Top four by 2010... and then what?
Just going to jump back on my soap box (now I've picked the kids up from school) and add to my last post.
I find Knights' attitude and the way he's going about things as being very refreshing and I'm sure this will rub off on the list.
I loved Sheedy and I will always fondly think of the amount of joy he provided me as an Essendon supporter.
I didn't start barracking for Essendon until 1978 as an 8 year old, so I missed most of the dim dark 70's where there was no finals action between 73 to 79. 1978 we were 7-4 and in the five after 11 rds only to finish 8-14.
What's refreshing is that our new coach explains things or comments about our list and is straight up and and doesn't meander around corners, jokes,martians, other clubs stories and how it was done in the past etc.
What's else is refreshing is that we are now following a direct plan, filling for youth, not trading willy nilly but putting faith into the list we have and looking to target and address what's needed to improve.
I don't see a goal of trying to increase the number of wins in our season from 10 to 14 in three seasons as unrealistic. Obviously the plan would be to continue that growth beyond and really the next three years at least of drafting and recruiting is going to have a huge bearing on that ongoing ride up the table.
Benny Doolan brought up a point that out of our 2000 and 2001 draftees only Andrew Welsh still with us. I'd hazard to say that only Ted Richards and possibly Jordan Bannister that are eleswhere is still running around in the comp. So reality that pretty ordinary recruiting and that's why we've had the past three seasons we've had.
Remember too at the end of 2002 we let go three regular senior players to other clubs plus delisting Moorcroft, yes we got McPhee, but Sheedy came out and said that those players leaving hurt the club and our depth given that as pointed out our drafting in 2000 and 2001 was bad.
We got Murphy, Campo, Cole and took Heffernan back which really wasn't in the scheme of things, ideal.
So now it's got to be fixed. The Knights message has been clear and how I see it is that the ball has been thrown well and truly back in the player's court. The youth aspect is known so I wouldn't expect in the future that Murphy, Campo type of trades will ever be done during Knights' reign.
Also, time in the past such as carrying players to milestones (i.e. Rioli) can't happen because there will be a player who should've been on the ground wasn't. I loved seeing Rioli get his 100 games don't get me wrong but gestures like that can do harm later on down the track. Also picking a player based on name and not form. Sheeds was great at playing a kid and then dropping them for an older player the next week. They hurt other players who don't get opportunities and then want to leave due to it, reduces trading currency etc.
Knights in this interview I referred to said that the young players will be given extended opportunity pending that they reach the required fitness level that he requires, anyone who doesn't will be at Bendigo until they do.
They'll be then given the opportunity to show him that they can play and can cut it a AFL level.
I love this thought because it's a case of if you WANT to be an Essendon player then who get yourself right, you show how much you WANT to and I'll give the required support.
The older statesman will be mentors, obviously teachers off and on the field.
If I'm seen as being over enthusiastic or too one eyed that I can't see reason or that I'm living in a red and black bubble - I don't give a shit.
In my last post I broke down the list and I'll do it again.
At the end of 2009, I would expect that JJ, Mal Michael, Peverill won't be there and Lloyd, Fletcher, and Lucas (especially Fletcher) will be near gone or a year or two way.
Our elder statemen will then include McVeigh who would have 200 games under his belt and still only 29, Rama's health and continual getting better will have to be seen, Hille and McPhee both will be 27-28 with over 150 games. But there all very good players.
The exciting part is that players like Monfries, Watson, Stanton, Welsh and Dyson will still be only 24-25 and all pushing 100 games or over and should be at the prime of the careers.
Ryder even younger.
I think our 2006 crop is excellent and all pretty much got a chance and they all showed a lot of promise. So if they can keep improving we will not suffer from natural attrician.
Rob also pointed out that years of poor recruiting, you can't pretend that your going to be any good in the end so if we stick to our plan, top 4 by 2010 should be our goal.
I find Knights' attitude and the way he's going about things as being very refreshing and I'm sure this will rub off on the list.
I loved Sheedy and I will always fondly think of the amount of joy he provided me as an Essendon supporter.
I didn't start barracking for Essendon until 1978 as an 8 year old, so I missed most of the dim dark 70's where there was no finals action between 73 to 79. 1978 we were 7-4 and in the five after 11 rds only to finish 8-14.
What's refreshing is that our new coach explains things or comments about our list and is straight up and and doesn't meander around corners, jokes,martians, other clubs stories and how it was done in the past etc.
What's else is refreshing is that we are now following a direct plan, filling for youth, not trading willy nilly but putting faith into the list we have and looking to target and address what's needed to improve.
I don't see a goal of trying to increase the number of wins in our season from 10 to 14 in three seasons as unrealistic. Obviously the plan would be to continue that growth beyond and really the next three years at least of drafting and recruiting is going to have a huge bearing on that ongoing ride up the table.
Benny Doolan brought up a point that out of our 2000 and 2001 draftees only Andrew Welsh still with us. I'd hazard to say that only Ted Richards and possibly Jordan Bannister that are eleswhere is still running around in the comp. So reality that pretty ordinary recruiting and that's why we've had the past three seasons we've had.
Remember too at the end of 2002 we let go three regular senior players to other clubs plus delisting Moorcroft, yes we got McPhee, but Sheedy came out and said that those players leaving hurt the club and our depth given that as pointed out our drafting in 2000 and 2001 was bad.
We got Murphy, Campo, Cole and took Heffernan back which really wasn't in the scheme of things, ideal.
So now it's got to be fixed. The Knights message has been clear and how I see it is that the ball has been thrown well and truly back in the player's court. The youth aspect is known so I wouldn't expect in the future that Murphy, Campo type of trades will ever be done during Knights' reign.
Also, time in the past such as carrying players to milestones (i.e. Rioli) can't happen because there will be a player who should've been on the ground wasn't. I loved seeing Rioli get his 100 games don't get me wrong but gestures like that can do harm later on down the track. Also picking a player based on name and not form. Sheeds was great at playing a kid and then dropping them for an older player the next week. They hurt other players who don't get opportunities and then want to leave due to it, reduces trading currency etc.
Knights in this interview I referred to said that the young players will be given extended opportunity pending that they reach the required fitness level that he requires, anyone who doesn't will be at Bendigo until they do.
They'll be then given the opportunity to show him that they can play and can cut it a AFL level.
I love this thought because it's a case of if you WANT to be an Essendon player then who get yourself right, you show how much you WANT to and I'll give the required support.
The older statesman will be mentors, obviously teachers off and on the field.
If I'm seen as being over enthusiastic or too one eyed that I can't see reason or that I'm living in a red and black bubble - I don't give a shit.
In my last post I broke down the list and I'll do it again.
At the end of 2009, I would expect that JJ, Mal Michael, Peverill won't be there and Lloyd, Fletcher, and Lucas (especially Fletcher) will be near gone or a year or two way.
Our elder statemen will then include McVeigh who would have 200 games under his belt and still only 29, Rama's health and continual getting better will have to be seen, Hille and McPhee both will be 27-28 with over 150 games. But there all very good players.
The exciting part is that players like Monfries, Watson, Stanton, Welsh and Dyson will still be only 24-25 and all pushing 100 games or over and should be at the prime of the careers.
Ryder even younger.
I think our 2006 crop is excellent and all pretty much got a chance and they all showed a lot of promise. So if they can keep improving we will not suffer from natural attrician.
Rob also pointed out that years of poor recruiting, you can't pretend that your going to be any good in the end so if we stick to our plan, top 4 by 2010 should be our goal.
This is your main error - if you take into account Hird leaving and the amount of miracle wins we had this year, we are not a ten win side. Our form in the second half the year is a more accurate reflection of where we are at. Sportsbet currently has us as second-last favourites for the flag.I don't see a goal of trying to increase the number of wins in our season from 10 to 14 in three seasons as unrealistic. Obviously the plan would be to continue that growth beyond and really the next three years at least of drafting and recruiting is going to have a huge bearing on that ongoing ride up the table.
If we can win between 4-6 games next year and get some games into the younger players, I think we can consider the year a success.
If supporters go into next year expecting to win ten games, they are going to arrive in September extremely disappointed and plus put undue pressure on Knights and the players.
I think we'll probably win about 6-8, but other than that, spot on.gringo wrote:This is your main error - if you take into account Hird leaving and the amount of miracle wins we had this year, we are not a ten win side. Our form in the second half the year is a more accurate reflection of where we are at. Sportsbet currently has us as second-last favourites for the flag.I don't see a goal of trying to increase the number of wins in our season from 10 to 14 in three seasons as unrealistic. Obviously the plan would be to continue that growth beyond and really the next three years at least of drafting and recruiting is going to have a huge bearing on that ongoing ride up the table.
If we can win between 4-6 games next year and get some games into the younger players, I think we can consider the year a success.
If supporters go into next year expecting to win ten games, they are going to arrive in September extremely disappointed and plus put undue pressure on Knights and the players.
In 2006 we won only 3.5 games but we had 7 very close losses.
In 2007 we won 10 with 4 very close wins and one very close loss.
I don't expect a dramatic change in 2008 so anywhere between 5 and 11 wins based on form and injury. Not a top eight side.
There is not really that much difference between Col and Gringo's assessment rather of perspective: glass half full vs. half empty.
In 2007 we won 10 with 4 very close wins and one very close loss.
I don't expect a dramatic change in 2008 so anywhere between 5 and 11 wins based on form and injury. Not a top eight side.
There is not really that much difference between Col and Gringo's assessment rather of perspective: glass half full vs. half empty.
Red and Black Forever
-
jimmyc1985
- Champion of Essendon
- Posts: 5869
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:33 pm
- Location: Position A
Just in terms of assessing our fortunes for next year, something that i think often gets overlooked is where the teams around us (e.g those that finished anywhere between 7-16th) are likely to go for next year. The old red and black goggles have the tendency to be donned and it's easy to think we exist in a footballing vacuum.
The thing i suspect (at this very early stage of predictions for next year) which will quite conceivably force us into the bottom 4 is the other teams'
improvements relative to ours:
* Carlton have Judd which, if fit, is probably 3-4 extra wins per year straight off the bat;
* Freo just seemed to fall apart but, with the experience in their list, i think they could conceivably bounce into the 8 next year;
* Bulldogs are in a similar boat to Freo and could easily bounce next year;
* Brisbane will probably improve again;
* If the Tigers get a full season out of Simmonds and Coughlan, and McMahon and Morton slot in, they won't be as bad as they were this year.
So in a nutshell, i personally don't reckon our fortunes next year are too flash. Happy to be proved wrong and frankly i couldn't really give much of a hoot about our ladder position next year provided we don't win the spoon, but i think we'll be struggling to notch 10 wins.
The thing i suspect (at this very early stage of predictions for next year) which will quite conceivably force us into the bottom 4 is the other teams'
improvements relative to ours:
* Carlton have Judd which, if fit, is probably 3-4 extra wins per year straight off the bat;
* Freo just seemed to fall apart but, with the experience in their list, i think they could conceivably bounce into the 8 next year;
* Bulldogs are in a similar boat to Freo and could easily bounce next year;
* Brisbane will probably improve again;
* If the Tigers get a full season out of Simmonds and Coughlan, and McMahon and Morton slot in, they won't be as bad as they were this year.
So in a nutshell, i personally don't reckon our fortunes next year are too flash. Happy to be proved wrong and frankly i couldn't really give much of a hoot about our ladder position next year provided we don't win the spoon, but i think we'll be struggling to notch 10 wins.
-
NIFTY
Which 6 teams will we beat? Or will it be only 3 teams twice?NIFTY wrote:I think we should have a minute silence for twits. May he rest in peace. I am going to miss his comic genius.
And regarding the amount of wins we will rack up next year i will be stoked with 6+, can't see us winning more than 6 but only time will tell
Essendunny
-
Twits
I AM BACK!!!
TWITS IS BACK!!!! Just when you thought you could silence me...I RISE FROM THE DEAD!!!! This is reminiscent of the 84 Grand Final!!!! One of the greatest comebacks in history!!!!!
I just want everyone to know I have no animosity towards anyone at all over my departure, I wont stoop to name calling and will maintain my dignity ala Denis Pagan. With one exception i might add...........FARKEN FILTHY!!!!!! I know you were behind this, but you cant silence the Twits, or free speech, long may Twits reign!!!!
I just want everyone to know I have no animosity towards anyone at all over my departure, I wont stoop to name calling and will maintain my dignity ala Denis Pagan. With one exception i might add...........FARKEN FILTHY!!!!!! I know you were behind this, but you cant silence the Twits, or free speech, long may Twits reign!!!!
-
CameronClayton
- High Draft Pick
- Posts: 652
- Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:42 am
I reckon it's the right thing for the Board to come right out & set targets for Knights. If we make top 4 in 2010, then we have a decent crack at a flag & Knights (& a few Board member's) job is safe - if we don't finish top 4, he is out of a job.
Andrewb's aim of flag or nothing is not realistic - no club in the comp would be saying flag in this year or next year, otherwise you are out of a job. If we were to make the GF in 2010 & lose by a point with an injury riddled side, then andrewb is saying stiff shit, seeya later Knighta, onya bike.
Conversely, if i had known that the Board had told Sheedy his chief aim between 2002 & 2004 was just to make the top 8, then I would have been well pissed off. Yes we are the Bombers, we are here to win flags, not make up the numbers. But whether the top 8 target was set by the Board in these 3 years, or a target that Sheeds set himself to improve his win/loss ratio, we might never know.
Either way, it is obvious that it is all in cycles now (blind Freddy could see it back in 2002, but not the EFC, or half the people on these forums) & that it is just impossible to sustain top 8 finishes year after year.
Andrewb's aim of flag or nothing is not realistic - no club in the comp would be saying flag in this year or next year, otherwise you are out of a job. If we were to make the GF in 2010 & lose by a point with an injury riddled side, then andrewb is saying stiff shit, seeya later Knighta, onya bike.
Conversely, if i had known that the Board had told Sheedy his chief aim between 2002 & 2004 was just to make the top 8, then I would have been well pissed off. Yes we are the Bombers, we are here to win flags, not make up the numbers. But whether the top 8 target was set by the Board in these 3 years, or a target that Sheeds set himself to improve his win/loss ratio, we might never know.
Either way, it is obvious that it is all in cycles now (blind Freddy could see it back in 2002, but not the EFC, or half the people on these forums) & that it is just impossible to sustain top 8 finishes year after year.
Don't get me wrong here Jimmycirca1985, I think you have the brains of a wart.jimmyc1985 wrote:Just in terms of assessing our fortunes for next year, something that i think often gets overlooked is where the teams around us (e.g those that finished anywhere between 7-16th) are likely to go for next year. The old red and black goggles have the tendency to be donned and it's easy to think we exist in a footballing vacuum.
The thing i suspect (at this very early stage of predictions for next year) which will quite conceivably force us into the bottom 4 is the other teams'
improvements relative to ours:
* Carlton have Judd which, if fit, is probably 3-4 extra wins per year straight off the bat;
* Freo just seemed to fall apart but, with the experience in their list, i think they could conceivably bounce into the 8 next year;
* Bulldogs are in a similar boat to Freo and could easily bounce next year;
* Brisbane will probably improve again;
* If the Tigers get a full season out of Simmonds and Coughlan, and McMahon and Morton slot in, they won't be as bad as they were this year.
So in a nutshell, i personally don't reckon our fortunes next year are too flash. Happy to be proved wrong and frankly i couldn't really give much of a hoot about our ladder position next year provided we don't win the spoon, but i think we'll be struggling to notch 10 wins.
HOWEVER you have hit the nail on the head with that little post – kar-f***-ing- BOOOOOOOOOM! It was a very big hammer, for those amongst us who are less observant.
We need to compare our lot against the teams we play and where they are at, rather than the team we had last year, or the coach we had last year or indeed the success we had last year. We overachieved with what we had, whilst a number of teams around us under achieved.
Filthy is a bandit for this – he starts naming players we have, and what positions they will play in, and how our kids are going to improve yet fails to consider what our competition is doing and where they are at in their quest for premiership glory.
-
keri
- Regular Senior Player
- Posts: 1228
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:38 pm
- Location: Wagga Wagga
- Contact:
There's too much that can be different from year to year an club to club to be able to make an accurate prediction, in my mind. Clubs acquire players, let players go, change coaches, fitness staff, training regimes, players have good pre-seasons and bad pre-seasons.gringo wrote:Don't get me wrong here Jimmycirca1985, I think you have the brains of a wart.jimmyc1985 wrote:Just in terms of assessing our fortunes for next year, something that i think often gets overlooked is where the teams around us (e.g those that finished anywhere between 7-16th) are likely to go for next year. The old red and black goggles have the tendency to be donned and it's easy to think we exist in a footballing vacuum.
The thing i suspect (at this very early stage of predictions for next year) which will quite conceivably force us into the bottom 4 is the other teams'
improvements relative to ours:
* Carlton have Judd which, if fit, is probably 3-4 extra wins per year straight off the bat;
* Freo just seemed to fall apart but, with the experience in their list, i think they could conceivably bounce into the 8 next year;
* Bulldogs are in a similar boat to Freo and could easily bounce next year;
* Brisbane will probably improve again;
* If the Tigers get a full season out of Simmonds and Coughlan, and McMahon and Morton slot in, they won't be as bad as they were this year.
So in a nutshell, i personally don't reckon our fortunes next year are too flash. Happy to be proved wrong and frankly i couldn't really give much of a hoot about our ladder position next year provided we don't win the spoon, but i think we'll be struggling to notch 10 wins.
HOWEVER you have hit the nail on the head with that little post – kar-f***-ing- BOOOOOOOOOM! It was a very big hammer, for those amongst us who are less observant.
We need to compare our lot against the teams we play and where they are at, rather than the team we had last year, or the coach we had last year or indeed the success we had last year. We overachieved with what we had, whilst a number of teams around us under achieved.
Filthy is a bandit for this – he starts naming players we have, and what positions they will play in, and how our kids are going to improve yet fails to consider what our competition is doing and where they are at in their quest for premiership glory.
I just don't think there's any one way to look at it. You can look at the players individually, or rate the clubs on this years performance, but you can't acurately predict what will happen in five months time, when there's just so much that can change.
"Let's face it. If I didn't exist, you'd pay someone to invent me"
The ONLY coach I've heard anytime recently suggest that their goal for the year was to win the premiership was Peter Schwab (2004?) and we all know how that turned out.andrewb wrote:From memory Geelong 06-07, West Coast 05-07, Sydney 05-07, Port Adelaide 02-04, Brisbane 01-04, Essendon 99-01 didn't start the season with an aim to make the top four.
If you think you're good enough to make the top 4, you aim for the premiership.
Aiming for the Top 4 is the language of St Kilda or the Bulldogs (or Fremantle) and it's already been watered down from what they were saying when Knights got hired. Sounds like the board is already trying to cover its arse.
Let me reiterate.
1. I never said flag or nothing. I argued that you set your target for a flag, not for top 4. North Melbourne made the Top 4 this year... were they ever a realistic threat for a premiership? If Essendon had a season like North's in 2010 would you be happy that we were going in the right direction or would you put it down to circumstance? I can't see North winning a flag in the next two years - Geelong, Hawthorn, Port, Freo and and You need to be one of the standout teams in the comp to win a flag - not one of the also rans.
2. When Knights was appointed he said that we could challenge for a flag within 2-3 years. Hence, the list is being managed with 2010 in mind. If we're only going to have a half arsed shot at it in 2010, why not rebuild for a more realistic target and be a little more brutal with the list and build for 2012/13?
1. I never said flag or nothing. I argued that you set your target for a flag, not for top 4. North Melbourne made the Top 4 this year... were they ever a realistic threat for a premiership? If Essendon had a season like North's in 2010 would you be happy that we were going in the right direction or would you put it down to circumstance? I can't see North winning a flag in the next two years - Geelong, Hawthorn, Port, Freo and and You need to be one of the standout teams in the comp to win a flag - not one of the also rans.
2. When Knights was appointed he said that we could challenge for a flag within 2-3 years. Hence, the list is being managed with 2010 in mind. If we're only going to have a half arsed shot at it in 2010, why not rebuild for a more realistic target and be a little more brutal with the list and build for 2012/13?
Andrewb....I think the difference between us and the Kanagroos...is that they are forced to try and make the top 4 every year simply to survive.
I think that Peter Jackson has come out and said that we should be aiming for Top 4 in 2010, is not because we've lowered our sights but because that where we expected to be in the development of the team.
We obviously believe that we will have the team to be one of the better teams in the competition but will still require a year or two more development to then push to be the outstanding team of the competition and win the Flag.
I think that Peter Jackson has come out and said that we should be aiming for Top 4 in 2010, is not because we've lowered our sights but because that where we expected to be in the development of the team.
We obviously believe that we will have the team to be one of the better teams in the competition but will still require a year or two more development to then push to be the outstanding team of the competition and win the Flag.
Has he actually said that?andrewb wrote:Let me reiterate.
2. When Knights was appointed he said that we could challenge for a flag within 2-3 years. Hence, the list is being managed with 2010 in mind. If we're only going to have a half arsed shot at it in 2010, why not rebuild for a more realistic target and be a little more brutal with the list and build for 2012/13?
As far as I was aware that is the comment people have attributed to him to suggest that is why he was given the job over Hardwick, but I'm not sure whether he has actually publicly ever said that?
-
NIFTY
easley regarding your comment that the difference between north melbourne and essendon is that north have to try to make the top 4 each year...i am crying in laughter at you logic!!!
Possibly the DUMBEST man on this forum. I can't believe you actually believe that north must make the top 4 each year to survive, sounds like you believe that essendon not making the top 4 is through no fault of their own, but they chose to not make it!! essendon don't need to try to make the top four each year, because they are a rich club. THIS IS THE LOGIC OF A MAN WHO HAS HAD A TROLL BREAK INTO HIS HOUSE AT NIGHT, OPEN UP HIS CRANIUM AND REMOVED THE ROTTEN PRUNE THAT HAS BEEN MASQUERATING AS HIS BRAIN
Possibly the DUMBEST man on this forum. I can't believe you actually believe that north must make the top 4 each year to survive, sounds like you believe that essendon not making the top 4 is through no fault of their own, but they chose to not make it!! essendon don't need to try to make the top four each year, because they are a rich club. THIS IS THE LOGIC OF A MAN WHO HAS HAD A TROLL BREAK INTO HIS HOUSE AT NIGHT, OPEN UP HIS CRANIUM AND REMOVED THE ROTTEN PRUNE THAT HAS BEEN MASQUERATING AS HIS BRAIN