On second viewing...what's the big deal?

[kaos theory]

Reading some of the posts & the newspapers, you'd think we lost.

After viewing the game again late last night, I'm quite happy with our performance.

There was a drop in our intensity and sharpness this week. When one team has 3 days more rest and prep than the other team it has to be a factor. Especially when one team has been up for 7 weeks and done a lot of hard running.

If we played with the same intensity that we played the previous week imo we would have one by 50+ points. Think of the first qtr performance continuing longer...

I think the 'pace' arguement is not an issue.

Yes, they have pace, but pace is a one-trick pony, and gets badley exposed in finals. The cats do not have quick leg speed, doesn't worry them. I would be very happy to face then again in finals.

What was 'pleasing' to borrow an RL phrase, was the polish and skill level of our team, and ability to control a game when we are not firing on all cylinders.

Yes there were a few more errors than normal, a couple of periods during the 3rd & last qtr in particular, but overall there are some great signs:
- Decision-making & creative play to open up space is much better than last year.
- Defensive pressure is way up on last few years
- Ball movement is sharp & well balanced by hand & foot
- Confidence under pressure is solid

Getting maxy, goose & raph into that team would make it stronger, but who to come out...?

Aslo, having just played down pace, one more pacy & skillful line-breaker would be good to have in the mix....perhaps thats were X would have been good.

[St.Damo's Fire]

I haven't seen any of the game due to other commitments but I just read the report on afl.com.au and after looking at the quarter by quarter scores we blitzed them up to quarter time and then they outscored us by 9 points after that.....hardly a worry.
Sometimes you need to "win ugly" (not that I have seen the game) but it is very easy to get caught up in wanting to smash teams every week.....sepecially a team like Essendon.

I'll happily take the four points.

[bergholt]

What was 'pleasing' to borrow an RL phrase, was the polish and skill level of our team, and ability to control a game when we are not firing on all cylinders.

i think the most worrying thing was that we didn't "control" the game. that was a game won on essendon's terms, not on ours. it's pleasing that we were good enough to win despite them dictating how the game was played in the second half, but not pleasing that we couldn't stop them doing what they wanted.

Getting maxy, goose & raph into that team would make it stronger, but who to come out...?

Aslo, having just played down pace, one more pacy & skillful line-breaker would be good to have in the mix....perhaps thats were X would have been good.

yeah, definitely. none of hudghton, maguire, clarke r are really midfielders, and one more decent midfielder wouldn't go astray, particularly if more and more teams are going to try to run us off our legs.

best for sandy yesterday was eddy, so i'd say he's real close to being back in the team. armo hasn't set sandy on fire this season unfortunately. more needed.

[kaos theory]

i think the most worrying thing was that we didn't "control" the game. that was a game won on essendon's terms, not on ours. it's pleasing that we were good enough to win despite them dictating how the game was played in the second half, but not pleasing that we couldn't stop them doing what they wanted.

?? How could they be controlling the game or playing the game on their terms when they were always 3 or 4 goals down & they lost? We did stop them playing the game they wanted, they didn't win. We just didn't have the intensity in our play after qtr time, imo, to build on our lead...

[spert]

We always controlled the game and never looked like losing -it's probably worrying some that we didn't win by 10 goals.

[Beej]

I don't understand the suggestion that pace gets badly exposed in finals.

You mean, if pace is all you have, then I guess it could.

But you're not suggesting that it's better not to have pace in finals?

There is no substitute for pace, particularly late in games when players begin to tire.

Andy Lovett or Daniel Wells in our side right now would be the cherry on top.

[bergholt]

?? How could they be controlling the game or playing the game on their terms when they were always 3 or 4 goals down & they lost? We did stop them playing the game they wanted, they didn't win. We just didn't have the intensity in our play after qtr time, imo, to build on our lead...

they were running through us consistently after quarter time - hence they had 45 inside 50s.

what we wanted to do was slow them down in the back half and take away their options, so that we could then pressure them into submission, like we have all year.

instead, they always had another option and managed, after strings of handballs, to get a man free to break through the middle. this didn't happen every time but happened enough to be a worry. too often we were left grasping at air as their numbers told. this is what we've been doing to other sides, done to us.

look, by no means is it all doom and gloom. but it was obviously not our best game of the season, so let's learn from that, rather than sweeping it under the carpet.

[Moccha]

i think the most worrying thing was that we didn't "control" the game. that was a game won on essendon's terms, not on ours. it's pleasing that we were good enough to win despite them dictating how the game was played in the second half, but not pleasing that we couldn't stop them doing what they wanted.

?? How could they be controlling the game or playing the game on their terms when they were always 3 or 4 goals down & they lost? We did stop them playing the game they wanted, they didn't win. We just didn't have the intensity in our play after qtr time, imo, to build on our lead...

Agreed. St.Kilda always had control of the game. That they weren't as sharp is another thing but you could tell that St.Kilda was doing enough to win. That is what you call control - doing enough to win.

[Loyal]

i think the most worrying thing was that we didn't "control" the game. that was a game won on essendon's terms, not on ours. it's pleasing that we were good enough to win despite them dictating how the game was played in the second half, but not pleasing that we couldn't stop them doing what they wanted.

?? How could they be controlling the game or playing the game on their terms when they were always 3 or 4 goals down & they lost? We did stop them playing the game they wanted, they didn't win. We just didn't have the intensity in our play after qtr time, imo, to build on our lead...

Agreed. St.Kilda always had control of the game. That they weren't as sharp is another thing but you could tell that St.Kilda was doing enough to win. That is what you call control - doing enough to win.

well said Moccha

[kaos theory]

I don't understand the suggestion that pace gets badly exposed in finals.

You mean, if pace is all you have, then I guess it could.

But you're not suggesting that it's better not to have pace in finals?

There is no substitute for pace, particularly late in games when players begin to tire.

Andy Lovett or Daniel Wells in our side right now would be the cherry on top.

disagree.

the dogs burst onto the scene in 05/06 with pace. They thumped a few sides with their pace & skill, and everyone was getting excited with the new dogs and how great they will become.

Where did that get them? Nowhere.

Sides that get to gfs and win need to have a LOT more than that. Defense, strucutres, disipline, hardness, experience, good forwards & defenders, etc.

[saintsRrising]

Reading some of the posts & the newspapers, you'd think we lost.

.

Posts yes.

But the paers I have read seem to mainly describe it as convincing win...never really threatened...all in the context of us having to play on the Monday night with the Dons having an extra 3 days.

[jonesy]

i think the most worrying thing was that we didn't "control" the game. that was a game won on essendon's terms, not on ours. it's pleasing that we were good enough to win despite them dictating how the game was played in the second half, but not pleasing that we couldn't stop them doing what they wanted.

Doing what they wanted? hang on a minute...... they never got within under 18 points,yet they did to us what they wanted? Do they aspire to lose,if so then yes they did to us what they wanted...

[InkerSaint]

the dogs burst onto the scene in 05/06 with pace. They thumped a few sides with their pace & skill, and everyone was getting excited with the new dogs and how great they will become.

Where did that get them? Nowhere.

Sides that get to gfs and win need to have a LOT more than that. Defense, strucutres, disipline, hardness, experience, good forwards & defenders, etc.

I've given the Doggies a fair bit of thought lately. I really think they peaked around this time last year. They started getting some question marks around the time of the game against Port in Darwin. Then when they played Geelong in round 16 it was as if they had slammed into a brick wall. Perhaps they brought their best, and their best wasn't good enough. They've been in a bit of a tailspin ever since. Even the weekend's result against Melbourne would be a worry for them.

It remains to be seen how far this Essendon team and game style will travel. But they have certainly caused some headaches this year.

[joffaboy]

i think the most worrying thing was that we didn't "control" the game. that was a game won on essendon's terms, not on ours. it's pleasing that we were good enough to win despite them dictating how the game was played in the second half, but not pleasing that we couldn't stop them doing what they wanted.

Doing what they wanted? hang on a minute...... they never got within under 18 points,yet they did to us what they wanted? Do they aspire to lose,if so then yes they did to us what they wanted...

Exactly.

After halftime - never in doubt. they couldn't get withing 3 goals of us and if we had kicked better we would have won by 7 goals.

We controlled the game and despite the hysterics in the paper (arch Saints hater mark Stevens take note) the Bombers never looked like "snatching the game".

Interesting to read Rohan Connelly's piece in the paper today. very balanced and shows that even though all commentatiors have a bias for a team, many are professional enough to call the truth of a game as he did today.

[Beej]

I don't understand the suggestion that pace gets badly exposed in finals.

You mean, if pace is all you have, then I guess it could.

But you're not suggesting that it's better not to have pace in finals?

There is no substitute for pace, particularly late in games when players begin to tire.

Andy Lovett or Daniel Wells in our side right now would be the cherry on top.

disagree.

the dogs burst onto the scene in 05/06 with pace. They thumped a few sides with their pace & skill, and everyone was getting excited with the new dogs and how great they will become.

Where did that get them? Nowhere.

Sides that get to gfs and win need to have a LOT more than that. Defense, strucutres, disipline, hardness, experience, good forwards & defenders, etc.

The Bulldogs having pace hasn't cost them anything, their lack of tall forwards has.

I think you're misunderstanding my point.

Of course you need other strings to your bow, that is obvious, but pace isn't, never has been and never will be a disadvantage.

To even think that it's advantageous to be a slow team is hilarious!

[Thinline]

Reckon if Lloyd was paid the mark, kicked straight, and put em within three kicks, things could have been interesting...

Woulda coulda shoulda etc, I know...

We didn't attack with any real fluency at all after quarter time.

And I think they did threaten. Well and truly.

I don't think we were flash at all after Q1. We scrambled well enough. Got the win. But I wouldn't be gloating. Worst effort for the year. And I reckon we'll get hammered up the corridor for the remaining 2/3 of the year as a result.

Perhaps the short turnaround stung...

Brisbane will answer some quessie this week. They are a hard, tough old side with some real guns within. Hope we freshen up and are ready to improve.

[kaos theory]

Worst effort for the year. And I reckon we'll get hammered up the corridor for the remaining 2/3 of the year as a result.

So on the strength of one game, we are going to get easily beaten now?

What did you think of the cats after they had a down game against the pies last yr (round 9) and got thumped by 10 goals? Did you think that the cats would end up on the bottom of the ladder after that poor game?

The Bulldogs having pace hasn't cost them anything, their lack of tall forwards has.

I think you're misunderstanding my point.

Of course you need other strings to your bow, that is obvious, but pace isn't, never has been and never will be a disadvantage.

To even think that it's advantageous to be a slow team is hilarious!

OBL - Where did I say its an advantage to be slow?? Point that out to me.

My point is too many are suduced by pace as the answer. Pace is good, but if that's your main weapon, which it is for the bombers, then I wouldn't be worried about meeting them in finals...

[Mr X from the West]

Reckon if Lloyd was paid the mark, kicked straight, and put em within three kicks, things could have been interesting...

Woulda coulda shoulda etc, I know...

We didn't attack with any real fluency at all after quarter time.

And I think they did threaten. Well and truly.

I don't think we were flash at all after Q1. We scrambled well enough. Got the win. But I wouldn't be gloating. Worst effort for the year. And I reckon we'll get hammered up the corridor for the remaining 2/3 of the year as a result.

Perhaps the short turnaround stung...

Brisbane will answer some quessie this week. They are a hard, tough old side with some real guns within. Hope we freshen up and are ready to improve.

Agree with this. Essendon really punished us up the corridor, when in previous games we've been owning it. How did that happen?

I also thought our team performance was uneven. Some players had good games (Hayes, Goddard, Jones, Kosi) , but we dropped way a bit (Ball, Milne, Schneider, Gwilt).

Hopefully we won't be as flat next week.

[Beej]

So on the strength of one game, we are going to get easily beaten now?

What did you think of the cats after they had a down game against the pies last yr (round 9) and got thumped by 10 goals? Did you think that
OBL - Where did I say its an advantage to be slow?? Point that out to me.

I don't understand the suggestion that pace gets badly exposed in finals.

You mean, if pace is all you have, then I guess it could.

But you're not suggesting that it's better not to have pace in finals?

There is no substitute for pace, particularly late in games when players begin to tire.

Andy Lovett or Daniel Wells in our side right now would be the cherry on top.

disagree.

the dogs burst onto the scene in 05/06 with pace. They thumped a few sides with their pace & skill, and everyone was getting excited with the new dogs and how great they will become.

Where did that get them? Nowhere.

Sides that get to gfs and win need to have a LOT more than that. Defense, strucutres, disipline, hardness, experience, good forwards & defenders, etc.

By disagreeing with my entire post. If you agree with certain aspects of a post then don't quote the whole post and start your response with "disagree".

Obviously if pace is the only decent attribute a side has they're not going to be very effective. I'm pretty sure we all know that.

However, IMO it is impossible to win a flag without genuine pace.

[kaos theory]

However, IMO it is impossible to win a flag without genuine pace.

Don't know what you mean here. Are you saying we have no genuine pace, therefore can't win a flag?

The Loins weren't a pacey side, they won 3 in a row. The swans weren't, neither are the cats, and if it wasn't for poor kicking, they would have had the last two flags.

Quick ball movement is not necessarily based on leg speed. Its disposal skill & decision making. We move the ball much quicker this year than last & that's not because of leg speed.

I think too much has been read into this one game. Play that game again with both teams on an even 7 day break, and I think we would have blown them away...

[Thinline]

So on the strength of one game, we are going to get easily beaten now?

You are being mischievous.

I did not say anything of the sort.

I said 'we will get hammered up the corridor'.

Teams will look to free running players across centre half back and run at us up the middle. No one has done it yet, preferring to either go around or over. No one has had the skill, daring or speed to go through. Essendon did it very well. Perhaps no one other than Essendon has the speed. Either way, now other teams will try.

[BringBackMadDog]

However, IMO it is impossible to win a flag without genuine pace.

Where was Hawthorns genuine pace last year, with the exception of Bateman the rest of the midfield are plodders.

[n1ck]

However, IMO it is impossible to win a flag without genuine pace.

Where was Hawthorns genuine pace last year, with the exception of Bateman the rest of the midfield are plodders.

Clinton Young, Xavier Ellis are hardly plodders.

And, lets not forget young Cyril.

Like OLB said earlier, id love a Lovett or a Wells type running through the middle for us, it really would be the one missing link.
Im hoping Jarryn Geary can come on into this player - hes a likely type, love the way he goes about it.

[borderbarry]

Now might be a good time to make a couple of changes to the side . Jim Gwilt, although he has done reasonably well, a goal every second game is not a good enough return for a forward. Raph or Sam G tor mine as the third forward. Maybe even Matt Maguire.

[python]

didnt gwilt have like 5 assists? I reckon on yesterdays form he would be in no danger of being dropped