Preview Essendon vs Port Adelaide, Docklands, Sunday 15/04/18 @ 1:10 PM

[DallasCrane316]

Red hot form might be over stating collingwood a bit, but theyre certainly in form and at this point were certainly not. (Should probably wait for tomorrows game before commenting on this one)
However Sidebottom is in career best form as far as Ive ever seen, always tears us up.
Collingwood did play well against GWS then beat Carlton.
In saying that. I do agree Adelaide were quite depleted.

When we played them we were down to half a VFL back line, no Fantasia. May as well say no Merrett and 21 playing.

Don’t want to go too far off topic so I’ll reply in the other thread. But will be very interesting to see our form on Sunday.

 

[fishardansin]

I’m sure match committee had their own version of events, but i loved this assessment by Kingy on our team defense ineptness...

Hopefully something to build on from this week!!

Is Kingy working for Worsfold? That was disgraceful. Hooker back, Stringer forward Green out for another mid.

 

[blitzer]

So when he runs out of gas on Saturday, gets picked for ANZAC Day and then runs out of gas again, then will you admit that I'm right? 3 weeks in a row he's faded out of games late in the piece. That's a problem for the team and himself, one that can be easily fixed by him dropping down a grade and spending more time up the field.

Keeping him in the side has no material benefit for his long term development whilst providing a detriment to the team. Whereas dropping him for a midfielder who can run out games, say Kyle Langford, has benefits for the team in that it adds another midfield rotation, helps Langford develop at AFL level because on evidence he's clearly too good for the VFL and it allows Begley to work on his issues at a lower level. Also has trade benefits because Langford has, as you say, been dicked around; thus making it less likely that we lose a young midfielder who will potentially be a 100+ game player for us.

Yeah gotta hate those young players that fade out of games by kicking the sealer in our only win of the season. Vastly exaggerating how much he is 'fading' at the end of games. I can recall other important touches and goals in last quarters too.

 

[eth-dog]

Yeah gotta hate those young players that fade out of games by kicking the sealer in our only win of the season. Vastly exaggerating how much he is 'fading' at the end of games. I can recall other important touches and goals in last quarters too.

One good play in a last quarter. I'm really not; he starts well but finishes poorly.

Also unsure why him being young detracts from my point, if anything it enhances it. It shows that given his age, he needs time in the VFL to build that tank up so he can play more consistently in the future.

 

[Eleven 38]

Green has thrown a spanner in the works by playing ok. Once he stinks it up a couple of weeks in a row hopefully they can both be playing.

 

[MarkG]

There's "first sign of the wobbles" but it's been a theme in Begley's short career that he fades out of games late. With that in mind he should be told to go back into the magoos and work on building his tank up so that it doesn't happen. The other thing is that we're playing one too many forwards and one too few midfielders, which for me says that Langford should be in the side.

He didn't fade out against Adelaide. His last quarter was his best. He kicked the goal that sealed the game. But he did very little in the first 3 quarters.

He is similar to Laverde by going missing for large portions of a game but at least Begley kicks straight.

I reckon Langford is the one that tires in the last quarter. But he gets more of it than the other 2.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

but at least Begley kicks straight.

He does for goal, but his field kicking against the Dogs was terrible. Lucky to still be in the side.

 

[DapperJong]

It is a bit of a losing formula though.

The seniors play lethargic, effort-less football for two weeks in a row and no one gets dropped.

Reserves win by 100+ and one blokes gets elevated, due only to an injury.

Winning teams make changes. Pressure for spots is a good thing and should be used to our advantage.

Yeah but who do we drop? Those who deserve to get dropped? Joe Daniher? Bellchambers? Or do we just keep rotating our bottom 6?

Last week was so poor that I am happy for woosh to challenge the entire team to just get ******* better. You couldn't ask for a bigger spotlight imo.

 

[ant555]

Not surprised at al, that we had no changes. You can not put the acid on the players as a coach and give them no chance to respond. On top of that many people mentioned that the VFL form from last week was not a stand out despite having a big win. We could lose and stink it up again but it will be an indication of exactly where we are. If the players are not embarrassed buy what has been highlighted in the media then nothing will help us.

 

[Runk]

Not surprised at all, that we had no changes. You can not put the acid on the players as a coach and give them no chance to respond. On top of that many people mentioned that the VFL form from last week was not a stand out despite having a big win. We could lose and stink it up again but it will be an indication of exactly where we are. If the players are not embarrassed buy what has been highlighted in the media then nothing will help us.

Langford doesn't seem to get that chance.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Langford doesn't seem to get that chance.

Hasn’t earned it as much as others

 

[Runk]

Hasn’t earned it as much as others

I'm not having a go here Barry so come with on this.

Don't you think that's wrong? Why hasn't he earned it? Is it because he wasn't one of the 34?

From the outside in he's doing all that's being asked of him over and over and yet it seems he's being shafted at every turn.
It's like any job you need your boss to believe in you. The bloke just needs a coach that will back him in and that doesn't seem possible and that's not good enough imo.

His game against Adelaide was very good. Yet he had a quiet one against Freo and he wasn't the only player to do so but he gets sent back to the two's cos Myers. WTF? There were some utterly putrid players that day and let's not forget the cluster* that was the Doggies game.

Myers played like a man set in glue and stuck in a box last week, but because he's got some sort of imaginary runs on the board he deserves another chance to respond??

It's utter rubbish.

 

[sameolds33]

I'm not having a go here Barry so come with on this.

Don't you think that's wrong? Why hasn't he earned it? Is it because he wasn't one of the 34?

From the outside in he's doing all that's being asked of him over and over and yet it seems he's being shafted at every turn.
It's like any job you need your boss to believe in you. The bloke just needs a coach that will back him in and that doesn't seem possible and that's not good enough imo.

His game against Adelaide was very good. Yet he had a quiet one against Freo and he wasn't the only player to do so but he gets sent back to the two's cos Myers. WTF? There were some utterly putrid players that day and let's not forget the cluster**** that was the Doggies game.

Myers played like a man set in glue and stuck in a box last week, but because he's got some sort of imaginary runs on the board he deserves another chance to respond??

It's utter rubbish.

so, the mistake was made in round 3's selections by dropping him to bring Myers in? And because a mistake was made last week we should give Langford another chance this week by dropping Myers because he had one bad game? There's a logic to going in unchanged this week, except for McKenna. Yes, Langford was unlucky to be dropped on the back of one bad game but let's not compound the error by playing catch-up on the roles that these two players are expected to play for the team. I think it's a mistake to think there's anything personal in this week's selected team.

 

[Runk]

so, the mistake was made in round 3's selections by dropping him to bring Myers in? And because a mistake was made last week we should give Langford another chance this week by dropping Myers because he had one bad game? There's a logic to going in unchanged this week, except for McKenna. Yes, Langford was unlucky to be dropped on the back of one bad game but let's not compound the error by playing catch-up on the roles that these two players are expected to play for the team. I think it's a mistake to think there's anything personal in this week's selected team.

Hey sameolds33 ! Good to hear from you. Just again I'm not attacking you or anyone else for your stance just talking on this topic

I understand the notion that a team should have a chance to own the responsibility of a loss and there atone for that, please don't get me wrong.
It's a tried and true methodology that's assigned for really any team sport. If it works the coach is seen and brilliant and if it doesn't we get the type of game we saw last week that makes us furious.

Now remember this is all my opinion.
Was it a mistake to drop Langford and put in Myers who'd had a poor preparation and nil game time? It would say yes it was if going by last week's effort is anything to go by. That being said would it be a mistake to make another alteration this week? Not at all. That's what coaches are supposed to do.
Pick and change teams were they see fit. If a player has a s**t game you make a choice to whether he goes back to the two's or gets a chance at redemption. And this is my point 'if the coaches see fit.'

This week Woosha is giving the whole team a second chance (3rd for some). For whatever reason he doesn't believe Kyle deserves that.
What is certain is that David Myers is getting a 2nd chance Kyle was not given. This is not the first time this has occurred nor is it the first time he's been shafted eg: Anzac Day last year for example.

I think it's therefore entirely acceptable to think that Woosha personally doesn't have the faith in him and didn't select him as a result.

*Note: I do appreciate the fact both players perform different roles also.

 

[sameolds33]

Hey sameolds33 ! Good to hear from you. Just again I'm not attacking you or anyone else for your stance just talking on this topic

I understand the notion that a team should have a chance to own the responsibility of a loss and there atone for that, please don't get me wrong.
It's a tried and true methodology that's assigned for really any team sport. If it works the coach is seen and brilliant and if it doesn't we get the type of game we saw last week that makes us furious.

Now remember this is all my opinion.
Was it a mistake to drop Langford and put in Myers who'd had a poor preparation and nil game time? It would say yes it was if going by last week's effort is anything to go by. That being said would it be a mistake to make another alteration this week? Not at all. That's what coaches are supposed to do.
Pick and change teams were they see fit. If a player has a s**t game you make a choice to whether he goes back to the two's or gets a chance at redemption. And this is my point 'if the coaches see fit.'

This week Woosha is giving the whole team a second chance (3rd for some). For whatever reason he doesn't believe Kyle deserves that.
What is certain is that David Myers is getting a 2nd chance Kyle was not given. This is not the first time this has occurred nor is it the first time he's been shafted eg: Anzac Day last year for example.

I think it's therefore entirely acceptable to think that Woosha personally doesn't have the faith in him and didn't select him as a result.

Hey, hi Runk! Same.

I think many of us would love to see Langford doing well and think that he was hard done by to have been dropped in Round 3. Anyone who saw the game would also know that Myers did not cover himself in glory. My only point is that there isn't a place for Langford in this week's team if Whoosh is serious about his game plan and players playing their roles. I don't think it helps the team to personalise the reasons for Langers exclusion this week on the basis of his history (and I agree that 2017 Anzac Day was a slap in the face) but if we continually look back instead of forward we go nowhere.

 

[Runk]

Hey, hi Runk! Same.

I think many of us would love to see Langford doing well and think that he was hard done by to have been dropped in Round 3. Anyone who saw the game would also know that Myers did not cover himself in glory. My only point is that there isn't a place for Langford in this week's team if Whoosh is serious about his game plan and players playing their roles. I don't think it helps the team to personalise the reasons for Langers exclusion this week on the basis of his history (and I agree that 2017 Anzac Day was a slap in the face) but if we continually look back instead of forward we go nowhere.

Hmm, yeah I see what you're saying.

Isn't Woosh kind of doing that? Every time he does this he pushes development of our midfield back again. At least I reckon he does.
At the moment too Woosha' game plan is crap, so he'd want to be making sure everyone plays their damn role as needed otherwise we get 12 months of fecking Bulldogs supporters giving us s**t.

 

[owen87]

Wouldn’t mind Green out, Langford in for ANZAC Day if Guelfi can hold his spot this weekend and Langford is solid in the VFL.

A forward-line with Green, Stringer, Daniher and Stewart isn’t particularly hard to run the ball out of.

 

[sameolds33]

****, can't think about this now! US airstrikes on Syria taking place now! ******* Trump.

 

[AcuteWhistle]

So when he runs out of gas on Saturday, gets picked for ANZAC Day and then runs out of gas again, then will you admit that I'm right? 3 weeks in a row he's faded out of games late in the piece. That's a problem for the team and himself, one that can be easily fixed by him dropping down a grade and spending more time up the field.

Keeping him in the side has no material benefit for his long term development whilst providing a detriment to the team. Whereas dropping him for a midfielder who can run out games, say Kyle Langford, has benefits for the team in that it adds another midfield rotation, helps Langford develop at AFL level because on evidence he's clearly too good for the VFL and it allows Begley to work on his issues at a lower level. Also has trade benefits because Langford has, as you say, been dicked around; thus making it less likely that we lose a young midfielder who will potentially be a 100+ game player for us.

I don't do hypotheticals, I go by what I see. & what I see is a young player trying hard, making some mistakes (big whoop) but also doing some nice stuff & still having an impact late in games. So yeah, I'll go with the coaches on this one.

 

[DallasCrane316]

Rumour has it that Brown injured himself during training. If true, who comes in? Hartley?

 

[owen87]

Rumour has it that Brown injured himself during training. If true, who comes in? Hartley?

Hartley since we need a tall backman if Brown goes out I’d think.

Presuming Hooker actually plays back:

Saad - Hooker - Baguely
Guelfi (?) - Hurley - Brown

Against:

Boak - Watts - Wingard
Westhoff - Dixon - Motlop

Marshall will also play forward, and Gray will come forward at times.

 

[eth-dog]

Rumour has it that Brown injured himself during training. If true, who comes in? Hartley?

Will report if Harts is playing. If he isn't you'd assume that he plays tomorrow given he didn't play last week.

 

[owen87]

Will report if Harts is playing. If he isn't you'd assume that he plays tomorrow given he didn't play last week.

Wonder if Langford in, and Goddard / Heppell playing loose in defense is a live option as well?

Or am I being too optimistic about Langford’s chances of a surprise call up?

 

[Runk]

Wonder if Langford in, and Goddard / Heppell playing loose in defense is a live option as well?

Or am I being too optimistic about Langford’s chances of a surprise call up?

HAHA

I like that

 

[JayJ20]

One good play in a last quarter. I'm really not; he starts well but finishes poorly.

Also unsure why him being young detracts from my point, if anything it enhances it. It shows that given his age, he needs time in the VFL to build that tank up so he can play more consistently in the future.

He's really not the only one though. Our captain and senior players go missing for chunks of the game