BRADLEY, KEPLER BRADLEY.

[BenDoolan]

Sheeds defends Bradley and gets stuck into Mark Johnson....

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/ ... 22,00.html

SHEEDS DEFENDS BRADLEY ERROR
26 April 2007

Bungling Essendon defender Kepler Bradley was not to blame for yesterday's Anzac Day loss, but coach Kevin Sheedy conceded the first-round draftee must improve.

Sheedy also lined up midfielder Jobe Watson and out-of-form Mark Johnson as players needing to find touch.

But it was Bradley who was the focus of post-match discussion when his final-quarter mistake handed Collingwood's Tarkyn Lockyer a game-breaking goal.

Bradley's high, floating drop punt was picked off by Lockyer, who gave Collingwood momentum and an 18-point buffer that the tiring Bombers could not challenge.

The final score was 12.23 (95) to 11.13 (79).

Bradley, who played his 47th game yesterday, was taken at pick No. 6 in the 2003 national draft, but has yet to play to that lofty expectation.

Sheedy said last night Bradley had the work ahead of him.

"Obviously most people felt the kid transferring the play across goal hurt us, but he's a player still getting there. He's a player that actually has a fair bit to do to become a league player," Sheedy said.

"Some of those guys do take a while, particularly a big fella. He knows he's made an error, but don't get gun-shy. A lot of players make errors. It wasn't his fault (the team lost)."

Teammates Dustin Fletcher and Mal Michael also were supportive rather than critical.

Fletcher: "You've just got to tell him head up and keep going because we all make mistakes. But he's going to get better, yeah. We've got to get behind him because it was a pretty important time of the game."

Michael: "I just said, don't worry about it, it's finished, you can't change it.

"If you dwell on it too much, there will be another one, and then another one, and before you know it the runner comes out and drags you.

"It's important he puts it behind him . . . that wasn't the reason why we lost."

Essendon's three-goal start yesterday was slowly overcome by a fitter and faster Collingwood midfield.

The Bombers' key forwards were beaten - Matthew Lloyd, who carried a corked thigh, by James Clement, Scott Lucas by Harry O'Brien and Courtney Johns by Simon Prestigiacomo.

The coach said he could name about eight winners.

Significant was Essendon's inability to take from half-back through half-forward. The inside 50s were Essendon 49 to Collingwood 69, a statistic that supported Fletcher's theory.

"We didn't seem to have enough targets to kick it to (in the forward line), and if you don't have that, it's pretty stagnant and you end up going backwards," Fletcher said.

"The first 10 or 15 minutes was all right, but after that the ball was getting shot around. There wasn't much movement through the forward line, so the backs sort of chipped it round and chipped it round, and we couldn't get much going through the centre."

Sheedy agreed, although he indicated that if he had selection again, he would opt for Bradley and Mark Bolton instead of younger legs such as Bachar Houli, Sam Lonergan or Leroy Jetta.

"We got off to a good start, but their running game was very good," Sheedy said.

"The area that Essendon could do with a few boys back would be in the middle of the ground, players like (Nathan) Lovett-Murray or (Andrew) Welsh or (Jason) Winderlich or (Courtenay) Dempsey."

Jason Johnson is a week away and Scott Camporeale maybe two weeks.

Sheedy said Mark Johnson, who started back and kicked a goal when moved forward in the final quarter, needed to lift. "He knows he's got to lift to be a better player and to get back to the best of Mark Johnson. He's not there yet."

He also conceded Watson's ball-getting ability - he had a healthy 23 touches yesterday - was being hurt by his sometimes poor disposal.

"He's making too many errors, but he's trying to get better," Sheedy said.

"Both Jobe and Kepler would have to say they've got to get their footy better."

To suggest that he would select Bradley if he could have his time again is a bizarre statement.

Don't know why they are just focussing on that one major f*** up....there were plenty more coming from him prior to that.

I feel sorry for Keps. It's Sheedy's fault he is being put through this uneccessarily. He's simply not up to it yet, and his performances at Bendigo haven't suggested that he has turned into a competent footballer overnight. Take some damn responsibility Sheeds. You were right when you said it wasn't Bradley's fault we lost - it's your stubborn fantasy of believing he is something he's not and you put him in these situations where we end up losing the game.

[Rossoneri]

Going by that response by Sheedy, im hopping on the "get rid of sheedy" bandwagon. How ******* stupid is he to suggest that Bradley is a better selection than Houli?

[uptick]

I'm almost ready to purchase my ticket as well. Honestly, one never learns if one cannot admit to mistakes.

[tony coz]

I have not placed a response on theis forum all year but after Keplers perfomance yesterday I felt compeled.
In short the guy just hasnt got a clue....he does not have a football brain...he must be de-listed at the end of the year.

[s'dreams]

Another year - another whipping boy!

It was not the efforts or lack of ability of one or two players which resulted in our loss.

And frankly - the ongoing focus on one or two players who have not performed to expectations (or notably stuff-up) misses the point.

For real success to occur, high standards are needed from all - and high expectations need to be placed on all players on the field - not just a handful.

And it was not just a handful of players who were out-played, out-thought and made errors (dumb or otherwise).

IMO - only a handful of players actually won their position for 3 out of the 4 quarters.

Please don't overlook this by venting on one player.

cheers – sti

[Essendon4eva]

Your missing the point. There are about 4 or 5 guys who deserve a chance ahead of those two guys, who have never played well enough to earn there current spot.

We recognise we were overrun by a better team on the night. However, tis sadi to see bolton and Bradley getting selected when Andrew Lee, Houli etc are in the twos playing well.

[bomberdonnie]

I'm almost ready to purchase my ticket as well. Honestly, one never learns if one cannot admit to mistakes.

Want to see if we can get a two for one deal Uptick.

I have always loved Sheeds and he has done unimaginable good for the greatest club on the planet but he is really starting to become a laughing stock this year.

I fear the game may have just past him by and he has been horribly out coached by Pagan and Malthouse this year already.

I just hope his replacment can get us to our great heights once more as I can not see it happening again under Sheeds

[Essendon4eva]

Bring on GOD! Sheeds has, got our list in good shape for GOD to take over in 2008.

[s'dreams]

Your missing the point. There are about 4 or 5 guys who deserve a chance ahead of those two guys, who have never played well enough to earn there current spot.

We recognise we were overrun by a better team on the night. However, tis sadi to see bolton and Bradley getting selected when Andrew Lee, Houli etc are in the twos playing well.

I am not arguing about the ability of the players in question, nor whether others should be selected (based on ability, team balance etc). Clearly a few (at this stage) are not up the standard that will achieve a top-4 finish.

What I am saying is that for years fans have got distracted by just blaming one or two players when everyone in the team needs to be held to high standards.

I want to see finals success - so every player must be accountable. Not just a few.

Coaches and the Selection committee (if iit still exists) needs to be also!

If you create scapegoats - all it does is provide excuses for every player (the "well I played better than He did" syndrome).

cheers - sti

[DC]

if he had selection again, he would opt for Bradley and Mark Bolton instead of younger legs such as Bachar Houli, Sam Lonergan or Leroy Jetta

[BenDoolan]

Your missing the point. There are about 4 or 5 guys who deserve a chance ahead of those two guys, who have never played well enough to earn there current spot.

We recognise we were overrun by a better team on the night. However, tis sadi to see bolton and Bradley getting selected when Andrew Lee, Houli etc are in the twos playing well.

I am not arguing about the ability of the players in question, nor whether others should be selected (based on ability, team balance etc). Clearly a few (at this stage) are not up the standard that will achieve a top-4 finish.

What I am saying is that for years fans have got distracted by just blaming one or two players when everyone in the team needs to be held to high standards.

I want to see finals success - so every player must be accountable. Not just a few.

Coaches and the Selection committee (if iit still exists) needs to be also!

If you create scapegoats - all it does is provide excuses for every player (the "well I played better than He did" syndrome).

cheers - sti

And that's a fair enough statement. Well said.

[ZRS]

Another year - another whipping boy!

It was not the efforts or lack of ability of one or two players which resulted in our loss.

And frankly - the ongoing focus on one or two players who have not performed to expectations (or notably stuff-up) misses the point.

For real success to occur, high standards are needed from all - and high expectations need to be placed on all players on the field - not just a handful.

And it was not just a handful of players who were out-played, out-thought and made errors (dumb or otherwise).

IMO - only a handful of players actually won their position for 3 out of the 4 quarters.

Please don't overlook this by venting on one player.

cheers – sti

nicely said sti

[Boyler_Room]

While that is all true, the mere inclusion of Bradley was a backward step and probably was the reason we got smashed. 16 points doesn't look like a smashing on the scoreboard, but that's what it was.

If we injected some fresh legs with a bit of pace and one brain cell, I'm not suggesting that we would have bnecessarily won the game, but we would have gone a damn sight closer.

Don't misconstrue my comments as placing the blame on Bradley for our loss. I am of the opinion that the moment the game was out of our reach was when he kicked the ball to Lockyer in the square, but the fact our forward line went missing for 3/4 of the game was a huge problem as well. Our running brigade getting caught with the ball, poor skills coming to the fore.... etc etc.... After a sensational start where we looked like blowing Collingwood off the park early, we were like a deer in headlights and came to a complete stand-still. Some fresh legs could well have made the difference.

[billyduckworth]

I'm overseas at the moment, so haven't seen the game at all. Up to now, I've been a fence sitter on Bradley, but judging from all the comments here, he must have really played a stinker.

Why were Bradley & Bolton included when there were better options? It seems to me that the game was lost at the selection table. Who is actually on the selection committee (or whatever it is called) this year?

[jimmyc1985]

I'm overseas at the moment, so haven't seen the game at all. Up to now, I've been a fence sitter on Bradley, but judging from all the comments here, he must have really played a stinker.

Why were Bradley & Bolton included when there were better options? It seems to me that the game was lost at the selection table. Who is actually on the selection committee (or whatever it is called) this year?

Sheedy has the final say on all selections to my knowledge, so the buck stops with him. As to why Bolton and Bradley were picked, the answer from seemingly everyone is: f***** if we know. And yes, Bradley played an absolute stinker.

[billyduckworth]

Dare I suggest we need a more "democratic" selection panel? (Can't help feeling the irony of that comment, given I am presently in one of the world's least democratic countries!!)

[MH_Bomber]

I feel sorry for Kepler Bradley. I really hope he hasnt read this thread.

I think that we should have realised the error of picking him in that draft ages ago. He has been given chance after chance and some of those chances have been playing on some pretty good forwards. This would NOT have helped his confidence.

But this is case of Sheedy just NOT admitting he has made a wrong judgement call. He is not a Kevin Walsh. I really dont think he has the engine or the footy smarts to redeem himself. He should have been delisted last year. He was probably a very good junior footballer who could rely on his height alone to get along. That aint going to cut it in the frenetic way the game is played today.

What I worry about is the fact that Sheedy might go into contrary mode and not drop him.

[billyduckworth]

What I worry about is the fact that Sheedy might go into contrary mode and not drop him.

This worries me too. Sheedy can be extraordinarily stubborn when it comes to his "project" players.

[jimmyc1985]

Dare I suggest we need a more "democratic" selection panel? (Can't help feeling the irony of that comment, given I am presently in one of the world's least democratic countries!!)

That's a fair point, although i reckon that every team's selection process would work the same way as Essendon's does (i.e. input is given from numerous assistant coaches, but the final say always goes to the senior coach). I think it's more a case of Sheedy ignoring the advice he gets - no sane assistant coach could possibly have suggested to play Bradley and Bolton, so i can only gather that Sheedy exercised his powers of veto and picked those two.

And for me, these sorts of things all go to reinforcing my view that the time has come for Sheedy to hand over the reigns. When he started coaching 27 years ago, the role of assistant coaches had very limited significance at all, and the senior coach ran the show as he pleased. These days, every team has an army of assistant coaches who collectively probably have equal input to that of the head coach - Paul Roos for example sometimes goes a fortnight without taking a training session and leaves it to the club's medical and assitant coaching staff to pick the teams. But, judging by our selections of recent years, it would seem our assistants have very limited input at all. Dated thinking.

[jimmyc1985]

Yes Staggy, i agree. But the point is that Bradley was never picked on that premise, therefore his selection was insane.

I imagine team selection goes something like this: pick the best 15-17 automatically; work out what roles we need the remaining 5-7 guys to play given the opposition and team balance; then pick the remaining 5-7 guys to execute those roles. Surely before picking Bradley they would've already arrived at the decision that he wasn't going to do any rucking, and given that presumption his selection remains an insane decision.

EDIT: Lol, you deleted your post to make me look like i'm responding to a non-existent post !