Top Heavy

Gossy7 · Post by **Gossy7** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:20 pm

My cousin and I during text messages throughout the game both agreed that the inclusions this week were terrible.

All throughout the ground we had tall men, yet couldnt find targets coming out of our defence. Our run was gone, and when we're up and about we are running hard through the wings. Today it was all gone. I think Winda and NLM will give a lot back for us as will Welsh. The structure that we had in the first 4 rounds (parts of Carlton) was all gone. When we were up and about and smashing Carlton, we were running hard to give options through the wings. Then when we were losing, there was nothing.

Jimmy ran hard all day, but ffs, we needed a Dempsey or Houli in there today.

Post by **Jazz_84** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:22 pm

while sheedy is around we are never going to find a game plan that will win games for us (rounds 1 and 2) and stick with it, noooo it's gotta change all the time, drag our asses back to 2006

bomberflyer · Post by **bomberflyer** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:23 pm

Agree totally...the thing is how is it so obvious to us yet completely disobvious to the match committee?

If this has done anything I hope it has confirmed to the so called "match committee" that those two players never play again.

ealesy · Post by **ealesy** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:25 pm

Well we didn't need Dempsey there seeing he did his hammy on the weekend but I see your point.

It took you while to catch on as well...I believe about 99.9% of Essendon supporters could've told the selections this week were pathetic the moment they saw the team named mate.

Gossy7 · Post by **Gossy7** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:29 pm

Lonergan i meant. Sorry.

Ahh sorry Ealesy. It didnt take me long at all. I was the first to reply in the Team Thread in which i commented "The worst inclusions we could make".

And i'm showing the effects that happened today.

Boyler_Room · Post by **Boyler_Room** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:29 pm

I was waiting eagerly before the game to see that Bradley had been dropped for Houli....

But for crying out loud... who the hell told the match committee it was a good idea to play Bradley? Ridiculous inclusion. Just plain stupid. Lost us the game.

Sartorius · Post by **Sartorius** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:08 pm

This was certainly a huge problem. Coming off a very very short break, running was always going to be a problem, and we didn't extra numbers there to support. Bradley and Bolton have pretty much played their last games for Essendon, they were terrible. We lacked the run through the middle with only Lovett, Stants and Davey prepared to run with it.

Johns, Bradley, Bolton are all not needed next week and need to be dropped for more running players. There is only so many tall players you can play, and we lost half this game at the selection table. We had no problems when we had fresh legs, but we didn't have many options after that.

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:34 pm

Gossy wrote:This was certainly a huge problem. Coming off a very very short break, running was always going to be a problem, and we didn't extra numbers there to support. Bradley and Bolton have pretty much played their last games for Essendon, they were terrible. We lacked the run through the middle with only Lovett, Stants and Davey prepared to run with it.

Johns, Bradley, Bolton are all not needed next week and need to be dropped for more running players. There is only so many tall players you can play, and we lost half this game at the selection table. We had no problems when we had fresh legs, but we didn't have many options after that.

Thats a reality, and I feel empathy for Johns. He is a good forward with alot of potential. Just unfortunate we have Lloyd and Lucas in our forward line.

robbie67 · Post by **robbie67** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:36 pm

Gossy7 wrote:My cousin and I during text messages throughout the game both agreed that the inclusions this week were terrible.

Really? The two inclusions terrible? Surely you jest.

Mrs Mercuri · Post by **Mrs Mercuri** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:51 pm

Bolts was ohk but Bradley definately needs to stay with Bendigo until he can produce some solid, accountable football. He is definately in trade territory at the moment, i know its only round 5, but he isn't in our best 22 anymore. The emergence of Ryder in the back half has ensured that.

The Dog · Post by **The Dog** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:58 am

Thats a reality, and I feel empathy for Johns. He is a good forward with alot of potential. Just unfortunate we have Lloyd and Lucas in our forward line.[/quote]

Obviously Sheedy has empathy for Johns. Otherwise he wouldn't be playing. The guy can play 2 positions ff and chf and those positions are being filled by better players. If the game calls for 3 tall forwards we have options wihtin the team without selecting Johns such as our resting Ruckman (we always will have ruckman as Sheedy always seems to drafts ruckman/forwards not specialist ruckman) or moving one of our 4 tall defenders forward.

With Johns we lose our forward line pressure and that has been a major part of our sucess this year. Just when you think Sheedy has found a way to make us competitive through pure speed he goes with the tallest slowest side on a big ground!! Go figure

merc_2 · Post by **merc_2** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:08 am

In the inclusions of Bradley and Bolton where shocking decisions by the match committee. The free flowing game and clean movement of the ball was gone with these inclusions. We missed Licha through the midfield as well.

j-mac31 · Post by **j-mac31** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 11:25 am

Essendon4eva wrote:
Gossy wrote:This was certainly a huge problem. Coming off a very very short break, running was always going to be a problem, and we didn't extra numbers there to support. Bradley and Bolton have pretty much played their last games for Essendon, they were terrible. We lacked the run through the middle with only Lovett, Stants and Davey prepared to run with it.

Johns, Bradley, Bolton are all not needed next week and need to be dropped for more running players. There is only so many tall players you can play, and we lost half this game at the selection table. We had no problems when we had fresh legs, but we didn't have many options after that.
Thats a reality, and I feel empathy for Johns. He is a good forward with alot of potential. Just unfortunate we have Lloyd and Lucas in our forward line.

Sounding a bit like Reynolds to me. He showed plenty of POTENTIAL as a marking forward, but never improved on that. Apart from his 2 goals Johns did nothing. I want a big step up from him soon or back to Bendigo.

If playing three specialist talls (ie. not resting ruckmen) why not Gumbleton? He'd have to be a better fit because he's not one-dimensional like Johns. He can actually play centre half forward and is probably quicker around the ground.

s'dreams · Post by **s'dreams** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:15 pm

We are selecting tall (Lloyd, Johns, Lucas forward ... McPhee, Fletch, Ryder Bradley back) - but playing short (#1 for short passes in the comp).

The two just don't work together.

cheers - Sti

Bombertalk

Top Heavy

Top Heavy

Re: Top Heavy