Roast What does this club stand for?

Remove this Banner Ad

In what world is "Dons face another wasted season" considered clickbait?


That is 100% Essendon's reality right now.
It's pretty much in our constitution now.
 
Haha, you're the one who comes out swinging on the journo using, dare I say, hyperbole. Perhaps express your problems with it a bit better next time.

If you can bring yourself to get past the fact that it's not mean to be an in depth study of the game and our season, you may find out why a few of us are all agreeing with it.

2 weeks ago a lot of us would have thought we were capable of a big win over Sydney. And culture/leadership might be a factor of our regression since then. Pretty simple I would have thought.
Culture and leadership may be a factor in the regression but I’d say losing two key forwards probably had a fair bit to do with it as well.

But if you want to believe we would have won by 12 goals if we had the soul and substance of South Melbourne, you go for it.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Culture and leadership may be a factor in the regression but I’d say losing two key forwards probably had a fair bit to do with it as well.

But if you want to believe we would have won by 12 goals if we had the soul and substance of South Melbourne, you go for it.

I think you're after the match report as opposed to what the thread title asks.
 
Who is Adam Curley and does he actually pay attention outside of game day?

who cares what happens outside game day?

fact is we lost to the last place team. Sure the point about a 12 goal win is probably a bit tongue in cheek but the fact is we should have won this game comfortably, if we are at a place where we all thought (more so hoped) we were at.

Everything he wrote is pretty spot on for the way i feel right now tbh.

for 15 years we have dished up mediocre results resulting in finishing around the middle of ladder each year. Last year was a complete and tuuer waste and it seems this year will be too.
 
Last edited:
Difference being that Twomey isn’t saying we would have won that game by 12 goals with Sydney’s leadership and culture.
I think he brings the same valid points as Twomey does. Sure the 12 goals is exaggerated, but his point is that we should have won this quite comfortably considering our ambitions of success this year. Can't argue with that.

If the roles were reversed and we were as mediocre as Sydney, they probably would have beaten us by 12 goals.

Sydney's leadership is why they never get smashed on the scoreboard.
 
We have too many players that seem just happy to be getting a game at the minute. Winning is secondary to keeping their spot. We fluctuate way too drastically in competitiveness. That real hunger to win. We had that desire and passion in 2013 when it was us against the world. Players have come through that now and the attitude seems like "its 2019, there is more to life than footy". That's the feeling i get anyway.
 
Really? You’re the one that’s trying to make it about me, Dapper.

Just because you agree with what he’s saying doesn’t mean that he is 100% right. By the same token me disagreeing with it doesn’t mean that he is 100% wrong either.

I don’t think it’s a fair and reasonable assessment of the club- it’s hyperbole and clickbait, and it worked.

What would be more accurate is that it was a close game, we got beaten around the contest due to some great tagging by George Hewett, didn’t give ourselves enough opportunities. Our inside 50s were characterised by poor disposal and decision making and our forward line lacked chemistry, was unwilling and probably incapable of capitalising on the opportunities we did get. Sydney were bad enough that we almost snatched the 4 points, but I honestly don’t think we deserved to win it.

But a 12 goal win was never a reasonable expectation and failing that does not suddenly become a reflection of culture and leadership. Sydney’s culture and leadership in our shoes would not have beat Sydney by 12 goals either.


It's the complete lack of insight into the list, the game plan, both in terms of its suitability for the list and its sustainability, and more or less anything that ins't just stating that we are not winning games and are therefore "x hyperbole" which pisses me off too.

I'd listen to these commentators if their perspective did not start from an overestimation of the list based on virtually nothing that works in finals which you'd have to conclude is ultimately not good football (no matter how exciting it might be).
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I think he brings the same valid points as Twomey does. Sure the 12 goals is exaggerated, but his point is that we should have won this quite comfortably considering our ambitions of success this year. Can't argue with that.

If the roles were reversed and we were as mediocre as Sydney, they probably would have beaten us by 12 goals.

Sydney's leadership is why they never get smashed on the scoreboard.


Twomey talks just as much s**t about our team as anyone else does. He just doesnt really do clickbait.
 
Didn't know where else to put this
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...iked-than-being-ruthless-20190516-p51nvt.html

I don't read a lot of sports media, but this one I liked (because I mostly agree with it. In particular:

But there’s an even deeper issue facing the Bombers right now and that is they have become a soft football club on and off the field. Nobody has really filled the void left by Jobe Watson in the grunt department, while CEO Xavier Campbell and president Lindsay Tanner seem to be more concerned about PR and ensuring the club has a warm and fuzzy image in the wake of the supplement saga than restoring the club’s reputation as one of the most feared sporting oraganisations in the country as it was 20 years ago.
and the following paragraphs
 
Didn't know where else to put this
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...iked-than-being-ruthless-20190516-p51nvt.html

I don't read a lot of sports media, but this one I liked (because I mostly agree with it. In particular:

But there’s an even deeper issue facing the Bombers right now and that is they have become a soft football club on and off the field. Nobody has really filled the void left by Jobe Watson in the grunt department, while CEO Xavier Campbell and president Lindsay Tanner seem to be more concerned about PR and ensuring the club has a warm and fuzzy image in the wake of the supplement saga than restoring the club’s reputation as one of the most feared sporting oraganisations in the country as it was 20 years ago.
and the following paragraphs
Pretty much nails the issue. Football is essentially a tough business and starting your thinking with “will I be liked?” unfortunately doesn’t win premierships.
 
Pretty much nails the issue. Football is essentially a tough business and starting your thinking with “will I be liked?” unfortunately doesn’t win premierships.
And the rest of the competition still hates us anyway, so bugger it, let’s go back to being ruthless, successful and unliked instead of trying to be genial, affable and soft.....and still unliked!
 
And the rest of the competition still hates us anyway, so bugger it, let’s go back to being ruthless, successful and unliked instead of trying to be genial, affable and soft.....and still unliked!
You are right. When you say you're a bombers supporter they look at you like you've committed a crime. May as well at least toughen up and do some winning..
 
I’d like to see Heppell come out and spit in his mother’s face to show he’s not a nice boy but I doubt you’ll see that kind of leadership from this soft football club.
 
Didn't know where else to put this
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...iked-than-being-ruthless-20190516-p51nvt.html

I don't read a lot of sports media, but this one I liked (because I mostly agree with it. In particular:

But there’s an even deeper issue facing the Bombers right now and that is they have become a soft football club on and off the field. Nobody has really filled the void left by Jobe Watson in the grunt department, while CEO Xavier Campbell and president Lindsay Tanner seem to be more concerned about PR and ensuring the club has a warm and fuzzy image in the wake of the supplement saga than restoring the club’s reputation as one of the most feared sporting oraganisations in the country as it was 20 years ago.
and the following paragraphs

He's right about us not doing anything about Rampes post climb

Like he said if this happend to Collingwood or Hawthorn Eddie and Kennet will be shouting from the roof tops but instead we have a CEO who's only interested in us being a nice club
 
I didn't think the answer was subjective.

I just assumed "what we stand for" is a set of stupid cliches identical at every club, probably written on a whiteboard, and probably from a sports psychology session.

It's become relatively common terminology and it's completely meaningless. It might as well be a marketing slogan.

I think of it as all of the dumb **** Mark Robinson would talk about. E.g. "care", "love", "effort", "being our best selves", "no excuses". All of the stuff going through a players head when he's out on the field...
How does a club win a premiership? Differentiation.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top