Bombertalk

Heard a couple of players and coaches comment since the game on Saturday night that it wasn't a result of complacency or arrogance, but is that actually the case.

Now we've played the 3 "easybeats" of the competition, for 1 easy win (in the end), another close win (after a hell of a scare) and a loss.

Something I've noticed in the lead up to those games is that it has been clear that the club has already been looking ahead to the next game before those games have actually been played.

In the lead up to the Gold Coast game Zaharkis was doing a media huddle and out slipped the a little nugget along the lines of "when we beat Gold Coast", he quickly realised what he had said and amended it to "when we hopefully beat Gold Coast".

In the lead up to the GWS game those in charge of the website thought it would be funny to update the next game details to Essendon vs Bye then we decided to make Howlett the sub and rested key players in Fletcher and Heppell (the latter two were smart player management decisions) the first ended having no affect as Howlett was called into the starting team after Hardy injured himself in the warmup, although is it of some concern that he ended up being arguably BOG after the coaching panel didn't originally really want him to play more than a quarter?

Seemed to smarten up a bit in the lead up to the Melbourne games, no one made stupid comments in the media, no stupid shit appeared on the website but then come gameday, Hooker mysteriously pulls out, anyone heard why yet? I haven't so can only assume he is fit and right to go against Sydney and it was simply a case of us believing we were surely going to beat Melbourne so could afford to rest him.

In the end you couldn't say that resting Hooker cost us the game as the back 6 still kept them to a score of 8.10. Or could you? How many did Garland ended up kicking on Pears- 2.3? How many would he have kicked on Hooker? Not sure but Hooker is a far superior one on one defender for mine.

The decision to start Lonergan as sub. It was wet weather football tailor made to Lonergan's game. He has been one of our most important in and under, ball winning, clearance players and we started him as the sub for no other reason than to manage his workload. What happened, we duly got smashed 42-27 in the clearances, don't no if we've lost the clearance count previously this season but if we had we would've only on 1-2 other occasions. They only other game I can think of this season where we could've conceivably lost the clearance count was against Collingwood on ANZAC Day.

So we start Lonergan as the sub, we decide not to activate him until the late in the third quarter for some reason. Who do we decide to sub off, maybe someone like Bellchambers who the conditions obviously do not suit, no we sub off a small forward in Davey when the balling keeps getting pumped inside our forward 50 and hitting the ground. Strikes me the decision on who to sub off and when was made the during the week and we decided not to change that decision despite the situation of the game and the conditions.

So is there an issue with complacency in our team? I can't imagine there is that much within the coaching ranks, I certainly cannot believe Hird or Bomber would be complacenct I think the decisions they had made in terms of balacing the workload of certain players was more due to the belief they had in the players to get the job done.

In terms of the playing group. I doubt there would be that much complacency with the senior blokes like Watson, Stanton, Dyson (who has fought hammer and tongs to save his career this year) and Fletch. But I certainly think some of the younger guys might have started to get ahead of themselves and think that we are better than we currently are.

I get a feeling that a large porportion of the team on Saturday night felt that it would be a matter of turning it on for 20 minutes and blowing the Demons away and when we kicked 3 in a row early in the 3rd they then slackened off again feeling that the Demons had been broken and we would run away with it.

Hope this has been bought up with the playing group this week, and what they are saying publically isn't what is being said behind closed doors in the club because the lost to the demons was due to nothing more than complacency and as a result a drop in desire and effort.

We are not a good enought team to go into match complacent and expecting to simply win (it argubably cost us a Premiership in 1999) and when we are a good enough team to go into a game complacent and expecting to win, we will be too professional to do so (us in 2000).

ealesy wrote:In the lead up to the GWS game those in charge of the website thought it would be funny to update the next game details to Essendon vs Bye ...

Not true. It was an error in that the website didn't have the logo ready yet, and as a default the website automatically loaded the 'bye' symbol. It was changed within minutes.

Anyway, as for complacency, the only people who will know are the players themselves. You can talk up that you're not complacent until the cows come home, but being ruthless and relentless is a state of mind that the players have to buy into on their own.

Great post, Ealsy. I reckon you have nailed their state of mind prior to the Dees debacle.

NLM was in the side as well. Even more to my shock i saw him drifting in the backline the bloke doesn't know how to defend if his life depended on it.

watsongun wrote:NLM was in the side as well. Even more to my shock i saw him drifting in the backline the bloke doesn't know how to defend if his life depended on it.

What's the go? Did you have a grudge against him because he turned down your advances? You sound like a woman scorned.

what did NLM ever do to you? run over your dog accidentally.

And by dog, I mean son, and by accidentally, I mean repeatedly?

watsongun wrote:NLM was in the side as well. Even more to my shock i saw him drifting in the backline the bloke doesn't know how to defend if his life depended on it.

69 posts so far and probably 69 negative pieces of tripe...have you got anything remotely positive to add the the discussions around here?

ealesy wrote:what did NLM ever do to you? run over your dog accidentally.

And by dog, I mean son, and by accidentally, I mean repeatedly?

Just watched the Hanger and Zaka did an interview on MMM after the game and mentioned that there may have been a few complacent players before the game. You'd think being a professional they wouldn't be complacent but unfortunately it will happen from time to time in a young side and we just need to hope they learn from it and not let it happen again.

robrulz5 wrote:Just watched the Hanger and Zaka did an interview on MMM after the game and mentioned that there may have been a few complacent players before the game. You'd think being a professional they wouldn't be complacent but unfortunately it will happen from time to time in a young side and we just need to hope they learn from it and not let it happen again.

We're not that young. We're a middle-aged team, speaking relatively.

I think we will find out this weekend. If we come out and thump the swans then we probably were complacent and the loss was required to get them going. If we perform similar this week, maybe we are just out of form.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are going through a time with pretty heavy training loads that will begin to ease off soon to allow the players to peak physically towards the end of the year. The last month or so we just haven't seemed to have the same intensity around the contest and haven't been covering as much ground as we were earlier in year.

Essendon just kicked for goal poorly.

I don't buy into the whole complacency, cruising, bit flat whatever you want to call it argument.

Had Crameri, Hurley or Ryder had their kicking boots on, we would not have lost. Had we been accurate = comfortable win.

Melbourne played well too mind you.

little_ripper wrote:Essendon just kicked for goal poorly.

I don't buy into the whole complacency, cruising, bit flat whatever you want to call it argument.

Had Crameri, Hurley or Ryder had their kicking boots on, we would not have lost. Had we been accurate = comfortable win.

Melbourne played well too mind you.

It's a good point - but does bad kicking come from complacency? I don't know, it's just a thought.
When your four permanent forwards (Crameri, Hurley, Jetta and Monfries) kick 0.10, you're not going to win too often.
Crameri does need to get some goalkicking lessons from the great man though. Lloydy said he had the worst technique (along with Nick Reiwoldt) of anyone in the comp. Presumably that includes Lindsay Thomas!

Great (and long) post Ealsey, I agree. There probably is a bit of complacency, but hopefully last week will have shown the players that they can't afford any.