Melb. vs. Essen. Rd. 2

[CowboyFromHell]

Originally posted by dougthelegend
yeah, the coleman medalist really shone today, we just couldn't stop him, totally outplayed our poor backline. and the impotent forwardline was another reason for our poor perfomance, our ruck is ****, we're on the slide. any more wise comments? i'd take our list over the demons anyday,
one word - SCOREBOARD
and we're just warming up, back in the four where we belong!

Ponder this - the only reason you stopped Neitz was because you played 4 people on him every time he got near the ball. But then again, 4 is about your IQ.

We can warm up pal - this is our board. Would you like us to start making you look like a fool, or would you just like to have a go at that one yourself?

You won the game, good on you. 4 to stop Neitz and better disposal than us - yeah, the Bombers are really back!

 

[go team]

well according to BT, melbourne have terrific depth in foward line stocks, more depth then essendon even, and i agree they dees do have some fantastic players. What I cant understand, and maybe mr cowboy can help me out here, if there were four people on Neitz every time he got near the ball, and time and time again he struggled to win a contested mark, why did the melbourne players keep on passing the ball to him? Now call me crazy kids, but with a foward line with the depth they apparently posses, why did simply stopping one player see the demons struggle for goals? Why did they time and time again pass the ball to a guy who didn't get a kick for three quarters? I'm no AFL coach, but i think i have a cunning ploy, devious scheme and a mischevious plan that dees could've used, maybe you guys can let Neale know of this: If Player A hasn't taken a mark in three quarters and is getting soundly beaten everytime the ball is passed toward him, pass to somone else other than Player A. It's pretty simple plan really - dont pass to the guy with four players on him. Green,Robertson,Bruce,Moorcroft,Armstrong, Jolly... with four players supposodley on neitz, three of them must have been free... or maybe the inability of those players to capitalize on the bombers zoning off is a reflection of a Neitz centeric melbourne foward line? If that's the case, you have a problem, cause when you face sides with stronger midfields/ruck divisions, the demons wont be supplying to the foward 50 as often as they did yesterday, and if those sides manage to cover Neitz, you might struggle to kick goals

 

[Deestroy]

Originally posted by Shads
So gracious in defeat.

Saying we were outcoached and that you should have won by 15 goals? Yeah I would have thought so...

 

[Shads]

Originally posted by Deestroy
Saying we were outcoached and that you should have won by 15 goals? Yeah I would have thought so...

I never said Dees were outcouched or that we should have won by 15 goals.

also anyone saying that Neitz had 4 players on him is making excuses.
I just think we handled the conditions better at the city end as I think that was the difference in the result.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

Originally posted by Shads
I never said Dees were outcouched or that we should have won by 15 goals.

also anyone saying that Neitz had 4 players on him is making excuses.
I just think we handled the conditions better at the city end as I think that was the difference in the result.

Hello and welcome to ********ville, population: YOU.

I am guessing you didn't read his post properly, yes? You said Deestroy was being "gracious in defeat", but being sarcastic no doubt. He then replied by saying that, in a earlier post, he had said that we were outcoached and were lucky not to be beaten by 15 goals.

Not everything is about you.

 

[Deestroy]

Originally posted by Shads
I never said Dees were outcouched or that we should have won by 15 goals.

also anyone saying that Neitz had 4 players on him is making excuses.
I just think we handled the conditions better at the city end as I think that was the difference in the result.

Your misunderstanding, you accuse me of not being gracious in defeat, I was the one that said the Dees were outcoached and that the Dons shouldhave won by 15 goals. Now show me where I wasn't gracious.

 

[Shads]

Originally posted by Deestroy
Your misunderstanding, you accuse me of not being gracious in defeat, I was the one that said the Dees were outcoached and that the Dons shouldhave won by 15 goals. Now show me where I wasn't gracious.

I think you misunderstood me, perhaps I should have been more
clearer..

Originally posted by Deestroy
So gracious in victory, ****head.

No problem with the above, just the last bit.
I think you could have left that last part out then it would have
had a bit more credit to it.

I'm outa here!

 

[Shads]

Originally posted by CowboyFromHell
Hello and welcome to ********ville, population: YOU.

I am guessing you didn't read his post properly, yes? You said Deestroy was being "gracious in defeat", but being sarcastic no doubt. He then replied by saying that, in a earlier post, he had said that we were outcoached and were lucky not to be beaten by 15 goals.

Not everything is about you.

Never said it was...

Originally posted by Deestroy
Saying we were outcoached and that you should have won by 15 goals? Yeah I would have thought so...

If you read this as it is, then you would think Deestroy was saying I said it. My mistake I guess.

 

[Deestroy]

Originally posted by Shads
Never said it was...



If you read this as it is, then you would think Deestroy was saying I said it. My mistake I guess.

You have to read it in context with the quote "So gracious in defeat." I replied with "Saying we were outcoached and that you should have won by 15 goals? Yeah I would have thought so... " (as in yes I was gracious in defeat)

So yes, your mistake.

 

[BT]

Originally posted by Shads
It's ok to take your foot out of your mouth now...

Who's forwards did you say were a joke?
Who's Backline did you say had no run?

Where did anyone refer to Essendon as "A Joke"?

 

[CowboyFromHell]

Originally posted by Shads
Never said it was...

You didn't have to.

 

[go team]

Originally posted by BT
Where did anyone refer to Essendon as "A Joke"?

Originally posted by Somefella
Heart says dees by 6 goals.
Head says dees by 8 goals

We will **** it in.

Their forwardline is a joke, their backline has no run, and their midfield has lost 3 of its biggest stars.... their my slider for 2003... wont finish above 9th.

Hopefully

 

[Somefella]

How bold of you to criticize me in hindsight.