Preview Essendon vs Sydney, MCG, Saturday 06/07/19, 1:45 PM AEST

[TheGreatBarryB]

Plus he's way more stylish

Exactly. Plus to quote Kenny Loggins he “rides into the danger zone”

 

[BrunoV]

Why does physical ability max out at 3? He’s not a bad a kick as made out, he can mark, excellent tackler and smotherer.

No strength. No capacity to proactively make play.

Gets lost in defence.

Cant use the ball under pressure (frequently low DE which is unheard of).

Other than that he's pretty good.


Edit: my real gripe is the nonselection of Ridley. There is no part of the game that Ridley is not superior to Guelfi. They even play the same utility role. But instead of getting Ridley, who I think maybe with Redman the best prospect on the list of anyone drafted from 2014, and by a long way (Laverde I'm just going to wait on now), we're wasting games on a vastly inferior player playing the same role.

As is the case with everyone else, Laverde, Langford, Redman, Francis, there will be no reason he starts to get games other than time. It's like the HR department has created a rule that must not be broken. It sure as hell has nothing to do with football.

Yes, they will say Ridley has worked on the things we want him to work on but there will be no objective evidence of any change. Or maybe it's training form that served us so well over summer.

This is the person who says that he's only had the team for 18 months and then selects competitors like Mitch Brown and Zac Clarke (and Zac Clarke as a second ruck when we had Draper). He selects Baguley. I could go on but its been done to death.

 

[Lore]

What is Ridley's role in the VFL atm? Seems like they put a bunch of roles in a sack and draw them out each week.

I know he could play wing but I was under the impression he's been mostly back and a bit forward this year

 

[Hird05]

No strength. No capacity to proactively make play.

Gets lost in defence.

Cant use the ball under pressure (frequently low DE which is unheard of).

Other than that he's pretty good.


Edit: my real gripe is the nonselexction of Ridley. There is no part of the game that Ridley is not superior to Guelfi. They even play the same utility role. But instead of getting Ridley, who I think maybe with Redman the best prospect on the list of anyone drafted from 2014, and by a long way (Laverde I'm just going to wait on now), we're wasting games on a vastly inferior player playing the same role.

As is the case with everyone else, Laverde, Langford, Redman, Francis, there will be no reason he starts to get games other than time. It's like the HR department has created a rule that must not be broken. It sure as hell has nothing to do with football.

Yes, they say Ridley will have worked on the things we want him to work on but there will be no objective evidence of any change.

This is the person who says that he's only had the team for 18 months and then selects competitors like Mitch Brown and Zac Clarke (and Zac Clarke as a second ruck when we had Draper). He selects Baguley. I could go on but its been done to death.

Reckon Guelfi has potential to be better than Langford but agree Ridley looks twice the player of both of them. Would love to know what's going on, I thought he basically cemented his spot in the team and like I mentioned before he's not even an emergency ahead of Mcneice. Strange.

 

[eth-dog]

What is Ridley's role in the VFL atm? Seems like they put a bunch of roles in a sack and draw them out each week.

I know he could play wing but I was under the impression he's been mostly back and a bit forward this year

Plays mostly on a wing. Got shifted into defence when Hartley moved forward last week.

 

[BrunoV]

Reckon Guelfi has potential to be better than Langford but agree Ridley looks twice the player of both of them. Would love to know what's going on, I thought he basically cemented his spot in the team and like I mentioned before he's not even an emergency ahead of Mcneice. Strange.

They look at Ridley as a tall, you see, because he is tall.

Does it matter that he's quicker and has better endurance than Guelfi?

Apparently not.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

They look at Ridley as a tall, you see, because he is tall.

Does it matter that he's quicker and has better endurance than Guelfi?

Apparently not.

C'mon man, how intense does Guelfi look when he blindly ignores perimeter defence and charges at a contest, grimace on his face?

Joking aside Guelfi has improved a lot. I have more issue with Langford out instead of Brown who has been ordinary since returning than Guelfi for Begley (who has also been ordinary).

Ridley, while a class player who didn't deserve to be dropped, has not exactly set the world on fire in the VFL since returning, while being solid.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

No strength. No capacity to proactively make play.

Gets lost in defence.

Cant use the ball under pressure (frequently low DE which is unheard of).

Other than that he's pretty good.


Edit: my real gripe is the nonselexction of Ridley. There is no part of the game that Ridley is not superior to Guelfi. They even play the same utility role. But instead of getting Ridley, who I think maybe with Redman the best prospect on the list of anyone drafted from 2014, and by a long way (Laverde I'm just going to wait on now), we're wasting games on a vastly inferior player playing the same role.

As is the case with everyone else, Laverde, Langford, Redman, Francis, there will be no reason he starts to get games other than time. It's like the HR department has created a rule that must not be broken. It sure as hell has nothing to do with football.

Yes, they say Ridley will have worked on the things we want him to work on but there will be no objective evidence of any change.

This is the person who says that he's only had the team for 18 months and then selects competitors like Mitch Brown and Zac Clarke (and Zac Clarke as a second ruck when we had Draper). He selects Baguley. I could go on but its been done to death.

Has improved some way with disposal and creativity. Not that it was that bad. Most players have poor bs stats under pressure. Hits the man and ball harder than Ridley (although different roles). Not sure how you can say ‘no strength’?

 

[Darealrath]

Has improved some way with disposal and creativity. Not that it was that bad. Most players have poor bs stats under pressure. Hits the man and ball harder than Ridley (although different roles). Not sure how you can say ‘no strength’?

I'd back Guelfi in a one v one vs Langford. Reckon he's quite good in those situations and that's partly down to strength, but more importantly, knowing how to use it.

 

[Duckworth]

They look at Ridley as a tall, you see, because he is tall.

Does it matter that he's quicker and has better endurance than Guelfi?

Apparently not.

I agree with a lot of your points. Should Ridley be in the team over Langford? or different roles.

 

[Maxabillions]

Plays mostly on a wing. Got shifted into defence when Hartley moved forward last week.

Maybe he's been put in VFL to practice in the wing role before being moved there at senior level?

 

[eth-dog]

Maybe he's been put in VFL to practice in the wing role before being moved there at senior level?

Yeah that's what a few of us think is the end goal. You can't fit all five of Saad, McKenna, Redman and Gleeson back there and he has the most traits to succeed on a wing.

 

[Maxabillions]

Yeah that's what a few of us think is the end goal. You can't fit all five of Saad, McKenna, Redman and Gleeson back there and he has the most traits to succeed on a wing.

Hopefully there is a plan!

 

[BrunoV]

Reckon Guelfi has potential to be better than Langford but agree Ridley looks twice the player of both of them. Would love to know what's going on, I thought he basically cemented his spot in the team and like I mentioned before he's not even an emergency ahead of Mcneice. Strange.

See I dont think Guelfi has ever played a game at the level of Langford in the last 5 games (which are behind his 2018 performances) and I'm not sure where the improvement comes from. They are the same age after all.

There have been some interesting comments about perception re Langford, not by you, that I find ironic. Which are the games Guelfi has played compared to Langford that TheGreatBarryB and co want to hang their hats on? What does that say about perception and how it's influenced by expectation?

I think it's more likely than not that Langford fills out and has a decent career by default but he has the potential to be more than that primarily because of the way he can use the ball in congestion.

If there is something in Guelfi's game that indicates he's a best 22 player or even could be a best 22 player it beats the s**t out of me.

We already have a guy playing the same role in the reserves who is twice as good.

 

[Nifft]

Plus he's way more stylish

And way more blonde...

 

[fairbump_playon]

100% fabricated statistics to support an opinion.

yeah but the numbers don't lie

 

[BrunoV]

yeah but the numbers don't lie

You haven't watched the Steiner promo, have you?

 

[fairbump_playon]

No strength. No capacity to proactively make play.

Gets lost in defence.

Cant use the ball under pressure (frequently low DE which is unheard of).

Other than that he's pretty good.


Edit: my real gripe is the nonselexction of Ridley. There is no part of the game that Ridley is not superior to Guelfi. They even play the same utility role. But instead of getting Ridley, who I think maybe with Redman the best prospect on the list of anyone drafted from 2014, and by a long way (Laverde I'm just going to wait on now), we're wasting games on a vastly inferior player playing the same role.

As is the case with everyone else, Laverde, Langford, Redman, Francis, there will be no reason he starts to get games other than time. It's like the HR department has created a rule that must not be broken. It sure as hell has nothing to do with football.

Yes, they say Ridley will have worked on the things we want him to work on but there will be no objective evidence of any change.

This is the person who says that he's only had the team for 18 months and then selects competitors like Mitch Brown and Zac Clarke (and Zac Clarke as a second ruck when we had Draper). He selects Baguley. I could go on but its been done to death.

Sometimes Bruno I like to think of you as the online manifestation of the voice of John Worsfold's inner critic.

It helps me to think that he might wake up in the night saying "what if I'm being too conservative by continuing to select proven triers??"

Even if he then goes straight back to sleep.

 

[fairbump_playon]

You haven't watched the Steiner promo, have you?

Yeah i did. That's what made me realise we have a 66% chance of bringing Langford in as an emergency.

 

[Hird05]

See I dont think Guelfi has ever played a game at the level of Langford in the last 5 games (which are behind his 2018 performances) and I'm not sure where the improvement comes from. They are the same age after all.

There have been some interesting comments about perception re Langford, not by you, that I find ironic. Which are the games Guelfi has played compared to Langford that TheGreatBarryB and co want to hang their hats on? What does that say about perception and how it's influenced by expectation?

I think it's more likely than not that Langford fills out and has a decent career by default but he has the potential to be more than that primarily because of the way he can use the ball in congestion.

If there is something in Guelfi's game that indicates he's a best 22 player or even could be a best 22 player it beats the s**t out of me.

We already have a guy playing the same role in the reserves who is twice as good.

I have zero anything to back up my position. He just kinda looks more of a player. Langford just seems confused and slow to dispose a little. Same age but Guelfi a later recruit no? Having said that I don't think they are competing for the same spot. I like Guelfi far more outside. I'd be ok if they traded him for the better Hill though.

 

[BrunoV]

Yeah i did. That's what made me realise we have a 66% chance of bringing Langford in as an emergency.

Sorry, I couldn't tell if you and the poster you were quoting knew that part was a joke.

 

[calyam]

Adding to the Langford debate I did notice them say on 360 he's our best performed player statistically since round 9. Pretty sure that was the comment anyway.

Seems well harsh for him to be dropped however if they see him as a pure mid then I'd still have him behind Hepp, Sheil, Merrett, Parish and McGrath. He's good but doesn't always impact.

Langford has been our highest impact player over the past six weeks. Slightly ahead of Merrett and Shiel and well above the other players you've mentioned.

The decision to drop him speaks volumes about the lack of sophistication and mediocrity that is so firmly entrenched at this footy club. The selection committee only have a vague idea of who is actually playing well.

I wonder how many teams dropped their best performing young talent this week? Only us.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Actually if you look at some of Langford’s possessions in that last quarter more closely, he probably should have done better with a quite few of them. I think match up wise it’s not too bad a decision. He’ll come back in soon.

 

[Hird05]

Langford has been our highest impact player over the past six weeks. Slightly ahead of Merrett and Shiel and well above the other players you've mentioned.

The decision to drop him speaks volumes about the lack of sophistication and mediocrity that is so firmly entrenched at this footy club. The selection committee only have a vague idea of who is actually playing well.

I wonder how many teams dropped their best performing young talent this week? Only us.

Dunno nothing about stats but to my eye Parish has looked far better than Langford the last six weeks. Heppell too. Langford isn't an elite midfielder. I'm ok with him being behind 5-6 other very good midfielders. Maybe the club is run but idiots or maybe there's a logical reason. I quiet like the team we have selected this week.


I wonder how much ground Langford covers compared to guys like Brown and Guelfi. Saw something the other night about us being 17th and 18th for distance covered and sprints. Can't say I've ever seen Langford sprint. Point I'm trying to make is maybe they spend all day looking at stuff rather than just being mentally deficient and dropping our best performers. Maybe just maybe.

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

Langford has been our highest impact player over the past six weeks. Slightly ahead of Merrett and Shiel and well above the other players you've mentioned.

The decision to drop him speaks volumes about the lack of sophistication and mediocrity that is so firmly entrenched at this footy club. The selection committee only have a vague idea of who is actually playing well.

I wonder how many teams dropped their best performing young talent this week? Only us.

LOL. Highest impact. Come on please.

Please.