Bombertalk

That is the worth of the coaching panel plus Knights contract pay-out.

Surely one of these guys can see that our forward line is not working. Surely they can see that if we have 18 players in the defensive 50 that if we do win possession we will have no one to kick it to.

Surely one of these guys can see that a plan B would help.

Surely they can see that 3 ruckman does not work. Make the hard call

Surely they can see NLM is a spud.

It'd be really really really nice to see someone starting in the goal square when we have a forward line of giants. Please....just one single player.

A Plan B would be nice too!!!
Or are we going to work on our defensive skills next season and we're just learning the basics this year.

MEMO - COULD WE PLEASE GET A f***'N CRUMBER; BRING BACK BEWICK IF WE HAVE TO DAMMIT

And can I please see someone...anyone....making a lead in the forward line instead of just standing there waiting for the inevitable long bomb onto the top of their head???

Bomber_Fan wrote:A Plan B would be nice too!!!
Or are we going to work on our defensive skills next season and we're just learning the basics this year.

MEMO - COULD WE PLEASE GET A f***'N CRUMBER; BRING BACK BEWICK IF WE HAVE TO DAMMIT

We have 3 or 4 - unfortunately when they're not tripping over their own feet or running back into traffic they are nowhere near where the ball lands.

hop wrote:

Bomber_Fan wrote:A Plan B would be nice too!!!
Or are we going to work on our defensive skills next season and we're just learning the basics this year.

MEMO - COULD WE PLEASE GET A f***'N CRUMBER; BRING BACK BEWICK IF WE HAVE TO DAMMIT

We have 3 or 4 - unfortunately when they're not tripping over their own feet or running back into traffic they are nowhere near where the ball lands.

And if they're not doing that, then they're up the other end of the ground pretending to be a part of a press that's already been breached.

Bomber_Fan wrote:A Plan B would be nice too!!!
Or are we going to work on our defensive skills next season and we're just learning the basics this year.

MEMO - COULD WE PLEASE GET A f***'N CRUMBER; BRING BACK BEWICK IF WE HAVE TO DAMMIT

That's what Monfries should be learning to do. Rather than running back into the pack and trying to be Tony Lockett.

BomberinJapan wrote:

Bomber_Fan wrote:A Plan B would be nice too!!!
Or are we going to work on our defensive skills next season and we're just learning the basics this year.

MEMO - COULD WE PLEASE GET A f***'N CRUMBER; BRING BACK BEWICK IF WE HAVE TO DAMMIT

That's what Monfries should be learning to do. Rather than running back into the pack and trying to be Tony Lockett.

He has to try to be Lockett or he wouldn't get a kick at all. It's not like anyone would actually try to kick it to a forward leading into space or anything. (please note the sarcasm)

it makes it hard when the forwards are running into the 50 at the same time the ball is flying over the 50m line at the same time.....

Reimers and Davey would have been handy at the feet of Ryder and Hille last night,

The disappointing thing is that our forward line looks incredibly dangerous with Ryder, Hille, Crameri, Zaka, Gus and co.... they just aren't delivering at the moment.

Our forward line was definitely dysfunctional last night. In fact, I don't think it has functioned properly for 3-4 weeks.

I came home from the game last night thinking to myself, maybe we have gone from one extreme to the other. Under Knights, the kamikaze style meant chipping it around in circles. Now our style seems to be the opposite - bomb it long and just hope for the best. Maybe it worked for a few weeks because it took other teams by surprise but now I think they've all worked out how to counter it (simply scrag Ryder, punch the ball away, have plenty of crumbers at their feet to sweep it away).

Unless we can come up with some sort of Plan B, we are in a lot of trouble. Judging by last night, Melbourne are at best a middle of the ladder team, and yet we NEVER looked like beating them.

Our forward line has been a concern in a number of games.

Eg Collingwood, in the third quarter the ball spent most of the quarter there, yet on many occasions we didn't even get a shot off.

I'm pissed off at the loss, but hardly think it's panic stations. We have the cattle I just think we need to rejig it a bit.

Sismis wrote:Our forward line has been a concern in a number of games.

Eg Collingwood, in the third quarter the ball spent most of the quarter there, yet on many occasions we didn't even get a shot off.

I'm pissed off at the loss, but hardly think it's panic stations. We have the cattle I just think we need to rejig it a bit.

Problem is, our forwards actually resemble cattle in their attack and skills ATM.

Forward line solution : Have at least a tall & a crumber stay in close proximity to the square so when we get our numerous forward 50 entries we HAVE SOMEONE TO KICK TO , instead of the vast empty spaces we have at the moment.

Surely we don't need 18 players playing on the ball at the same time? If we are going to bomb it in ,keeping 2 players deep in the forward line is not rocket science. The backs hate it when we attack the square & its deeper for them to get it out.

In the last 2 games in particular our opponents attack has started from the half back line , its so much harden to attack from the square.

Ronny Rotten wrote:Forward line solution : Have at least a tall & a crumber stay in close proximity to the square so when we get our numerous forward 50 entries we HAVE SOMEONE TO KICK TO , instead of the vast empty spaces we have at the moment.

Surely we don't need 18 players playing on the ball at the same time? If we are going to bomb it in ,keeping 2 players deep in the forward line is not rocket science. The backs hate it when we attack the square & its deeper for them to get it out.

In the last 2 games in particular our opponents attack has started from the half back line , its so much harden to attack from the square.

THIS.

Said the same thing on another thread. They're too worried about the full court press bullshit, and allow opposition backs to draw our forwards out of the forward 50. Leave someone moderately mobile in the square, if their backs want to run down the other end, they'll get taught a lesson on a turnover. All we did last night was bomb it too high when we had players in the forward 50, or had bloke running flat out towards goal instead of leading to the ball.

Gimps wrote:They're too worried about the full court press bullshit, and allow opposition backs to draw our forwards out of the forward 50. Leave someone moderately mobile in the square, if their backs want to run down the other end, they'll get taught a lesson on a turnover.

I've been thinking about this idea for a few weeks now.

1. Would the defenders from the other team keep pushing up if our forwards stayed close to goals?
2. If they did, would it kill us?

The risk is that if the other team has 1, 2 or 3 extra players in the forward half, they just won't turn it over. They'll end up with the easy shots on goal. Worth trying a bit though.

j-mac31 wrote:

Gimps wrote:They're too worried about the full court press bullshit, and allow opposition backs to draw our forwards out of the forward 50. Leave someone moderately mobile in the square, if their backs want to run down the other end, they'll get taught a lesson on a turnover.

I've been thinking about this idea for a few weeks now.

1. Would the defenders from the other team keep pushing up if our forwards stayed close to goals?
2. If they did, would it kill us?

The risk is that if the other team has 1, 2 or 3 extra players in the forward half, they just won't turn it over. They'll end up with the easy shots on goal. Worth trying a bit though.

The thing is, we are playing zone defence . Only the key opposition forwards are manned up one on one. The rest are covered through a zone. If we have 15 or 16 players down there, surely we could cover enough gaps. It's all about confidence, if we believe we can get the turnover and get the ball moving quickly, it would kill teams - similar to what we did in our 'good games' over the last couple of years. Last night, we played defensive football - pity was, the defensive aspect of our game went missing.

That's true. I do think we should try it to see if we can cover an extra player or two and hurt them the other way.

In the "zone", we should have at least one player between wing and half forward so if we get a quick kick out or a break, there is someone with a 30-40m head start. Too many times last night a player got on the break and had no one to kick to, so just bombed it up or even took pace off the kick to advantage a player but as he was running back with the flight of the ball, couldn't judge it properly.

The defensive side of the game plan is fine, last night it caused Melbourne numerous times to miss targets with the kick however at no stage was there another Essendon player working hard enough to go and get the ball.

f*** me the tables turn quick in here.

After last year, everyone was expecting us to be bottom 6 this year, at the start of the year everyone was up and about with the coaching changes and hoping for big things...we get off to a flyer, push the premiers for 3 and a bit quarters and everyone is talking top 4.

Next we get a couple of key injuries, lose two winable games against opposition in a similar position to us development wise and now the knives are out again...if we lost again next week (on the road to Freo), people will start calling for Hirdy's head for f***'s sake...

Get real. Most of us would have been happy with top 8 and many probably had us as low as 12th (hoping for more...). We probably expected to be better against the bottom sides and hopefully push the top sides (which I think we have done in general...)

I don't have a problem with aiming high, but when reality doesn't meet expectations, we can't start becoming like Ninthmond and begin eating our own everytime...