Team Mgmt. Talk about the makeup of our list - midfield balance, height profile, endurance runners

[Big Slam]

He can mark. We often bomb it long.

But if we’re banging it in 15 meters over his, or anyone’s, head or kicking into a dead pocket or turning the ball over as we transition into our half or holding the ball up and breaking a forwards leading pattern or opting to kick to a fiercely undersized forward like Walla then the impact of a player like Casbould is significantly negated because the moment the ball hits the deck he’s taken out of the play - and we have shown in recent history we have an inability to constructively deliver the ball into our forward line.

Same with this idea Ben Brown could reignite his career with us. He’d be invisible in our forward line as our team/game plan is currently constructed.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ant555]

But if we’re banging it in 15 meters over his, or anyone’s, head or kicking into a dead pocket or turning the ball over as we transition into our half or holding the ball up and breaking a forwards leading pattern or opting to kick to a fiercely undersized forward like Walla then the impact of a player like Casbould is significantly negated because the moment the ball hits the deck he’s taken out of the play - and we have shown in recent history we have an inability to constructively deliver the ball into our forward line.

Same with this idea Ben Brown could reignite his career with us. He’d be invisible in our forward line as our team/game plan is currently constructed.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

We are a crap marking side. We need a marking target forward of the ball and not just for inside 50. To say we do not need a strong mark forward of the footy is simply incorrect.Every side plays two tall forwards.

 

[JayJ20]

We are a crap marking side. We need a marking target forward of the ball and not just for inside 50. To say we do not need a strong mark forward of the footy is simply incorrect.

This isn't said enough. Our marking is quite poor outside of our defensive 50. We don't really take relieving marks on a wing or around the ground enough to control the game. I'd like to see stats on our forward half marking (not just inside 50) and compare it to the better teams.

 

[yodellinhank]

As much as the forward line is an issue the biggest issue is how we move the ball to our forwards, far too often we dont kick to a teammates advantage or just bomb the ball in hope. It’s predictable to opposition defenders which makes it even harder for our forwards. We showed in a short period in the game that we can lower our eyes and move the ball quickly and accurately to our forwards but as i said in the game day thread i was shocked to see it done twice in a row which is sad when it should be expected far more often.

It seems really obvious watching sides that aren't us that the current trend is to keep defences from being able to mark the ball. Marks inside 50 used to be a key stat, now it's just grub it in and put the backs under pressure. Unless you're the Bombers.

 

[Big Slam]

This isn't said enough. Our marking is quite poor outside of our defensive 50. We don't really take relieving marks on a wing or around the ground enough to control the game. I'd like to see stats on our forward half marking (not just inside 50) and compare it to the better teams.

Look at the following statistics AFL wide and see where we rank compared to other teams:

Balls to ground from contested possessions (eg: dropped marks and off hands) in the forward 50

Vs

Balls to ground uncontested (eg: not off hands and hitting the ground upon entry untouched) in the forward 50

I’ll give you a hint: We rank very highly in 1 category and very poorly in the other.

Marking that ball isn’t the issue. Hitting a target is.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Big Slam]

We are a crap marking side. We need a marking target forward of the ball and not just for inside 50. To say we do not need a strong mark forward of the footy is simply incorrect.Every side plays two tall forwards.

We can have a dozen strong marking players forward of the ball.

It won’t matter if we can’t get to the ball to them with precision, intent and quickness.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[JayJ20]

Just to illustrate, we’ve played 54 matches since the start of 2018.

Daniher - 11
Stewart - 13
Fantasia - 33
Laverde - 22
McKernan - 33

That’s 112 of 270 games. Totally unsustainable and “they’ll be right next year” can’t be the approach yet again imo.

Reckon having more than three of these five on the list next year would be irresponsible.

Yep that's problematic.

I'd keep McKernan and Laverde on one year deals only because we still need depth. A lot of Laverde's injuries have been unfortunate injuries rather than recurring soft issue injuries. Has the talent to persist with.
Fantasia should be traded. Plenty of players can play his position. The amount of soft tissue injuries he has makes me question whether his body can handle AFL football.
I'd also get rid of Stewart either through trade if someone wants him or by delisting him. He doesn't really change our forwardline that much anyway.
Keep Daniher if he's fit and wants to stay. If he wants to leave (which is likely), then obviously he won't be on our list.

It should be 2 or 3 at most (depending on Daniher).

 

[ant555]

We can have a dozen strong marking players forward of the ball.

It won’t matter if we can’t get to the ball to them with precision, intent and quickness.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

So what do you do ? Go with an unbalanced side ?
A bunch of short people that get out marked ?
We drop plenty of marks in the forward half . We bomb long nearly 50 % of our kicks going in.
Even if we took another 4 marks inside 50 chances are it is another 2 goals.
It is a stupid comment to say we do not need marking players because we do not always hit targets.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

For me it just feeds into the sense that Dodoro just doesn’t get some elements of the game. Just as he doesn’t appropriately value size, I think the same applies to running ability.

Very few players come into the system with AFL-level running capacity.

 

[BrunoV]

Looking at the snippet of the Harding article on Twitter I can see he mentions that if you want to play like Richmond you need elite runners, which we don’t have. This really strikes a cord with me as have been to the last few Essendon v Richmond games live, sat up high and been blown away by how much harder they run.

Everyone (including me) talks about the size, or lack there of, in our midfield but nobody talks about the fact they can’t really run. Some have speed, some have endurance.....none have both.

McKenna, Saad and sometimes Redman are the only guys who really “gut run” and they play in defence.

For me it just feeds into the sense that Dodoro just doesn’t get some elements of the game. Just as he doesn’t appropriately value size, I think the same applies to running ability.

Knocked it out of the park with this one though I'm not sure about your choice of gut runners.

Run has been a constant problem and certainly one of Dodoro's failings. Ambrose is the only quality endurance runner on the list, I suspect he's middle band of the elite runners at best, and no one else on the list can get near him. Most clubs have 3 to 5 players at this level and most importantly, they all generally play in the middle of the ground in a best 22.

The chasing pack behind Ambrose is led by players who are fringe (e.g. Mutch, Clarke, Begley, Ham and I might have left someone out). They'd be peleton at good clubs.

Richmond has been burning us at ground level during Dreamtime almost since its inception. Granted that has certainly not always converted to wins but you'd think that part of the reason Richmond developed the game plan it did was to take advantage of the running power of its list.

It's the same story at Hawthorn where they didn't have a strong contested midfield but they had strong endurance runners and skills. I doubt that when Clarkson started out he was planning on having maybe 1 quality clearance mid in the core of his team. I suspect pinching that flag in 08 from a rampant Geelong probably sold a belief in that system, too.

Stupid clubs then try to mimic what successful clubs are doing regardless of whether it suits the strengths of the list.

Sure you can tailor drafting and recruiting around the new plan but when did we start doing that? We went tall in 19 and Collingwood took Rantall (who beats Phillips who dethroned Sidebottom as the top endurance runner at the Pies) a couple of picks after we took Bryan. I know nothing else about Rantall except that he's a freak runner (you have to be to beat Phillips in a time trial), 184cm, 81kg and a midfielder. Not necessarily on topic but I also note supposed contested ball specialist and 189cm midfielder Bytel is debuting for St Kilda today (and the Saints are loaded with that type of player). We took Mozzie a few places before Bytel in 18...

The only real strength of our list is the defensive combination. Good above head and very dynamic and skillful at ground level. Problem is that's not a basis for a plan that works, as much as it is a necessary part of being good.

It's part of the reason I'm throwing the toys out of the cot re the midfield and would clear all but two of them out. Lack of skill, lack of run, lack of size. How are you supposed to devise a plan to overcome all of those weaknesses? There are not enough positions on the ground to add players to the mix, in the way that you'd add an outnumber to win clearances.

We'd need 3 or 4 freak runners to play as small and half forwards. Where are they?

 

[Vander18]

Very few players come into the system with AFL-level running capacity.

Players have innate physical traits - some have the traits required to develop into elite runners combining speed and endurance.

Yes, these traits will be enhanced in an AFL environment but they exist prior to be drafted.

 

[Big Slam]

So what do you do ? Go with an unbalanced side ?
A bunch of short people that get out marked ?
We drop plenty of marks in the forward half . We bomb long nearly 50 % of our kicks going in.
Even if we took another 4 marks inside 50 chances are it is another 2 goals.
It is a stupid comment to say we do not need marking players because we do not always hit targets.

You don’t really think that the composition of our roster and game plan is a quick fix - do you?

You don’t really think it’s just a matter of “balancing” the side from one week to the next - do you?

You don’t really think that aimlessly “bombing that ball in to the forward line 50% of the time” will result in 4 additional inside 50 marks - do you?

And propping up your own disbeliefs by suggesting other posters comments are “stupid” is a weak attempt at engaging in a constructive conversation and has negated your ability to hold a discussion in a subjective and proactive manner. It is also really immature.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Yes, these traits will be enhanced in an AFL environment

This AFL environment?

 

[CBombers17]

So what do you do ? Go with an unbalanced side ?
A bunch of short people that get out marked ?
We drop plenty of marks in the forward half . We bomb long nearly 50 % of our kicks going in.
Even if we took another 4 marks inside 50 chances are it is another 2 goals.
It is a stupid comment to say we do not need marking players because we do not always hit targets.

A strong contested marking forward would definitely cover up the failings of this team in terms of delivery into the forward line. It's why Joe has even more value to us than a Ben Brown (and some argument for Townsend's inclusion).

If most games are decided by around 3 or 4 goals then another strong marking forward is going to mean a few more home and away wins IMO.

It would be interesting to see Casboult and Ben Brown both play a few games for us to see who actually made us a more dangerous side. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it wad Casboult - unfortunately....

 

[BrunoV]

So what do you do ? Go with an unbalanced side ?
A bunch of short people that get out marked ?
We drop plenty of marks in the forward half . We bomb long nearly 50 % of our kicks going in.
Even if we took another 4 marks inside 50 chances are it is another 2 goals.
It is a stupid comment to say we do not need marking players because we do not always hit targets.

Not jumping in to have a go at you, just noticed that bolded.

At this point in time, finally have the balls to accept we are seriously average and pick a side that is the best chance of being developed into what we need.

One more strong game from Crauford forward and he should play forward with Stewart for every game he is fit to play for the rest of the year. McKernan can hang around as depth.

I'd persist with McKenna forward, give him half a bottle of Jamieson before a game, and just tell him hunt everyone and anything that come within 30m of him and to take the game on when he has the ball.

Might as well get McQuillan started at half back and work him into the game from there.

Sure that involves a supplementary rookie selection and 2 Irishmen but that's the way things have fallen. Fantasia can't get on the park so we need the forward and the best option is to take someone from a very effective half back line.

 

[owen87]

As much as the forward line is an issue the biggest issue is how we move the ball to our forwards, far too often we dont kick to a teammates advantage or just bomb the ball in hope. It’s predictable to opposition defenders which makes it even harder for our forwards. We showed in a short period in the game that we can lower our eyes and move the ball quickly and accurately to our forwards but as i said in the game day thread i was shocked to see it done twice in a row which is sad when it should be expected far more often.

This.

We play as though we've got superstar KPF's that can mark the ball from anywhere.

If we had peak Lloyd and Lucas down there it might just work.

Instead without Daniher we've got 0 players that can handle a double team, relying on a journeyman in McKernan to hold down our forward-line, and yet still refuse to do anything beyond dumping it high and long into our 50.

One thing you can rely on when Essendon is playing, is that opposition KPD's will score well on Supercoach from all those intercept marks.

We'd be far better served just doing dump kicks to wherever players aren't in the forward 50 to give our smalls a chance at ground level.

 

[ant555]

You don’t really think that the composition of our roster and game plan is a quick fix - do you?

You don’t really think it’s just a matter of “balancing” the side from one week to the next - do you?

You don’t really think that aimlessly “bombing that ball in to the forward line 50% of the time” will result in 4 additional inside 50 marks - do you?

And propping up your own disbeliefs by suggesting other posters comments are “stupid” is a weak attempt at engaging in a constructive conversation and has negated your ability to hold a discussion in a subjective and proactive manner. It is also really immature.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

No I do not think it is just marking that will fix it.. If you have read anything I have posted in general you would know what I think.
We have multiple issue. Poor or unproven rucks . D grade forward line. Midget midfield. Senior players who can’t defend. Flankers playing as midfielders and very poor marking targets forward of the footy.
Marking players is one of the priorities but there are a few areas to address.

And yes if we had a forward able to take 4 marks in a game then yes we would be a chance to kick more goals.
It is one of a few major weaknesses.

I have continually said we are middle of the road and people over rate our list. Try reading more than one of my posts and making a comment on it in isolation or assumptions on how I rate the list. I will stand by what I said.

 

[ant555]

Not jumping in to have a go at you, just noticed that bolded.

At this point in time, finally have the balls to accept we are seriously average and pick a side that is the best chance of being developed into what we need.

One more strong game from Crauford forward and he should play forward with Stewart for every game he is fit to play for the rest of the year. McKernan can hang around as depth.

I'd persist with McKenna forward, give him half a bottle of Jamieson before a game, and just tell him hunt everyone and anything that come within 30m of him and to take the game on when he has the ball.

Might as well get McQuillan started at half back and work him into the game from there.

Sure that involves a supplementary rookie selection and 2 Irishmen but that's the way things have fallen. Fantasia can't get on the park so we need the forward and the best option is to take someone from a very effective half back line.

I agree. I was wondering what his plan was given he seemed to think a good marking player of any kind was no use to us.
Crauford nearly has to debut in one of the next 2 games IMO.

 

[Milanista28]

A few wanted this posted

Essendon has gone backwards since Ben Rutten made changes to the team’s defensive system Rutten’s changes to Essendon

Essendon has put its faith behind coach-in-waiting Ben Rutten but a former assistant at the Bombers has divulged how changes made to the game plan created tension among the coaches and left the team in a state of confusion.
It is time for Essendon to answer two critical questions.


Are the Bombers in premiership or rebuild mode? And what gamestyle are they going to play?


Ever since football boss Dan Richardson poached coach-in-waiting Ben Rutten at the end of 2018 they have appeared a confused football club.


Let’s forget the free kick paid to Callan Ward on Friday night 1 and instead start with the list.


Chairman Lindsay Tanner expects the Bombers to contend from 2020-2022, which will probably be the final years for Cale Hooker, Michael Hurley, David Zaharakis and Tom Bellchambers.
The additions of Devon Smith, Dylan Shiel, Jake Stringer and Adam Saad will soften those exits, but the time to strike is clearly now.


However with a coaching blueprint that has undergone more facelifts than Sam Newman and a game of musical chairs unfolding around Rutten that isn’t going to be easy.


“They’ve massively changed the way they play and changed the list so much and changed the football staff over so much that they’re caught between contending and rebuilding,” former Bombers assistant coach Rob Harding said.


“It’s football’s no-man’s land.”


Rutten is trying to teach the players a whole new philosophy although so far the changes have appeared a touch underwhelming.


The Bombers played finals in 2017 but conceded their team defence was a mess after leaking eight 100-point scores.
“We made some significant alterations to the team defence going into 2018,” Harding said.


“For the first eight weeks we conceded 96 points a game, so we were learning, adapting, adjusting and players were getting better week on week.


“From Round 9 onwards we conceded 76 points per game – in the top six.”


Rutten then joined the club and implemented his team defence, and the Bombers leaked 81 points in 2019.


If you extrapolate the 2020 results to a full game they’re at about 84 points this year.


The Bombers sharply improved from Round 9-23 in 2018 and, under the new team defence model, have regressed in the 31 games since.


“Whether it’s the system itself – and I don’t think it is, because Richmond use it – whether it’s personnel playing the system or whether it’s how the system is being coached, the defensive system is not working for them,” Harding said.


At the end of 2018 some senior players expressed their confidence in the existing game plan.


“The players really believed in what we were doing,” Harding said.


“We’d become a really good pressure team, we played a style that suited us and we used our run off halfback and at half-forward.”


David King said the Bombers’ scoring profile was now out of sync with premiership threats because too many of their goals came from centre bounces and backline plays.


Dig deeper and the problems begin to multiply.


Last year the Bombers were the worst team at allowing a turnover in their forward 50m to travel the length of the ground and this year they are the worst team at allowing any ball from inside their forward 50m to slingshot back.
As most teams look to lock the ball forward the Bombers are being forced backwards.


“They have to be a back half, counterpunch team rather than a sustainable, fundamentally-sound forward-half territory team like Richmond are, like Port Adelaide are, like Brisbane are, like premiership teams are,” Harding said.


“You can have whatever offensive system you want, but if you have to start in your back 50m all the time it makes it pretty tough.”


Last year the territory debate sometimes saw multiple Essendon coaches push for a forward-half game and Rutten resist.


He instructed the Bombers to roll numbers back as a foldback defence materialised, albeit without the aggression of Richmond’s.


Internally, tensions simmered and cracks started to emerge. The fallout was significant.


Gone from last year were the forward’s coach (Paul Corrigan), the midfield coach (Hayden Skipworth), the offence coach (Harding) and the high performance boss (Justin Crow), not to mention Joe Daniher wanting to escape.
Make no mistake, Rutten is already in charge and “senior coach” John Worsfold is fronting press conferences to discuss someone else’s game plan.


But with Richardson understood to be under pressure to keep his job next year there is a chance Rutten officially begins his coaching career without his No.1 supporter.


That scenario wouldn’t scream stability.


But the Bombers are all-in on Rutten and will keep pulling changes to fit what he wants.


Will the new template fit Essendon?


Harding wasn’t sure.


“If they’re trying to build a Richmond profile list they need elite runners, which they don’t have,” he said.


Like the Tigers, the Bombers appear to have swayed from prioritising inside bulls in their midfield to outside class.


But their list was crafted when James Hird, Mark Thompson and Brendan McCartney were coaching and they preferred contested beasts.


Suddenly, 190cm inside midfielder Kyle Langford is isolated on the outside and out of contract.
Where should the Bombers’ brains trust focus their attention to first?


“Fixing the team defence to play a sustainable forward-half brand of footy is the biggest priority Essendon has right now,” Harding said.

 

[JayJ20]

Look at the following statistics AFL wide and see where we rank compared to other teams:

Balls to ground from contested possessions (eg: dropped marks and off hands) in the forward 50

Vs

Balls to ground uncontested (eg: not off hands and hitting the ground upon entry untouched) in the forward 50

I’ll give you a hint: We rank very highly in 1 category and very poorly in the other.

Marking that ball isn’t the issue. Hitting a target is.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Whilst you are right, I do believe a reason why we bomb the ball inside 50 is because we do not have reliable marking targets around the ground. If we had Cripps, Petracca, Wines or Bont running around in the midfield, then I doubt we'd need to bomb the ball inside 50.

Hitting up McGrath is going to be difficult when Bont and Macrae intercept with ease.

 

[owen87]

Like the Tigers, the Bombers appear to have swayed from prioritising inside bulls in their midfield to outside class.


But their list was crafted when James Hird, Mark Thompson and Brendan McCartney were coaching and they preferred contested beasts.


Suddenly, 190cm inside midfielder Kyle Langford is isolated on the outside and out of contract.

This bit makes no sense to me?

When did we prefer contested beasts in the last decade? How is Kyle Langford an inside midfielder?

This reads a lot like disgruntled former employee potting the club more than balanced analysis of current state.

Some things are probably on the mark, others just complaining about the club.

Sure we had some good patches in 2018, but we weren't a premiership threat and lacked the personnel, yet it seems Harding is basically arguing that he was right and the new guys are wrong.

“We’d become a really good pressure team, we played a style that suited us and we used our run off halfback and at half-forward.”

David King said the Bombers’ scoring profile was now out of sync with premiership threats because too many of their goals came from centre bounces and backline plays.

As most teams look to lock the ball forward the Bombers are being forced backwards.

“They have to be a back half, counterpunch team rather than a sustainable, fundamentally-sound forward-half territory team like Richmond are, like Port Adelaide are, like Brisbane are, like premiership teams are,” Harding said.

So we're a back half team because we're forced to be so, due to lack of ball-winners in the middle to stop the ball being forced back.

Last year the territory debate sometimes saw multiple Essendon coaches push for a forward-half game and Rutten resist.

He instructed the Bombers to roll numbers back as a foldback defence materialised, albeit without the aggression of Richmond’s.

Yet apparently we're deliberately a back half team because Rutten wants it to be so? Even though we were a back-half team before Rutten came along?

Wut?

 

[BrunoV]

This bit makes no sense to me?

When did we prefer contested beasts in the last decade? How is Kyle Langford an inside midfielder?

This reads a lot like disgruntled former employee potting the club more than balanced analysis of current state.

Some things are probably on the mark, others just complaining about the club.

Sure we had some good patches in 2018, but we weren't a premiership threat and lacked the personnel, yet it seems Harding is basically arguing that he was right and the new guys are wrong.









So we're a back half team because we're forced to be so, due to lack of ball-winners in the middle to stop the ball being forced back.


Yet apparently we're deliberately a back half team because Rutten wants it to be so? Even though we were a back-half team before Rutten came along?

Wut?

There were definitely some questions I had. What are Ross, Graham and Collier-Dawkins and even Dow?

 

[CBombers17]

This bit makes no sense to me?

When did we prefer contested beasts in the last decade? How is Kyle Langford an inside midfielder?

This reads a lot like disgruntled former employee potting the club more than balanced analysis of current state.

Some things are probably on the mark, others just complaining about the club.

Sure we had some good patches in 2018, but we weren't a premiership threat and lacked the personnel, yet it seems Harding is basically arguing that he was right and the new guys are wrong.









So we're a back half team because we're forced to be so, due to lack of ball-winners in the middle to stop the ball being forced back.





Yet apparently we're deliberately a back half team because Rutten wants it to be so? Even though we were a back-half team before Rutten came along?

Wut?

I read it as - the ball comes flying out of out forward fifty entries down rhe other end so easily we are forced to set up everything from half back - which is arduous. That's the 'forced' bit.

The Langford part is just poor. I replaced it with Hibberd and it made slightly more seinse (and look at the contested midfield list we had under Hird).

 

[owen87]

There were definitely some questions I had. What are Ross, Graham and Collier-Dawkins and even Dow?

It's sort of like arguing that we should deliberately build a forwardline around a single KPF because in 2017 Richmond won a premiership doing it. Except that the KPF was a former Coleman Medallist and they had the option of absolute s**t-truck talls or good smalls to support him. Whereas our KPF's are journeymen at best. They brought in Lynch ASAP for support as it was never a sustainable strategy.

I read it as - the ball comes flying out of out forward fifty entries down rhe other end so easily we are forced to set up everything from half back - which is arduous.

Of course, but arguing it's a specific coaching directive seems misguided, especially when it was already happening before Rutten.

 

[CBombers17]

It's sort of like arguing that we should deliberately build a forwardline around a single KPF because in 2017 Richmond won a premiership doing it. Except that the KPF was a former Coleman Medallist and they had the option of absolute sh*t-truck talls or good smalls to support him. Whereas our KPF's are journeymen at best. They brought in Lynch ASAP for support as it was never a sustainable strategy.



Of course, but arguing it's a specific coaching directive seems misguided, especially when it was already happening before Rutten.

Not sure who's saying its a directive? To me its saying it's not working as well as before Rutton got started on his plan with this group - that and the defensive strategy they had in place in 2018 was on the improve.