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

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Go Essendon.

Yeah, Go Essendon, GAGF!!!

You tell ‘em Beery.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

On a side note, we have a pretty good winning record when we melt at selection...

 

[eth-dog]

Match-ups wise:

Hooker - McCartin
Hurley - Blakey
Francis - Hayward
Saad - Papley
Gleeson/Redman/McKenna - Ronke/Cunningham
Clarke-Parker (tag)

Aliir-Brown
Melican-McKernan
Rampe-Stringer
Mills-Fantasia
Jones-Walla
O'Riordan/Lloyd-Laverde
Hewett-Merrett (tag)

Their defence is very small in that the 4th tallest is Mills and he's more of a small defender than medium, ours looks more balanced with Gleeson/Redman being more mediums who can play both roles. Francis on Hayward makes me nervous though.

 

[Cold Sober]

Essendon win end of story, Woosh the greatest coach of all time, Norf offer him 20 mil over 3 years , we get Hirdy back. Thanks for coming.

 

[DapperJong]

Glug glug glug

Post post post

 

[blitzer]

I'm OK with the changes although I would have kept Begley in and dropped Brown instead as I think we may be a bit tall with McKernan, Stringer, Brown and Laverde. I know Stringer and especially Laverde are pretty mobile but I dunno it feels like one more tall than we really need.

Langford fairly stiff to get dropped after his massive last quarter last week. But maybe he's carrying something.

 

[srobbo]

Langford dropped?!?

What the actual *?? Does worsfold need to watch the last qtr of the GWS game again??

 

[VelvetSledge]

34 week here. Oh the laughs

Same! What a bloody nightmare

 

[Milanista28]

I don't get it if anything Langford should be getting more responsibility not dropped.

Very annoying, we should win though.

 

[Maddogm]

Not sure how anyone can watch him play and not be disappointed at this stage.

this from the person who claims not to watch games where the play refutes his inane posts.

 

[Bjchan13]

Im glad Guelfis back in but he needs to pick straight up where he left off, which was in a nice patch of form. Snelling or Begley will be pushing for his spot if he doesnt. Mitch Brown surely on last chance to find some form, Langford straight back in if Brown fails again. Gleeson will be given a few games at least you'd think to shake some rust off. The 22 looks good enough to me to beat Sydney. Glad aliir aliir will be rucking rather than taking 15 marks in our foward line.

 

[Darealrath]

Stringer and Guelfi have been best 22 when fit and Clarke is our only fit proper ruck so the ins make sense.

Would have kept Begley in and left Gleeson out because I think we need to find more goals from somewhere, but that's not the type of change that will make a big difference.

Langford maybe a bit unlucky but I guess he could still be a late in if they are conservative with Stringer.

 

[LB#16]

Play him under a different name, no one will ever know.?

May I suggest....

 

[Blood Bomber]

Can't we all just get along and agree we should and need to win this?!
Get together people.❤

 

[Bombers36]

Good changes - thought Langford might miss but given he's not playing reserves seems like there could be a late withdrawal (Stringer..??)
I'd like to see them line up something like;-

Hurley Francis McKenna
Gleeson Brown Saad
Merrett Shiel Parish
Fantasia Laverde Tippa
Stringer Hooker Guelfi

McKernan Heppell D.Clarke

Bench from: Zakka McGrath Redman Z.Clarke


Really hope we stick with Hooker up forward - he was a real match winner for us against GWS last week.
Also with Reid in the ruck and Buddy out Sydney's forward line looks smallish - the only obvious tall forward targets are Blakey (196cm) & McCartin (192) - whom you'd think Hurley and Francis can negate. Perfect opportunity to keep playing Hooker up forward - please do it Woosha..!!

 

[JayJ20]

Mitch Brown.

I forgot he was in the side. I’d rather Langford take his place in the forwardline. Well, it probably means he’ll have his 3 goal game (hopefully).

 

[Hird05]

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.

Clarke holds his spot just for the lock down aspect for mine.

Guelfi gives us aggression and speed that Langford doesn't so probably not competing for the same spot.

Brown is a better leading forward/link up and can swing back for Hooker so he's not really competing for his spot.

Stringer coming in probably pushed him out more than anything I'd guess and can't argue with that logic. Clearly if he doesn't get up Dyle comes back in.

I think team selection has been spot on since dropping Bags and Myers. Really good balance of youth and experience. I'd like to see Ridley back in but our backline is pretty well stocked and not being named as emergency even seems to be out of calculations.

 

[BrunoV]

Quick one on Langford. There have been games where he has it 15 times and you see the stat line post game and you thought sheesh, that many.
His 21 last week genuinely felt like more, especially that pressure cooker last quarter where even you have to admit he was quite good.

The only two things I can think of are he is a) being managed, or b) structurally is the first one out with Guelfi having played nearly all year in defence (Zaka to HF, Parish to the midfield perhaps?)

I’m not against the two big ones (Clarke and Stringer but Langford was very, very unlucky to be omitted imho

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Guelfi coming in for structural reasons.




Guelfi being perceived as better at any part of the game that might influence a contest than Langford or Ridley?




He's one of those guys whose "effort" is confused for output.

If Langford's intensity is 4/10 his ability is probably 8/10 so he rounds out at about 6.

Guelfi's intensity is probably 7/10 but his physical ability maxes out at maybe 3/10.

The numbers dont lie.

[

 

[Runk]

Guelfi coming in for structural reasons.




Guelfi being perceived as better at any part of the game that might influence a contest than Langford or Ridley?

https://media3.giphy.com/media/dOl2LFw0RbTMc/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a5d1e6e1d5037494659e30490&rid=giphy.gif

He's one of thoze guys whose "effort" is confused for output.

If Langford's intensity is 4/10 his ability is probably 8/10 so he rounds out at about 6/10.

Guelfi's intensity is probably 7/10 but his physical ability maxes out at maybe 3/10.

The numbers dont lie.

I've never seen that promo......

My brain hurts

 

[BrunoV]

I've never seen that promo......

My brain hurts

Would be better if it ended on "the numbers dont lie".

Actually just cut it off before that dweeb says anything.

As it is it's still 13/10.

 

[DapperJong]

BrunoV dunno if you’re on insta but check out @wrestlebotch

Tons of botched moves and interviews from the golden era.

 

[Duckworth]

If Langford's intensity is 4/10 his ability is probably 8/10 so he rounds out at about 6.

Guelfi's intensity is probably 7/10 but his physical ability maxes out at maybe 3/10.

The numbers dont lie.

100% fabricated statistics to support an opinion.

 

[Dons4days]

Surely Clarke goes to Parker for the hard tag. He's been in incredible form basically since we last played them.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Guelfi coming in for structural reasons.




Guelfi being perceived as better at any part of the game that might influence a contest than Langford or Ridley?




He's one of thoze guys whose "effort" is confused for output.

If Langford's intensity is 4/10 his ability is probably 8/10 so he rounds out at about 6.

Guelfi's intensity is probably 7/10 but his physical ability maxes out at maybe 3/10.

The numbers dont lie.

[

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.

 

[Hird05]

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.

Plus he's way more stylish