a weapon. you can't tag the ****er, because you got others to worry about. you start shutting down players that deep into the rotation and you've lost all sight of your own gameplan.

Daniel Kerr was the perfect example of a #3 type, who flourished in that spot, and not at the front of charge.

of course, these rankings are conceptual and its not like a baseball pitching rotation or the new ball pair at the cricket, but it holds.

Peter Siddle is not a new ball bowler and Jobe Watson is not one of the 2 best mids in a front line, successful team. doesn't mean they don't have qualities or merits, but in the right context.

Hang on a bit, name a absolute champion midfielder Essendon have had in the past 20 - 30 odd years besides Tim Watson?
Essendon have always had the Utility in Hird, kpp like Lloyd, Fletcher, Lucas, Salmon, Madden, Vander haar ect
we have had success building our team on KPP, and that is exactly what we are doing now,
you say we have s#it mids because they are not Swan/ Pendles, ablett / Bartel, Judd / Cousins, But in 2000 it was Misiti / Johnson BUT we had Lloyd, Lucas, Hird and Fletcher.

Now again we have Hurley, Ryder, Pears, Gumby and Heppell will be the utility, yet Melksham, Colyer, Howlett, Zaharakis, Hocking, Winderlich, Watson and Stanton have as much potential as we have had in a long time.

 

[In the Outer]

Watson is an elite CLEARANCE player and would only be bettered in this area by one or two players and only just.

EXACTLY

Those saying Watson is only a 3 or 4 rank in the midfield are basing it on the role of the breakaway ball carrying midfielder.

Watson is not in that mould so to try to rank him on that basis is incorrect.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Does Watson get tagged? IIRC Stanton was the one getting heavily blanketed and thus had to move to HBF. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's what I remember from watching Essendon games last year.

yeah mate, Watson gets tagged every week. Otherwise he destroys you. Often he does anyway.

It's just that he's so in and under it's hard to get a handle on him. Watching Essendon games it's easy to miss the work Watson does, because he's so quick, but whenever you see a ball exit a pack, it's more often than not due to Watson

 

[Gibbo_88]

Hang on a bit, name a absolute champion midfielder Essendon have had in the past 20 - 30 odd years besides Tim Watson?
Essendon have always had the Utility in Hird, kpp like Lloyd, Fletcher, Lucas, Salmon, Madden, Vander haar ect
we have had success building our team on KPP, and that is exactly what we are doing now,
you say we have s#it mids because they are not Swan/ Pendles, ablett / Bartel, Judd / Cousins, But in 2000 it was Misiti / Johnson BUT we had Lloyd, Lucas, Hird and Fletcher.

Now again we have Hurley, Ryder, Pears, Gumby and Heppell will be the utility, yet Melksham, Colyer, Howlett, Zaharakis, Hocking, Winderlich, Watson and Stanton have as much potential as we have had in a long time.

So your logic is that because you've hardly had a champion midfielder in 20 to 30 years that you don't need one now. Maybe time for a change then. The game has changed a lot in that time. I would rather a gun midfield than kpp's, west coast, bris and geelong had such a good midfield that it didn't matter who was up forward.

 

[In the Outer]

So your logic is that because you've hardly had a champion midfielder in 20 to 30 years that you don't need one now. Maybe time for a change then. The game has changed a lot in that time. I would rather a gun midfield than kpp's, west coast, bris and geelong had such a good midfield that it didn't matter who was up forward.

Agree the game has changed and now that theyv'e got the KPP's they will go after the midfielders.

One of the first things Hirdy mentioned was the midfield.

 

[hank31]

So your logic is that because you've hardly had a champion midfielder in 20 to 30 years that you don't need one now. Maybe time for a change then. The game has changed a lot in that time. I would rather a gun midfield than kpp's, west coast, bris and geelong had such a good midfield that it didn't matter who was up forward.

Yeah lets all be sheep and recruit the same way as everyone else..

Im over this conversation. Why dont all you experts sit back and let the real experts have there go at building a side.

I personally love the fact that we have built a side differently to everyone else.

Geelong built their side on the back of a dominant defense, funny how people forget so quickly! Your mob brissys dominance was partly because of the midfield but the defence was awesome and so was the forward line.

If building the spine works for Essendon, sides will follow and it will become fashionable to recruit a spine first and foremost, then follow with the midfield. (especially amongst half the BF heroes.)

One more thing, Tigers supporters: We are Essendon Football club, we dont and wont take advice from a club thats endured as much sucess as your joke of a club over the past 3 decades.