How many years til Essendon are back fighting for top 4?

[marcuz]

You wont. Improving ? 2004 you finished in the 8. 2005 you finished, what 11 ? 12 ? That's not improving, that's decline. Don't let Sheedyesque losses under 4 goals, almosts and nearlys fool you.[/QUOTE]

We scraped into the 8 in 2004 with a veteran team. We finished 2005 with a competitive side chock full of kids. We took a step back to take two steps forward so to speak. We are improving but we had to slow down and dump some unwanted passengers before we could take off again. Still there is a few more id like to hurl off while we're in the rebuilding mood.

 

[O Grobbecker]

So you don't think it's possible to go backwards from the year before, yet improve your standings for the future?

You don't think it's impossible to improve within a given season?

The way the current system works, it's practically mandatory to drop back if you want to improve your standing in the competition. However, the dropping back process can't be described as improving. Your optimism is laudable but don't be surprised if Essendon declines further next year.

 

[O Grobbecker]

We scraped into the 8 in 2004 with a veteran team. ...

It was remarkable the number of Essendon supporter posters who interpreted the win against Melbourne in the 2004 finals as evidence of a top 4 position in 2005. I think you are mostly right.

 

[Longy413]

The way the current system works, it's practically mandatory to drop back if you want to improve your standing in the competition. However, the dropping back process can't be described as improving. Your optimism is laudable but don't be surprised if Essendon declines further next year.

I will be suprised if we drop back further. I won't be suprised if we don't make the 8.

We improved as a side in the second half of 2005. We have a better side for round 1 in 2006 than we did at the end of 2004.

 

[O Grobbecker]

We improved as a side in the second half of 2005. We have a better side for round 1 in 2006 than we did at the end of 2004.

But did you improve ? You won 4 of the last 11 and they included Carlton and Collingwood. You won 5 of the first 11. At the end of 2004 you played finals. It's a big call to predict a better Round 1 2006 team.

 

[Longy413]

But did you improve ? You won 4 of the last 11 and they included Carlton and Collingwood. You won 5 of the first 11. At the end of 2004 you played finals. It's a big call to predict a better Round 1 2006 team.

Please try and read everything I write. We improved our position for the future. Yes we our ladder position went backwards, but our future went forwards. Our 2004 side included Misiti, Murphy, Allan, Mercuri, Wellman Richards and Bullen. The first five were all fantastic players at their best, but by the end of 2004 they were well past their best and consistency was no longer a part of their game. But experience is hard to replace. However, by end of 2005 Stanton, Dyson, Lovett, Lovett-Murray and Bradley were playing better footy than those mentioned above.


Our second half of 2005 was better than our first half of 2005. Yes we did improve. Fletcher, Ramanauskas, Solomon, McPhee, a fit Lloyd, Laycock all get added to that side and we improve again.

Our 2004 finals side was old, slow and showing signs of decline. Our 2005 side that finished off the year was young, fast, and showing signs of improvement.

 

[zafa23]

The reason O Grobbecker doesnt get what you are saying Longy, is because the doggies seem to believe the football cycle is spend 4-5 years rebuilding at the bottom of the ladder then make the finals for 1 or 2 yrs.

Where as the Essendon culture, which you are preaching is finals every year, rebuild as you go. For him its not possible to comprehend the idea of being down for only a year before beginning to improve again.

 

[King Kamehameha]

We have the worst midfield in the game. J.J should be 3rd or 4th best midfielder. Peverill tries harder than anyone but is severely limited. Stanton is the great white hope and maybe Ricky will come along but we need new blood. I just hope pick 7 turns out to be a gun midfielder because the team is top-heavy as usual.

 

[O Grobbecker]

Please try and read everything I write. ....

Your ladder position went backwards, but what evidence is there that your future went forward ? What evidence is that that by the end of 2005 Stanton, Dyson, Lovett, Lovett-Murray and Bradley were playing better footy than Misiti, Murphy, Allan, Mercuri, Wellman Richards and Bullen (at the end of 2004 ?) ? Numbers of games won and position on the ladder are an objective standard against which to test assertions of improvement. It’s your subjective judgment. Nothing wrong with that but acknowledge it as such because you have nothing to back it up with. It’s just as valid, if not more, to say that the trend is down and will continue down.

 

[M29]

2006 = 10th

 

[Longy413]

Your ladder position went backwards, but what evidence is there that your future went forward ? What evidence is that that by the end of 2005 Stanton, Dyson, Lovett, Lovett-Murray and Bradley were playing better footy than Misiti, Murphy, Allan, Mercuri, Wellman Richards and Bullen (at the end of 2004 ?) ? Numbers of games won and position on the ladder are an objective standard against which to test assertions of improvement. It’s your subjective judgment. Nothing wrong with that but acknowledge it as such because you have nothing to back it up with. It’s just as valid, if not more, to say that the trend is down and will continue down.

Once again you didn't read everything I wrote.

The 2004 side also had a fit Lloyd (kicked 90 goals), an All-Australian in McPhee, Ramanauskas, Dean Solomon, Dustin Fletcher. The side that finished 2005 had none of those. None. Welsh and McVeigh didn't have knee injuries in 2004 either.
All of those blokes (along with Hird and Murphy) carried the majority of the side in 2004.

What evidence do I need to prove that our young blokes are playing better footy than their older counterparts in 2004. I was there, I've seen every single game. I don't think you have, otherwise you wouldn't be questioning it.

Misiti was a bench player, Stanton is an out and out ball winner. Our berometer and our best player in the second half of 2005.
Mercuri couldn't get a kick in 2004, Lovett added much pace and averaged a goal a game.
Lovett-Murray played 18 games in 2004, but everyone will agree he took another step in 2005.
Bullen isn't on the same page as Dyson. Not even close.
Wellman battled in the last few games, he was a young retiree, but his form just wasn't up to it. Did you see Kepler Bradley this year?
Infact the player we really missed output from was Justin Murphy.

I thankyou for having a crack and providing a debate. But watch some footy please. And read everything I write. Our young players were playing much better footy at the end of 2005 than the likes of Misiti and Mercuri did in 2004. Unfortunately a lot of the blokes that were playing great footy in 2004 (2 of our top 3 in the B&F) weren't there.

 

[O Grobbecker]

What evidence do I need to prove that our young blokes are playing better footy than their older counterparts in 2004. I was there, I've seen every single game. I don't think you have, otherwise you wouldn't be questioning it.

How can anyone take you seriously if you say that Essendon’s young blokes are playing better footy than their older counterparts in 2004 and offer as proof the fact that you were there ? You are a committed fan. How objective are you ? Try looking at the facts. In 2004 Essendon won 12 games and played in finals. It won 5 of the last 11. In 2005 it won 9, missed the finals and won only 4 of the last 11. Those a results that don’t depend upon a committed supporter’s subjective assessment. If anything those facts point to a steady decline, not an improvement.

 

[M29]

How can anyone take you seriously if you say that Essendon’s young blokes are playing better footy than their older counterparts in 2004 and offer as proof the fact that you were there ? You are a committed fan. How objective are you ? Try looking at the facts. In 2004 Essendon won 12 games and played in finals. It won 5 of the last 11. In 2005 it won 9, missed the finals and won only 4 of the last 11. Those a results that don’t depend upon a committed supporter’s subjective assessment. If anything those facts point to a steady decline, not an improvement.

The difference being the younger players played alot more on the ground than last year instead of off the bench. Stanton and Dyson have improved by miles.

 

[Longy413]

If you have read any of my previous posts, you will find objectivity is one of my strong points.

I'm critical when I have to be, I'm optimistic when I have to be.
Looking simply at the win/loss ratio does not give an accurate indication of where the team is at. They don't tell you who played well, who improved, who was missing etc. It doesn't show anything of players improvement and development.

I saw the impact Joe Misiti and Mark Mercuri had on the side in 2004.
I saw the impact Brent Stanton and Ricky Dyson had on the side in 2005. Their output is greater. Misiti averaged 14 disposals in 2004, Stanton 18. Wellman 12 disposals, Bradley 13. Mercuri 9, Lovett 14. Please, if you saw any of Essendon over the last 2 season's you would know Stanton's 2005 (3rd Best and Fairest) was far greater than Misiti's 2004. You would know that Lovett's 20 goals were better than Mercuri's 9. That is being subjective, that is the damn honest truth.
Our older players weren't the reason we made the finals in 2004.

Once again I tried to explain to you, that the void in our side in 2005 did not come from the form of our younger players and the players who retired in 2004.

The void came from the players we didn't have out there in 2005. McPhee won our best and fairest in 2004, Solomon came third. Lloyd was one goal off being a Coleman Medalist. Their impact was next to none in 2005. Ramanauskas add's depth and skill to our midfield. Rioli, well we can only hope. Wouldn't mind getting Fletcher back into the side, and for what it's worth I reckon Zantuck is a better player than Ted Richards (Ty was injured as well).

 

[waspy]

Nice post Longy, pretty much sums it up. Essendon is certainly not heading down the ladder. Our cycle is different to other clubs. We don't stay out of the eight for more than a year or two. This time will be no different. It makes no sense that we will get worse than 2005 when we have star players returning from injury and no big names players in decline (bar Hird, who i think will be as good in 06 as in 05). We have plenty of young players on the up so it would be a huge surprise if we finished in the bottom 4 clubs next year.

 

[marcuz]

Wouldn't mind getting Fletcher back into the side, and for what it's worth I reckon Zantuck is a better player than Ted Richards (Ty was injured as well).

You were going brilliantly till you mentioned Zantuck Longy. He's so far from our best 22 that Nasa would have to send out a deep space probe to find him.

 

[O Grobbecker]

double post

 

[O Grobbecker]

...The void came from the players we didn't have out there in 2005. McPhee won our best and fairest in 2004, Solomon came third. Lloyd was one goal off being a Coleman Medalist. Their impact was next to none in 2005.

Are you now saying that 2005 was a slump because of injuries ? Every side has injuries. St Kilda ahd more injuries than you could shake a stick at, yet it maintained its position. Even Collingwood can, and does, blame injuries for its lowly position. Any side that can put its best team on the ground each week will have a good season. Most teams can't and have to deal with it. Blaming injuries masks the symptoms.

 

[saladin]

Top four ? How much would you like to wager with me ?

beverages, windy?

 

[waspy]

Are you now saying that 2005 was a slump because of injuries ? Every side has injuries. St Kilda ahd more injuries than you could shake a stick at, yet it maintained its position. Even Collingwood can, and does, blame injuries for its lowly position. Any side that can put its best team on the ground each week will have a good season. Most teams can't and have to deal with it. Blaming injuries masks the symptoms.

Try taking West, Cooney and Johnson out of your side next year and I can tell you now, you would not make the finals. St Kilda maintained their position because other teams at the top fell down. They were overtaken by three teams this year, which would not have happened if they had remained injury free. They underperformed this year, mainly due to injuries. We finished lower than we would have partly due to injuries to key players. Same with Collingwood. Our fall in 2005 was partly due to injuries and partly due to the introduction of inexperienced players into the line-up. No matter how talented the 18-22 year olds are, the team will suffer in the short term by having such a young side.

 

[Viking Wizard Eyes]

You were going brilliantly till you mentioned Zantuck Longy. He's so far from our best 22 that Nasa would have to send out a deep space probe to find him.

I don't think Zantuck is better than Ted, but he is better than Sam Hunt and that's why I think he gets a place in the 22. And with Ted, most likely not being here next year I think it's worth having another look at Ty.

 

[Mystery]

Eh you guys will proberbly be back up there in a couple of years once Hird retires and you get your younger players to make the step up, e.g. what Stanton did this year. You gives are still a fine team and proberbly had an unlucky year.

 

[marcuz]

I don't think Zantuck is better than Ted, but he is better than Sam Hunt and that's why I think he gets a place in the 22. And with Ted, most likely not being here next year I think it's worth having another look at Ty.

A fully fit Dean solomon will slip back into defence and take the third tall. Its where he plays his best footy and we'll need his experience. If Zantuck plays with us next year it will be to give us some depth.

 

[Longy413]

Are you now saying that 2005 was a slump because of injuries ? Every side has injuries. St Kilda ahd more injuries than you could shake a stick at, yet it maintained its position. Even Collingwood can, and does, blame injuries for its lowly position. Any side that can put its best team on the ground each week will have a good season. Most teams can't and have to deal with it. Blaming injuries masks the symptoms.

You're finding this hard to follow aren't you?
Please try very hard.

I'm not saying our slump was because of injuries (although it didn't help).
I'm saying a downward trend won't continue because we have a lot to bring into the side that showed positive signs in the second half of the season.

We may, or may not make the finals next season. But we will improve our ladder position for all the things I have mentioned above. Young players that have showed significant improvement, added midfield depth (that still has a long way to go), hopefully fully fit senior players in Lloyd, Solomon, Welsh, McVeigh and the likes of Rioli, Fletcher, Ramanauskas, McPhee back into the side.

 

[dave_27]

You were going brilliantly till you mentioned Zantuck Longy. He's so far from our best 22 that Nasa would have to send out a deep space probe to find him.

lol, I agree.

we are up sh*t creek if he is in our best 22.