Uncertain Future

[Jono B]

Well said Ant. Forgot Neagle though.

 

[Daytripper]

The logic shown by Reilly in his article is some of the worst I have seen. "that 14 of the team when it last resembled something like Essendon's best 22 — the combination that met Geelong in round 14 — were on an Essendon list in 2003.". For comparison Hawthorn had 12.

Don't worry about Reilly.

He's just another inept journo who's fallen for the 'youth is king' philosophy that has become popular over the past few seasons.

Results are all that matter.
Not how young the list is. Thats just BS.

 

[ant555]

1999
Draft selection: 40, David Hille from Dandenong U18. 118 games so far.
Draft selection: 45, Marcus Pickett from Port Adelaide. Played 0 games with Essendon.
Draft selection: 59, John Barnes from Geelong. Played 46 games with Essendon.
Draft selection: 72, Robert Forster-Knight from Murray U18. Played 31 games with Essendon.
Draft selection: trade, Jonathon Robran from Hawthorn. Played 8 games with Essendon.
Rookie Elev: Rookie Elev, Dean Riloli from South Fremantle. 100 games.

2000
Draft selection: 17, James Davies from Xavier. Played 3 game with Essendon.
Draft selection: 27, Ted Richards from Sandringham U18. Played 33 games with Essendon.
Draft selection: 32, Sam Hunt from Geelong U18. Played 7 games with Essendon.
Draft selection: 47, Jordan Bannister from Calder U18. Played 14 games with Essendon.
Draft selection: 63, Marc Bullen from Murray U18. Played 44 games with Essendon.
Draft selection: 74, Michael Davis from Sandringham. Played 0 games with Essendon.
Rookie Elev: Rookie Elev, Cory McGrath from South Fremantle. Played 28 games with Essendon.
Rookie Elev: Rookie Elev, Adam Switala from Central District. Played 0 games with Essendon.

2001
Draft selection: 18, Shane Harvey from Northern U18. Played 11 games with Essendon.
Draft selection: 31, Joel Reynolds from Geelong U18.
Draft selection: 34, Simon O'Keefe from Murray U18. Played 0 games with Essendon.
Draft selection: 47, Andrew Welsh from Calder U18. 110 games so far.
Draft selection: 50, Paul Salmon from Hawthorn. Played 15 games with Essendon.
Draft selection: 64, Daniel McAlister from Essendon. Played 6 games with Essendon.
Rookie Elev: Rookie Elev, Damien Peverill from Coburg

And if anyone wants to really know where our problems started here it is. Maybe if we had of got three or so more players out of this lot who did something then we wouldnt have had to bother looking at Zantuck and co to fill the list.Not having any early picks in 99 didnt help that draft a real lot but 2000 and 2001 where terrible results in the end.

 

[DaSawx]

Yep, they would be 25-26 years old and in their prime and maybe some of our older, slow, plodding midfielders wouldn't be playing as much, we're still catching up unfortunately

 

[ant555]

The impact our youth has had on the wins has been significant yet largely unnoticed by the media. A lot of focus fell on Hird for the comeback against Richmond when really Watson's dominance in the centre clearances was just as significant. In the West Coast game Lucas and Hird was focused on meanwhile Slattery held Kerr to 3 kicks and Winderlich was fantastic in providing a link man all day. Also Laycock was a match winner against Melbourne. There are many other examples but other than that our youth has put in good week in week out performances.
The fact is few teams can claim they don't rely on senior players. Even Collingwood who hae been touted as one of the great young teams has relied on a midfield core which is mainly over 26.
The logic shown by Reilly in his article is some of the worst I have seen. "that 14 of the team when it last resembled something like Essendon's best 22 — the combination that met Geelong in round 14 — were on an Essendon list in 2003.". For comparison Hawthorn had 12.

The other thing that was glossed over was that of those 14 Laycock, Winderlich and Watson had only just been drafted and Johns added to the rookie list. I dont think it is too unreasonable to expect that our 2002 draftee's may still be around. It was not like they where in our best 22 back then.So that is 4 out of the 14 or so players.
Adam McPhee had only just arived via trade as well and he wasnt exactly a certain best 22 player at that stage.

 

[Todnb]

I'll give you Kennedy & Russell, but not Andrew Walker.

 

[Todnb]

Read today's article from Stephen Reilly of the Age.

 

[Todnb]

Hey B-Bomber....I guess I comment on Essendon because my brother is one eyed red/black and we discuss clubs all the time and he has fears on the future....2010 as i mentioned.
Also see Stephen Reilly's article today in the Age on 2010. "But he must know that Hird, Fletcher, the Johnsons, Lucas, Peverill and Lloyd are likely to have slipped into retirement by then, if not earlier, taking with them their medals, premierships and sundry honours"
I'm posing the question. Is it too big a hole that is to be filled in this short period of time?

 

[Daytripper]

Also see Stephen Reilly's article today in the Age on 2010. "But he must know that Hird, Fletcher, the Johnsons, Lucas, Peverill and Lloyd are likely to have slipped into retirement by then, if not earlier, taking with them their medals, premierships and sundry honours"
I'm posing the question. Is it too big a hole that is to be filled in this short period of time?

Its a stupid question by Reilly.

On one hand he is saying that Hird and co are great players yet on the other hand we are supposed to have young players that have already taken over from them.

I mean, what are we meant to do - drop Lloyd and Lucas and give one of the younger KPP's a run just to show the media and the generally ignorant football community out there that we do have players that may take over their mantle in the future ?

 

[ant555]

Read today's article from Stephen Reilly of the Age.

Also see Stephen Reilly's article today in the Age on 2010. "But he must know that Hird, Fletcher, the Johnsons, Lucas, Peverill and Lloyd are likely to have slipped into retirement by then, if not earlier, taking with them their medals, premierships and sundry honours"
I'm posing the question. Is it too big a hole that is to be filled in this short period of time?

I did read it and hears the responce

You know what is wrong with this arcticle ?
Once again the facts have been used to suite the article rather than give the full picture.
Where it goes on about a complete overhall of the team and he quotes the 14 or so players who where on the list 4 years ago it mentions several players who where just drafted. Of course there is a chance that players drafted 4 years ago will be playing in our 22 today. Laycock,Watson,Johns (rookie list) Winderlich where all from the 2002 draft. Four years ago they where not in our best 22. Now three of them are . That would indicat the they have replaced someone so the list actually is being rebuilt. Adam McPhee also arrived at the club in 2003 and when he came he was certainly not considerd as a regular senior player. So really what you have left is from 2003 there are around 10 players left on our list that where in our bestt 22 then and our best 22 now. Given who they are im not all that surprised. One would think that Hird,Lloyd,Lucas,Fletcher,Hille,Welsh, Rama (at the time) and Mcveigh all aged between 23 to 27 in 2003 would be making up a big part of our side in 4 years time. You could question if we have held onto Mark and Jason Johnson and Peverill for 1 year too long but realisticly having 10 players that where in your best 22 in 2003 and have them still in your best 22 in 2007 isnt that bad.
Lets face it Hawthorn had 12 players from their 2003 list in their side last week and a couple out injured so if you want to play that sort of game with facts it is pretty easy.
The argument should be are the replacements good enough. Becasue of the very poor drafting done between 1999 to 2001 we had to find players to plug gaps in 2003 to 2006. The problem was a lot of them where no good and failed as well. There is no question we have been rebuilding the list over the last 3 years. The fact that if you look at it seriously only 10 or 11 players from our best 22 four years ago remain today. That means that 11 or 12 players or half the side has been replaced.
What should be being judged is not how we have been rebuilding but more so how are we going as far as covering what was stuffed up by poor drafting (1999-2001) and more poor selections in the recyled players we used to try and fill the gaps from 2003 to 2006.
If you look at what we have done in the draft since 2002 Sheedy has done more this time around to justify him staying than what he did before his previous contract. The question will be will he or should he be forgiven for the stuff ups that happened in the period between 1999 and 2005.

The Stephan Reilly acticle was not all that incitefull at all. He just took a few random facts and threw them together to make what looks like a thoughtfull provactive piece. Most of he has written is just waffle as it states the onbvious in some places ( of course Hird, Lloyd ,Fletcher and co will leave a big holewhen retired) and doesnt have any in depth reasons for the probelems we have with our list now. It also doesnt take into account that 2010 is three years away and anything can happen in that period of time.

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

I'm waiting for Stephen Reilly to write the following stories next week:

Sydney gone in 2 years - No Hall, Micky O, Spider, Kirk.
Doggies gone in 2 years - No Johnson, West, Grant, Darcy
Adelaide gone in 2 years - No Mcleod, Goodwin, Ricciuto, Edwards
Kangas - No Simpson, Harvey, Grant, Thompson

 

[ant555]

I'm waiting for Stephen Reilly to write the following stories next week:

Sydney gone in 2 years - No Hall, Micky O, Spider, Kirk.
Doggies gone in 2 years - No Johnson, West, Grant, Darcy
Adelaide gone in 2 years - No Mcleod, Goodwin, Ricciuto, Edwards

Or maybe West Coast to struggle with salary cap.
Possibly has the window closed for the Saints ?

 

[D Mitchell]

...Where it goes on about a complete overhall of the team and he quotes the 14 or so players who where on the list 4 years ago it mentions several players who where just drafted. Of course there is a chance that players drafted 4 years ago will be playing in our 22 today. Laycock,Watson,Johns (rookie list) Winderlich where all from the 2002 draft. ...

The Stephan Reilly acticle was not all that incitefull at all. He just took a few random facts and threw them together to make what looks like a thoughtfull provactive piece. Most of he has written is just waffle as it states the onbvious in some places ...

Rielly’s point in referring to the 14 who were on the list in 2003 who played in Hird’s 250th is that the list is stable so the decline cannot be blamed on list rebuilding or “equalisation policies” between 2003 – 2007. Rielly questions the conclusion Sheedy reaches when he (Sheedy) says that there has been a 50 % turnover of the list in the past 1 1/2 years because the club made a conscious decision to change the list, work through and recruit, as a result of which Sheedy expects to “seriously contend” in 2010, ignoring the loss of Hird, Fletcher, Lloyd, Johnsons, Peverill and Lucas in the meantime.

That part of his article sets out why he doubts Sheedy’s prediction that Essendon will “seriously contend” in 3 years. It’s not an attack on Essendon, on the contrary, the article is eulogic of Sheedy, it’s a response to Sheedy's overoptimistic assessment of where Essendon will be in 3 years time.

“..the suggestion of an excuse for the trend is there; that football’s equalisation policies have finally bitten into Sheedy’s record, although the Dons, not a little hubristically, were arguing not so long ago that they were impervious..."

Rielly must have been reading bigfooty in 2003-2004. If you, Ant, and a couple of other could forsee the decline, then you were voices in the wilderness, thread after thread proclaimed that Esssendon would stay in the premiership race, wouldn’t need to go down to restock, could rebuild from on top and would never tank

Rielly brings a bit of realism to the table.

 

[DonMania#5]

Stanton is a dud?
Rightio...

 

[ant555]

Rielly’s point in referring to the 14 who were on the list in 2003 who played in Hird’s 250th is that the list is stable so the decline cannot be blamed on list rebuilding or “equalisation policies” between 2003 – 2007.

Rielly questions the conclusion Sheedy reaches when he (Sheedy) says that there has been a 50 % turnover of the list in the past 1 1/2 years because the club made a conscious decision to change the list, work through and recruit, as a result of which Sheedy expects to “seriously contend” in 2010, ignoring the loss of Hird, Fletcher, Lloyd, Johnsons, Peverill and Lucas in the meantime.

That part of his article sets out why he doubts Sheedy’s prediction that Essendon will “seriously contend” in 3 years. It’s not an attack on Essendon, it’s a response to an overoptimistic assessment of where Essendon will be in 3 years time.

“..the suggestion of an excuse for the trend is there; that football’s equalisation policies have finally bitten into Sheedy’s record, although the Dons, not a little hubristically, were arguing not so long ago that they were impervious.

Rielly must have been reading bigfooty in 2003-2004. Thread after thread proclaimed that Esssendon wouldn’t need to go down to restock, could rebuild from on top and would never tank.

Rielly brings a bit of realism to the table.

So you dont think what i have put down as far as our list goes is realistic ?
I think i have been very realistic. Go ahead read any of the stuff i have written and find where i have said we will be anything other than just a finals contender. Find where i have said we will win a flag by 2010. If you bother to have a close look you may find the thread where i questioned how far we can go becasue of some problems that still exist in our playing style that where there 4 or 5 years ago.
From what i saw in the article it didnt take much research to round up a couple of random facts to make a story. You only think it is good becasue it fits your opinion of us so it must be good. I thoguht it was trash becasue it was overly researched to start with and it implied that
1)Everyone at the club thinks we can just replace Hird,Lloyd and Fletcher when no one has actually said that.
and
2) In three years time we wont be able to build a list that could threaten the top four.
So pretty much what you are saying is we will continue to stuff up recruiting wise and have no chance of being any good in the near future?

Oh and you didnt have to be blind freddy to see what was going to happen a few years back. I think you are streching things just a bit by saying everyone thought we could rebuild from the top. From what i remember the jist of the arguements where you didnt have to bottom out and finish in the bottom 4 for 4 or 5 years to rebuild a list. Rightly or wrongly people thought we could do a good job if we finished mid ladder or above.

 

[Not a Wellman]

Sheedy actauly did his 2010 side in the herald sun on sunday plus add to that anyone we pick up between now and then.

 

[D Mitchell]

So you dont think what i have put down as far as our list goes is realistic ?
I think i have been very realistic. ?

The realism I'm referring to is needed is by Sheedy, not you. For that matter, a lot of Essendon supporters who post on bigfooty could do with a dose, though.

If Essendon declined whilst it still had the services of Lloyd, Lucas, the Johnsons, Fletcher, Solomon etc, is it realistic to assume that the recruits introduced over the past 2 or 3 drafts will not only replace that lot but be even better and all that in 3 years ?

Rightly or wrongly people thought we could do a good job if we finished mid ladder or above.

Wrongly , as it has turned out.

__________________

 

[Daytripper]

Rielly’s point in referring to the 14 who were on the list in 2003 who played in Hird’s 250th is that the list is stable so the decline cannot be blamed on list rebuilding or “equalisation policies” between 2003 – 2007. Rielly questions the conclusion Sheedy reaches when he (Sheedy) says that there has been a 50 % turnover of the list in the past 1 1/2 years because the club made a conscious decision to change the list, work through and recruit, as a result of which Sheedy expects to “seriously contend” in 2010, ignoring the loss of Hird, Fletcher, Lloyd, Johnsons, Peverill and Lucas in the meantime.

That part of his article sets out why he doubts Sheedy’s prediction that Essendon will “seriously contend” in 3 years. It’s not an attack on Essendon, on the contrary, the article is eulogic of Sheedy, it’s a response to an overoptimistic assessment of where Essendon will be in 3 years time.

“..the suggestion of an excuse for the trend is there; that football’s equalisation policies have finally bitten into Sheedy’s record, although the Dons, not a little hubristically, were arguing not so long ago that they were impervious

Rielly must have been reading bigfooty in 2003-2004. Thread after thread proclaimed that Esssendon wouldn’t need to go down to restock, could rebuild from on top and would never tank

Rielly brings a bit of realism to the table.

But how can Reilly emphatically state that the back-ups to Lucas, Lloyd etc won't be able to adequatly replace them.

He has no idea of knowing that becuase they haven't played yet. And the reason they haven't played yet isn't because they aren't good enough, its because the blokes in front of them are still playing at an exceptionally high level.

 

[Lovett Lover 13]

And of the young ones, there are some duds. Bradley, Dyson, Johns, Stanton and Cole don't impress.

Bahaha are you joking
stanton would walk into any side whilst at full fitness (not now)

 

[D Mitchell]

But how can Reilly emphatically state that the back-ups to Lucas, Lloyd etc won't be able to adequatly replace them.

He doesn't. He merely points out that Lloyd, Lucas and Hird, arguably among the best dozen footballers who have played in the last 10 years, will be missing. But it's a big call to suggest that among the untried are 3 or more absolute champions.

 

[HirdforPM]

i hate to say this but i kinda agree, we really need to find a couple of players in this years draft and get some serious game time into last years draftess because thats where all the talent lies

 

[ant555]

If Essendon declined whilst it still had the services of Lloyd, Lucas, the Johnsons, Fletcher, Solomon etc, is it realistic to assume that the recruits introduced over the past 2 or 3 drafts will not only replace that lot but be even better and all that in 3 years ?

Come on , try keep it serious with the player replacements. JJ and MJ plus Solly are easilly replacable.
The key issue is replacing Hird,Lloyd Fletcher and Lucas (who only now are a lot of people realising how good he has been )

Wrongly , as it has turned out.

Yes it did turn out wrong but lets face it it fell apart becasue the players brought in to try and plug the gaps resulting from getting virtually nothing from three drafts where not up to doing the job more than the fact that you simply couldnt do it.

 

[ant555]

He doesn't. He merely points out that Lloyd, Lucas and Hird, arguably among the best dozen footballers who have played in the last 10 years, will be missing. But it's a big call to suggest that among the untried are 3 or more absolute champions.

Yes it is and chances are you wont but we could end up with stars in a different area.
Watson, Madden and Daniher all retired within a three year period but that didnt leave us with nothing for 4 or 5 years. Star players are not replaceable but you move on and other stars come along.

 

[Daytripper]

He doesn't. He merely points out that Lloyd, Lucas and Hird, arguably among the best dozen footballers who have played in the last 10 years, will be missing. But it's a big call to suggest that among the untried are 3 or more absolute champions.

Do you think West Coast supporters would have thought that when Heady, Kemp, McIntosh, Worsfold, Mckenna, Jakovich etc all retired there would be arguably even better players than them at the club soon after ?

I still don't understand the point of his article.

Is he arguing that we should have delisted/traded Lucas, Lloyd and Hird ?
or that we shouldn't be playing them now ?

What exactly have Essendon done wrong ?

 

[D Mitchell]

...The key issue is replacing Hird,Lloyd Fletcher and Lucas (who only now are a lot of people realising how good he has been )
..

That might be a lot harder than you think. I reckon Essendon's demise has had a lot to do with its inability to replace Mesiti and Mercuri.