Essendon selections

[Fat Red]

Sheedy defended the selections of Mercuri and Hird.

Hird because half-fit he was better than Bolton.

Mercuri because "as a bench player" he got 10 possessions.

Those are reasonable points, but I thought it hid a philosophical mistake, which was to pick the experienced players each time.

19 out of 22 from last year. 1 had retired, 1 was unavailable due to injury, 1 effectively the same.

Looking at back-to-back teams of the past, there are always changes. And there need to be. You need the hunger of those who missed out the year before to fuel the rest.

But Essendon tried as hard as they could to play the same team.

 

[Same Old's]

I guess the problem was that if they made 3 or 4 changes, the players comming in wouldn't have been match fit.

 

[Fat Red]

True Same Old's, but my point is that they should have been playing the whole time. Heffernan and Blumfield didn't deserve their places on form, and Moorcroft was no more match fit than McGrath, less if anything.

 

[windyhill]

F/Red,sheedy is the master of excuses.The Master.

 

[Stegelator]

Originally posted by Fat Red
True Same Old's, but my point is that they should have been playing the whole time. Heffernan and Blumfield didn't deserve their places on form, and Moorcroft was no more match fit than McGrath, less if anything.

I think McGrath should have come in for either Mercuri Bluma or Hef; Preferrably Mercs. And I thought Moorcroft Deserved his part as he played an excellent game!

 

[Pessimistic]

Hawks 'sacrificed' a few gmaes in the seconf half of the season but came into the finals fitter - A similar strategy might have worked for Essendon. After all, what do the minor rounds count for ?

 

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by Pessimistic
Hawks 'sacrificed' a few gmaes in the seconf half of the season but came into the finals fitter - A similar strategy might have worked for Essendon. After all, what do the minor rounds count for ?

Problem is we might of finished 3rd or 4th and possibly had to play Brisbane in a Preliminary final at the Gabba or Port etc. A top two spot was vital.

 

[CJH]

Originally posted by Fat Red


...

Mercuri because "as a bench player" he got 10 possessions.

...

Mercuri may well have filled the role of the bench player getting 10 possessions but who filled the role of getting 25 gilt-edged possessions out of the midfield?

The point you make is entirely valid Fat Red! It appears that Sheedy took the more conservative option because he may well have feared failure and wasn't prepared to gamble on kids.

To further your point, what was the game time of Jacobs, Rioli and McVeigh?I think Jacobs had a full game but McVeigh only had about 30%. Do you think Essendon needed his fresh and fast legs at all? Not sure how long Rioli was on the ground for?

 

[Fat Red]

I thought Jacobs was one of their very best players--Bradshaw had no influence at all.

McVeigh was given no opportunity.

Rioli was pretty disappointing.

 

[GOALden Hawk]

Do you guys remember how early in the season how Sheedy kept on reminding us 'it is a totally different side from last year?' I reckon he said it at every winning press conference for the 1st 8 rounds.

Yet when it came down to, only 3 new players from last year - why was there a change of heart? Why did so many players, admittely with a proven track record, get a game when they were clearly struggling through injury/loss of form? These questions have to be asked, even if it's to make sure the same mistakes don't happen again.

And from the talk of Sheedy yesterday, I think he has already recognised he made a mistake and changes will be made over summer.

 

[Dan26]

Goalden Hawk,

You've got to remember that the club just can't go making changes for the sake of it. The club is obviously going to pick the 22 players each week who they think will give them the best chance of winning the match.

I agree changes need to be made year to year, but you can't go around dropping players who don't deserve to be dropped.

As for playing Hird and Mercuri, we all would have done the same thing. Sheedy was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't. Bottom line is they are both quality players and you can't realistically expect Sheedy to leave them out of the GF team.

It's always easy to say in retrospect, though.

 

[Rohan Coventry]

Originally posted by Dan25
Goalden Hawk,

You've got to remember that the club just can't go making changes for the sake of it. The club is obviously going to pick the 22 players each week who they think will give them the best chance of winning the match.

I agree changes need to be made year to year, but you can't go around dropping players who don't deserve to be dropped.

As for playing Hird and Mercuri, we all would have done the same thing. Sheedy was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't. Bottom line is they are both quality players and you can't realistically expect Sheedy to leave them out of the GF team.

It's always easy to say in retrospect, though.

Next thing you will be saying that your word holds more credence than Sheeds.

 

[Dan26]

Rohan,

You've got to remember that just because a player, coach, or someone associated with the club says something, it does not mean they are right.

Football is very much an opinion business, and Sheedy's opinion (or James Hird's for that matter) are not necessariy right.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Pessimistic
Hawks 'sacrificed' a few gmaes in the seconf half of the season but came into the finals fitter -

Hawthorn did not willingly sacrifice games at all, if you read the article last week their fitness coach said he and Schwab copped quite a bit of heat over it.

Next you'll be telling us they dropped the Freo game on purpose.