Not good enough without Hille and Lloyd

robbie67 · Post by **robbie67** » Sat May 05, 2007 4:47 pm

The only team we would beat without these two are Richmond.

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Sat May 05, 2007 4:49 pm

Disagree - we will struggle to beat them too.

We are the dumbest football side in the land.

Any team can throw numbers behind the ball knowing that we can't work out how to beat the flood.

KaaN10 · Post by **KaaN10** » Sat May 05, 2007 4:50 pm

Richmond can beat us if we had Hille and Lloyd.

Tamworth Bomber · Post by **Tamworth Bomber** » Sat May 05, 2007 4:55 pm

Whats the draft looking like for 07

nomolos · Post by **nomolos** » Sat May 05, 2007 4:57 pm

Someone pls calculate the amount of games we have won without Lloyd playing within the last 27 home and away games???

citizenerased · Post by **citizenerased** » Sat May 05, 2007 5:05 pm

i think its 3.

3 from after the sydney game rd 1 06 where lloyd played

since then, he has played in both victories of 07 and neither of the 3 from last season.

citizenerased · Post by **citizenerased** » Sat May 05, 2007 5:06 pm

2 sorry. i forgot the last carlton game was a draw....at least we didnt lose

nomolos · Post by **nomolos** » Sat May 05, 2007 5:08 pm

citizenerased wrote:i think its 3.

3 from after the sydney game rd 1 06 where lloyd played

since then, he has played in both victories of 07 and neither of the 3 from last season.

Does anyone believe that is an issue??

jorayme · Post by **jorayme** » Sat May 05, 2007 5:09 pm

It wouldn't have made that much of a difference as you still have to get the ball into your forward 50.Their midfield put the pressure on and our boys turned it over. Even their backline pushed up and gave them numbers at the ball. At times I thought they must of had a couple of extra players on the ground as they seemed to have so many players around the ball. The question should be where were our boys who were playing on them?

citizenerased · Post by **citizenerased** » Sat May 05, 2007 5:12 pm

Lloyd would have taken Brown and given him a run for his money

game was never gonna be easy without Hille and Lloyd, but in the end, it was won because we arent a unit with a lot of experience together,

it took the eagles nearly 4 years to turn around a ladder slump/re-build and win a premiership. also a new coach but i dont think that is a major factor.

when the team start clicking together, getting to know who will do what and how to support them, we will play better.
we have some good youth, gotta get them experience in the big league, match fitness, etc.

robbie67 · Post by **robbie67** » Sat May 05, 2007 5:14 pm

citizenerased wrote:Lloyd would have taken Brown and given him a run for his money

game was never gonna be easy without Hille and Lloyd, but in the end, it was won because we arent a unit with a lot of experience together,

it took the eagles nearly 4 years to turn around a ladder slump/re-build and win a premiership. also a new coach but i dont think that is a major factor.

when the team start clicking together, getting to know who will do what and how to support them, we will play better.
we have some good youth, gotta get them experience in the big league, match fitness, etc.

Finally, a fucing reasoned opinion.

citizenerased · Post by **citizenerased** » Sat May 05, 2007 5:27 pm

no injury is avoidable, esp in elite level sports.
if we had a full list to choose from, and by that reasoning im guessing only Lloyd and Hille would have been out there, and possibly NLM (injured im guessing?)

i still think we are a good year or two off consistently good football and guys like Dyson, Laycock, Watson and Bradley will be part of it.

Once they start playing together more regularly (hence the argument for leaving the likes of Bradley, Watson, Dyson etc in) the team will develop as a whole.

until then, we still have Davey to watch. He is almost as good to watch as a win.

swoodley · Post by **swoodley** » Sat May 05, 2007 5:32 pm

Haven't seen the game yet as I taped it because I was going to be home late from golf (and then the f****** neighbour over the back tells me that we lost...f****** %#$@*^&^)

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that we have played three fairly good games this year and three not so good games.

The trouble with those three early wins is that it has given most of us a false impression of how good we are. When we are on song and everything is going our way, we look pretty good.

But reality is that rarely does everything go well for developing teams which is what we are.

Todays loss is not going to be the last for the year and probably won't be the last where the players make a number of mistakes.

Prior to the season starting, I would have thought that 7-8 wins for the year would have been good progress especially if we are able to blood some good young players.

Realistically, 7-8 wins is still going to be a dramatic improvement on last year and we have already unearthed Davey and Jetta so the season is actually progressing well.

So (imo) it's time to take off the rose coloured glasses and look at our team the same way we would look at another developing team.

Expect progress but be alert to the fact that developing teams sometimes put in some horrid performances.

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Sat May 05, 2007 5:41 pm

To swoodley - I agree we are a developing team - but we were developing last year too, and instead of playing kids like Dyson (who was poor today) we were playing Campo, or Bolton, or someone else who is not clearly part of a future - a player who needs developing. Instead, Dyson comes in more regularly this year but still looks out of his depth - essentially a year behind.

An example today is playing Bolton again (I admit Bolton was far from our worst - in fact did some ok things) instead of Houli, for example. Houli should be developing now - not after Rd 12 - not next year - because if he does come in next year then again we'll be saying "we are a developing team.

swoodley · Post by **swoodley** » Sat May 05, 2007 6:03 pm

tonysoprano wrote:To swoodley - I agree we are a developing team - but we were developing last year too, and instead of playing kids like Dyson (who was poor today) we were playing Campo, or Bolton, or someone else who is not clearly part of a future - a player who needs developing. Instead, Dyson comes in more regularly this year but still looks out of his depth - essentially a year behind.

An example today is playing Bolton again (I admit Bolton was far from our worst - in fact did some ok things) instead of Houli, for example. Houli should be developing now - not after Rd 12 - not next year - because if he does come in next year then again we'll be saying "we are a developing team.

No argument from me Tony and I agree that Houli, Lonergan, Lee & Hislop (and possibly others I've forgotten) should be getting a run ahead of Bolton.

My main point was that we are developing and won't be able to live up to some people's unrealistic expectations (and that those people need to take a more objective look at where we are at)

Boyler_Room · Post by **Boyler_Room** » Sat May 05, 2007 6:03 pm

Spot on TS. While I thought Bolton was servicable today, I don't think he should be in the team, especially when we have other players to be choosing from.

Other clubs seem to get it, and come the middle of the year they look like a pretty decent side with a bunch of 1st year players on the park... we keep playing project players that will never be any good and that don't have any business being considered in the future of the club.

Having said that, for more than a quarter we had no forward line (I mean that literally). It wasn't the midfielders fault they had no options to kick to, because there literally was noone to kick to. It was their fault, however, for blazing away when they could have run inside 50 and kicked a goal. All too often we see playing bombing away from 60 out to an unmanned backman. How there can be loose backmen (and by loose I mean the only player within 30m of him was a teammate of his) in our F50 I have no idea.

Once again, without Lloyd our forward strucute looks like that of 2006. Pathetic.

pear · Post by **pear** » Sat May 05, 2007 6:36 pm

Can't win without Hille?

Yeah right, he won heaps with him as Captain all year last year.

He is the Essendon equivalent of Scott Muller.

robbie67 · Post by **robbie67** » Sat May 05, 2007 6:43 pm

pear wrote:Can't win without Hille?

Yeah right, he won heaps with him as Captain all year last year.

He is the Essendon equivalent of Scott Muller.

Yeah, we have looked sensational without him the last 2 weeks havent we?

Rossoneri · Post by **Rossoneri** » Sat May 05, 2007 6:43 pm

Hille at least provides a target coming out of the HB line. Laycock provides nothing at all. Laycock is really stating to remind me of Henneman when he went into the ruck. Fancy getting outmarked by Campbell Brown