Opinion Where it has all gone wrong for Essendon

Remove this Banner Ad

Expectations play a part in this, I think we as supporters believe the team should be better than mediocre. When all results point to the team being very much mediocre.
Oh I don't disagree, I just think people are focusing on the wrong thing. We can't be the best until we beat the best.
 
Pretty much this. It's night and day.

The club has allowed mediocrity to thrive for too long. No longer are the days of aiming for preliminary finals as a minimum, scraping into finals is how low the bar has been set.

I think Zakaharakis and Bellchambers are probably the last remnants of long-term mediocrity.

However, even if they are moved on over the next 12 months, it still makes you wonder if any of the next generation of youngsters have been tainted.
I think we have brought in really good leadership in every area to bring the team forward (Saad, Stringer and Smith have all apparently been very professional and worked hard) - i just wish we had invested in more youth at the draft over the last 2 seasons to develop around them.
 
I think we have brought in really good leadership in every area to bring the team forward (Saad, Stringer and Smith have all apparently been very professional and worked hard) - i just wish we had invested in more youth at the draft over the last 2 seasons to develop around them.


Stringer has worked from being fit enough to basically walk the time trials to jog them.

I would not put him anywhere near a discussion about leadership or standards.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Stringer has worked from being fit enough to basically walk the time trials to jog them.

I would not put him anywhere near a discussion about leadership or standards.
I thought he was smashing it - 2k PB or some such?? Could have been preseason rubbish. Maybe the bar was super low :)
 
Which is why you do not let the coach run the recruiting department. How different things may have been if we had of listened to Noel Judkins who left for the Pies because he had concerns about Sheedy having too much say at the draft table and that the times where changing.

Sheedy was a bit off tap at that time. Doing things like over-riding Judkins on draft day & wanting to draft a New Zealander just so he could say that we'd played the first Maori.
 
Dead set nearly put this in the positives. I think we may get lucky with the list size changes and general shakeup somehow. Could be a chance to fix some issues...

2020 will definitely be a year with plenty of cuts with Mutch, Clarke, Stewart, Gown, Laverde, Begley and Townsend all have a lot of work to do to earn a new contract
 
2020 will definitely be a year with plenty of cuts with Mutch, Clarke, Stewart, Gown, Laverde, Begley and Townsend all have a lot of work to do to earn a new contract
In order of most to least likely gone.

Mutch
Begley
Gown
Laverde
Stewart
Clarke

Townsend is probably a bit too soon to tell but he did have a ripper debut for us.
 
I’m much higher on Begley than you. He was actually good at AFL level and has still has plenty of upside imo.
I am quite high on Begley myself but he is the most expendable along with Laverde and Mutch.

Maybe could swap Lav and Begleys positions.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I'm not sure I see how reducing list sizes helps us.

The issue is not with the bottom 6 spots on the list.
I haven't read too much about the proposed reduction but i suspect that the increased availablity of players (or access to non-listed players) could help us aquire some upgrades we need to go to the next level. Clearly it will help other clubs too but I think we aren't too many changes to the midfield from contending - i just can't see us bridging that gap quickly enough with the current list.

My premise is pretty basic (and quite possibly flawed) - we don't have a good track record of selecting/and or developing mids - so any greater access to trial players through our midfield helps us (and by the nature of modern football the highest percentage of players are midfielders so they.will be the most available - if there is actually increased availability). I don't have the same concern with us selecting talls, small defenders, small forwards or flankers at the draft.

If we actually got access to more players in secondary comps for starters i would like to see us trialing more indigenous players. This may be an opportunity to assess talented Indigenous players at the highest level without the usual huge investment at the draft.

The fear i have with any changes to the system is that we.wont have progressive enough people at Essendon to make the most of the opportunities. And with any major shifts like this there will be big opportunities - even if people disagree with what i have outlined here.
 
I haven't read too much about the proposed reduction but i suspect that the increased availablity of players (or access to non-listed players) could help us aquire some upgrades we need to go to the next level. Clearly it will help other clubs too but I think we aren't too many changes to the midfield from contending - i just can't see us bridging that gap quickly enough with the current list.

My premise is pretty basic (and quite possibly flawed) - we don't have a good track record of selecting/and or developing mids - so any greater access to trial players through our midfield helps us (and by the nature of modern football the highest percentage of players are midfielders so they.will be the most available - if there is actually increased availability). I don't have the same concern with us selecting talls, small defenders, small forwards or flankers at the draft.

If we actually got access to more players in secondary comps for starters i would like to see us trialing more indigenous players. This may be an opportunity to assess talented Indigenous players at the highest level without the usual huge investment at the draft.

The fear i have with any changes to the system is that we.wont have progressive enough people at Essendon to make the most of the opportunities. And with any major shifts like this there will be big opportunities - even if people disagree with what i have outlined here.


A reduction in list size per se is literally just the bottom X number of players get cut.

I haven't heard much about salary cap adjustments but I assume the reason there is focus on the list size, as opposed to the size of the salary cap, is because there is a perception out there that it's better for the game to have players earn well in excess of $600,000 to $700,000 (number floated by ant555 which I agree with) than it is to have more opportunities available for prospective players (which is clearly the biggest strength of the AFL when competing with other codes for talent, etc).

Even if the salary cap is adjusted it will have to be a decrease imposed on player contracts proportionate to the reduction. It can't just become a free for all.

The idea that we can just add two teams as though that will somehow boost profitability is a fantasy. It takes years for teams to become profitable. Is Channel 7 going to increase TV rights for the Darwin or Tasmanian markets which are already footy mad? In this climate?

What I suspect has happened is that the top end of town (i.e. the player agents and their stars) is making noises about the legality of changing the contracts/restraint of trade which is why the AFL seems intent on making a decision which undermines its long term strength.
 
Last edited:
A reduction in list size per se is literally just the bottom X number of players get cut.

I haven't heard much about salary cap adjustments but I assume the reason there is focus on the list size, as opposed to the size of the salary cap, is because there is a perception out there that it's better for the game to have players earn well in excess of $600,000 to $700,000 (number floated by ant555 which I agree with) than it is to have more opportunities available for prospective players (which is clearly the biggest strength of the AFL when competing with other codes for talent, etc).

Even if the salary cap is adjusted it will have to be a decrease imposed on player contracts proportionate to the reduction. It can't just become a free for all.

The idea that we can just add two teams as though that will somehow boost profitability is a fantasy. It takes years for teams to become profitable. Is Channel 7 going to increase TV rights for the Darwin or Tasmanian markets which are already footy mad? In this climate?

What I suspect has happened is that the top end of town (i.e. the player agents and their stars) is making noises about the legality of changing the contracts/restraint of trade which is why the AFL seems intent on making a decision which undermines its long term strength.

I actually had a quick look for some more info on the list reduction suggestions and found the apsect i was referring to as a possible opportunity (fox sport May 5th 'We are not NRL') -

"Pelchen suggested there would be flexibility for an inactive player to be upgraded to the active list of a rival club. Subsequently, it would provide greater in-season player movement and help those players on the fringes"...

So that's referring to each club having the 10 player 'innactive list', plus potentially bringing in players off other clubs 'innactive lists'. It's not quite what i thought in terms of pulling players out of lower leagues but its still a potential opportunity to work outside your current list.

As for the reason behind the list reductions your theory sounds solid to me. I also wonder if the AFL is steering this directly towards their 16 player per side model?

In terms of the number of teams, i am already on the record here saying i cant see how the AFL can assume they will forge ahead with even the current number when 9 of the 18 clubs have shown financial fragility within the last 15 years (at times) - and Foxtel is on its last legs

I find it bewildering to think they are considering adding more teams now. The 'footy-as-content' AFL media organisation are showing a lot of confidence in the economy for a business that has just had to lay off 80% of its own staff. They wont necessarily get it right of course.
 
Last edited:
A reduction in list size per se is literally just the bottom X number of players get cut.

I haven't heard much about salary cap adjustments but I assume the reason there is focus on the list size, as opposed to the size of the salary cap, is because there is a perception out there that it's better for the game to have players earn well in excess of $600,000 to $700,000 (number floated by @ant555 which I agree with) than it is to have more opportunities available for prospective players (which is clearly the biggest strength of the AFL when competing with other codes for talent, etc).

Even if the salary cap is adjusted it will have to be a decrease imposed on player contracts proportionate to the reduction. It can't just become a free for all.

The idea that we can just add two teams as though that will somehow boost profitability is a fantasy. It takes years for teams to become profitable. Is Channel 7 going to increase TV rights for the Darwin or Tasmanian markets which are already footy mad? In this climate?

What I suspect has happened is that the top end of town (i.e. the player agents and their stars) is making noises about the legality of changing the contracts/restraint of trade which is why the AFL seems intent on making a decision which undermines its long term strength.
This is a good example: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...hip-fund-due-to-shutdown-20200521-p54v8l.html

Pickett's obviously an outlier given his age and family on a rookie wage, but the broad point is that even with blanket reductions, low paid players cop it harder and the AFLPA appear content with that.
 
Last edited:
This.


I've never bashed Dodoro before, but after listening to this podcast it's very clear now to me where it's been going wrong. We are going nowhere while this person is managing our list.
 
My takeaways from the podcast:

-According to Dodoro we have heaps of bigger bodied options to run through the midfield. Only problem is none of them are much good.

-Always pick the KPP first!! - when he goes through his list of great pickups over the years the 2 standout mids are Merrett and Heppell....then Zaka gets a mention!

- when asked whats missing on the current list "obviously we'd like to get another mid in there". Well gets some currency and hit the draft with some meaningful picks one of these years maybe?

Ordinary.
 
Last edited:
My takeaways from the podcast:

-According to Dodoro we have heaps of bigger bodied options to run through the midfield. Only problem is none of them are much good.

-Always pick the KPP first!! - when he goes through his list of great pickups over the years the 2 standout mids are Merrett and Heppell....then Zaka gets a mention! Ordinary.
Someone mentioned Dodoro's failure to pivot with the game and to recognise the importance in the modern game of building a deep mid brigade. I'm starting to subscribe to that view.
 
I am quite high on Begley myself but he is the most expendable along with Laverde and Mutch.

Maybe could swap Lav and Begleys positions.
I'd be disappointed if Clarke was in the gun at the end of the year.

Good taggers are worth there weight in gold and at times last year he demonstrated that he could be exceptional in that specialised role.
 
My takeaways from the podcast:

-According to Dodoro we have heaps of bigger bodied options to run through the midfield. Only problem is none of them are much good.

-Always pick the KPP first!! - when he goes through his list of great pickups over the years the 2 standout mids are Merrett and Heppell....then Zaka gets a mention!

- when asked whats missing on the current list "obviously we'd like to get another mid in there". Well gets some currency and hit the draft with some meaningful picks one of these years maybe?

Ordinary.
Conman.
 
Pretty clear that Dodoro works collaboratively with the coaches to find the players they're looking for. His account of recruiting Hurley and Myers attests to that.

I wonder if Rutten and Caracella will have a more positive effect on this going forward, or are there a lot more chefs already in the kitchen (management etc) that also have a say?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top