How Does Our Midfield Rate with Shiel

Talk about everything Essendon. Past, Present and Future if it's about the Bombers this is the place to be.
User avatar
Windy_Hill
Champion of Essendon
Posts: 11573
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:23 pm

Re: How Does Our Midfield Rate with Shiel

Post by Windy_Hill » Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:59 pm

nudder12 wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 7:09 pm
Windy_Hill wrote:
Wed Oct 31, 2018 6:14 pm
We are a click bait club for the media. Perhaps the biggest of them all. While we may come in around fourth or fifth in the membership stakes, it is quite likely we still retain the label of “most supported” club in the country. Our following in Perth and Queensland in particular is by far and away the biggest of all the Victorian clubs. Additionally we are also a club that other supporters, notably Hawthorn and Carlton, love to hate. They are still harping on about the needle culture at Windy Hill.

So,.......is it any surprise that we are heavily featured in off season fluff pieces. After all, does anyone care whether North Melbourne are training the house down or Geelong is set to crack x number of Members? Nope. Essendon is a big club with a huge following that generates clicks more than any other.


Some of you may recall a recent Roy Morgan research study that had Sydney as the most followed club in the land with the Bombers second. This is a flawed study as clearly the sample base in Sydney, whether they follow football or not, will likely just state the Swans as their team. They recorded almost twice the number of followers than Essendon in second place! This seems wrong when you consider the number of empty seats in their 40,000 seat stadium.

http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2017 ... -supported
I'd be pretty sure the Poll data is flawed. There's no explanation of how "most supported" was calculated.
It could be possible though, if you also consider old South Melbourne fans (which explains why SCG seats are empty), and that a lot of people (anecdotally) simply like or have a soft spot for the Swans. Many of these people aren't members at all and barely even follow AFL, but they might have been included in the survey.
Disclaimer - the methodology of the Poll might be on Roy Morgan's website, but I can't be stuffed to have a look. Care factor = zero :)

Either way, we are the most supported football club in the country

grassy1
Champion of Essendon
Posts: 7471
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:48 pm

Re: How Does Our Midfield Rate with Shiel

Post by grassy1 » Sun Nov 04, 2018 1:23 pm

Are we?Good!I didn’t think we were quite there,but thanks to Sheeds mainly,our support over the past 38 years has skyrocketed.

We always had a good base to work from historically,but I’d love to know how many times we’ve topped the Million mark in Season Attendances and been top of the Ladder in the same category.

User avatar
Gimps
Champion of Essendon
Posts: 7802
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 12:11 pm
Location: Bumfuck Idaho

Re: How Does Our Midfield Rate with Shiel

Post by Gimps » Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:46 pm

Windy Hille wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:47 pm
Gimps wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:05 am
Windy Hille wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:32 pm
Rover99 wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:54 pm
Windy_Hill wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:33 am


Is there a wrong Windy?
Well I'm not sure but now I see that the Hille has rated him a B and McGrath a C+. So why did we even bother with Shiel?l 6 months time he'll?l be an A+ :D
Credit where it’s due. Langers was pumping more inside 50’s than any other player in the league over the month of July. His midfield work improved dramatically this season. Should have won the most Improved award ahead of Myers who was his usual inconsistent self.
Nice to see you’re still deluded.
Ah yes, I remember you saying the same thing when I said McKenna will be a player :lol:

My “delusions” v your predictions

Fair to say I’m winning
You guessed that McKenna would come good, was a 50/50 chance, wasn’t it? He’s been good, but has a lot of flaws and has a long way to go.

Langford on the same ranking as Zaka, f*** me drunk, you must be high?

User avatar
Windy Hille
High Draft Pick
Posts: 661
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 7:49 pm

Re: How Does Our Midfield Rate with Shiel

Post by Windy Hille » Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:46 am

Gimps wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:46 pm
Windy Hille wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:47 pm
Gimps wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:05 am
Windy Hille wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:32 pm
Rover99 wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:54 pm


Well I'm not sure but now I see that the Hille has rated him a B and McGrath a C+. So why did we even bother with Shiel?l 6 months time he'll?l be an A+ :D
Credit where it’s due. Langers was pumping more inside 50’s than any other player in the league over the month of July. His midfield work improved dramatically this season. Should have won the most Improved award ahead of Myers who was his usual inconsistent self.
Nice to see you’re still deluded.
Ah yes, I remember you saying the same thing when I said McKenna will be a player :lol:

My “delusions” v your predictions

Fair to say I’m winning
You guessed that McKenna would come good, was a 50/50 chance, wasn’t it? He’s been good, but has a lot of flaws and has a long way to go.

Langford on the same ranking as Zaka, f*** me drunk, you must be high?
Ok. But you also had a 50/50 chance and you got it wrong.

Don’t agree “he has a long way to go”. If that were the case, he’d be in and out of the team like a plunger. He finished top 10 in the Crichton. He’s an established player. What are his flaws by the way??

User avatar
boncer34
Champion of Essendon
Posts: 9108
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: How Does Our Midfield Rate with Shiel

Post by boncer34 » Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:13 pm

Windy Hille wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:46 am
Gimps wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:46 pm
Windy Hille wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:47 pm
Gimps wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:05 am
Windy Hille wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:32 pm

Credit where it’s due. Langers was pumping more inside 50’s than any other player in the league over the month of July. His midfield work improved dramatically this season. Should have won the most Improved award ahead of Myers who was his usual inconsistent self.
Nice to see you’re still deluded.
Ah yes, I remember you saying the same thing when I said McKenna will be a player :lol:

My “delusions” v your predictions

Fair to say I’m winning
You guessed that McKenna would come good, was a 50/50 chance, wasn’t it? He’s been good, but has a lot of flaws and has a long way to go.

Langford on the same ranking as Zaka, f*** me drunk, you must be high?
Ok. But you also had a 50/50 chance and you got it wrong.

Don’t agree “he has a long way to go”. If that were the case, he’d be in and out of the team like a plunger. He finished top 10 in the Crichton. He’s an established player. What are his flaws by the way??
Wouldn't bother mate.

Gimpa has issues admitting the bloke he wrote off as a 20 year old might actually be a decent footballer once he gets past the raw development stage.
Essendon Football Club- We arent arrogant, just better.

User avatar
Gimps
Champion of Essendon
Posts: 7802
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 12:11 pm
Location: Bumfuck Idaho

Re: How Does Our Midfield Rate with Shiel

Post by Gimps » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:21 pm

boncer34 wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:13 pm
Windy Hille wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:46 am
Gimps wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:46 pm
Windy Hille wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:47 pm
Gimps wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:05 am


Nice to see you’re still deluded.
Ah yes, I remember you saying the same thing when I said McKenna will be a player :lol:

My “delusions” v your predictions

Fair to say I’m winning
You guessed that McKenna would come good, was a 50/50 chance, wasn’t it? He’s been good, but has a lot of flaws and has a long way to go.

Langford on the same ranking as Zaka, f*** me drunk, you must be high?
Ok. But you also had a 50/50 chance and you got it wrong.

Don’t agree “he has a long way to go”. If that were the case, he’d be in and out of the team like a plunger. He finished top 10 in the Crichton. He’s an established player. What are his flaws by the way??
Wouldn't bother mate.

Gimpa has issues admitting the bloke he wrote off as a 20 year old might actually be a decent footballer once he gets past the raw development stage.
He was serviceable this year. You used the right words, “decent footballer”. And that is all he is in comparison to Zaka. There is not a hope in hell that he is at the same level.

He still needs to work on his pace, endurance, and awareness. Still gets caught with the ball far too much.

grassy1
Champion of Essendon
Posts: 7471
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:48 pm

Re: How Does Our Midfield Rate with Shiel

Post by grassy1 » Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:28 pm

According to Hagdorn on Perth Radio,we have been looking closely at 1 Zac Clarke.

Good,but I hope we do more than that.

User avatar
Windy Hille
High Draft Pick
Posts: 661
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 7:49 pm

Re: How Does Our Midfield Rate with Shiel

Post by Windy Hille » Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:34 pm

Gimps wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:21 pm
boncer34 wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:13 pm
Windy Hille wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:46 am
Gimps wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:46 pm
Windy Hille wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:47 pm

Ah yes, I remember you saying the same thing when I said McKenna will be a player :lol:

My “delusions” v your predictions

Fair to say I’m winning
You guessed that McKenna would come good, was a 50/50 chance, wasn’t it? He’s been good, but has a lot of flaws and has a long way to go.

Langford on the same ranking as Zaka, f*** me drunk, you must be high?
Ok. But you also had a 50/50 chance and you got it wrong.

Don’t agree “he has a long way to go”. If that were the case, he’d be in and out of the team like a plunger. He finished top 10 in the Crichton. He’s an established player. What are his flaws by the way??
Wouldn't bother mate.

Gimpa has issues admitting the bloke he wrote off as a 20 year old might actually be a decent footballer once he gets past the raw development stage.
He was serviceable this year. You used the right words, “decent footballer”. And that is all he is in comparison to Zaka. There is not a hope in hell that he is at the same level.

He still needs to work on his pace, endurance, and awareness. Still gets caught with the ball far too much.
I was talking about McKenna when I asked about his flaws (as you mentioned them about him).

But on the subject of Langers and Zak, if we’re going to split hairs, then let’s (for arguments sake) clarify the ratings. Both are different types of midfielders...Zak an outside runner, Langers an inside distributor. Naturally, they have different attributes - pace v creativity, endurance v grunt, experience v inexperience etc

Zak would be a B+ midfielder while Langers would be a B- midfielder. Still B Grade in my book.

User avatar
Windy_Hill
Champion of Essendon
Posts: 11573
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:23 pm

Re: How Does Our Midfield Rate with Shiel

Post by Windy_Hill » Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:23 pm

I stand by my original ratings after seeing the various discussions in this thread. However, its worth also considering the upside potential in which case the following I believe is plausible which is the second rating - future potential

Shiel - A > A+
Merrett - A > A+
Smith - B+ > A
Heppell - B+ > A
Zaharakis - B > B
McGrath - C+ > A
Parish - C+ > B+
Langford - C+ > B
Myers. - C > C
Guelfi - C- > B
Mutch - D > C+
Colyer - D = Gone
Clark - E > C

nudder12
Regular Senior Player
Posts: 1582
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:47 pm

Re: How Does Our Midfield Rate with Shiel

Post by nudder12 » Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:56 pm

Windy_Hill wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:23 pm
I stand by my original ratings after seeing the various discussions in this thread. However, its worth also considering the upside potential in which case the following I believe is plausible which is the second rating - future potential

Shiel - A > A+
Merrett - A > A+
Smith - B+ > A
Heppell - B+ > A
Zaharakis - B > B
McGrath - C+ > A
Parish - C+ > B+
Langford - C+ > B
Myers. - C > C
Guelfi - C- > B
Mutch - D > C+
Colyer - D = Gone
Clark - E > C
Care to explain your "upside potential ratings"??
Isn't everyone POTENTIALLY an A+.....IF they can (insert necessary skills improvements here) ??

User avatar
boncer34
Champion of Essendon
Posts: 9108
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: How Does Our Midfield Rate with Shiel

Post by boncer34 » Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:01 am

nudder12 wrote:
Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:56 pm
Windy_Hill wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:23 pm
I stand by my original ratings after seeing the various discussions in this thread. However, its worth also considering the upside potential in which case the following I believe is plausible which is the second rating - future potential

Shiel - A > A+
Merrett - A > A+
Smith - B+ > A
Heppell - B+ > A
Zaharakis - B > B
McGrath - C+ > A
Parish - C+ > B+
Langford - C+ > B
Myers. - C > C
Guelfi - C- > B
Mutch - D > C+
Colyer - D = Gone
Clark - E > C
Care to explain your "upside potential ratings"??
Isn't everyone POTENTIALLY an A+.....IF they can (insert necessary skills improvements here) ??
In theory. In reality someone like Clark has such poor skills the improvement needed to get to A+ would be insane.
Essendon Football Club- We arent arrogant, just better.

nudder12
Regular Senior Player
Posts: 1582
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:47 pm

Re: How Does Our Midfield Rate with Shiel

Post by nudder12 » Sat Nov 17, 2018 6:12 pm

boncer34 wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:01 am
nudder12 wrote:
Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:56 pm
Windy_Hill wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:23 pm
I stand by my original ratings after seeing the various discussions in this thread. However, its worth also considering the upside potential in which case the following I believe is plausible which is the second rating - future potential

Shiel - A > A+
Merrett - A > A+
Smith - B+ > A
Heppell - B+ > A
Zaharakis - B > B
McGrath - C+ > A
Parish - C+ > B+
Langford - C+ > B
Myers. - C > C
Guelfi - C- > B
Mutch - D > C+
Colyer - D = Gone
Clark - E > C
Care to explain your "upside potential ratings"??
Isn't everyone POTENTIALLY an A+.....IF they can (insert necessary skills improvements here) ??
In theory. In reality someone like Clark has such poor skills the improvement needed to get to A+ would be insane.
Fair enough (although I'm disappointed to hear Clark's skills are so poor).
But that leads me back to my query about the upside ratings.....which aspects of those players does Windy think can be improved, and which aspects cannot, resulting in his rating? Not trying to be difficult, or disagreeing, just curious about the perspective.

grassy1
Champion of Essendon
Posts: 7471
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:48 pm

Re: How Does Our Midfield Rate with Shiel

Post by grassy1 » Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:00 pm

Can’t be Zac Clarke’s skills we’re talking about here.

Not from what I saw in recent years.

User avatar
Windy Hille
High Draft Pick
Posts: 661
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 7:49 pm

Re: How Does Our Midfield Rate with Shiel

Post by Windy Hille » Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:36 am

grassy1 wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:00 pm
Can’t be Zac Clarke’s skills we’re talking about here.

Not from what I saw in recent years.
Was it his tapwork or footskills in particular? Disappointing if true :-k

grassy1
Champion of Essendon
Posts: 7471
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:48 pm

Re: How Does Our Midfield Rate with Shiel

Post by grassy1 » Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:49 am

Reckon it was Dylan Clark being discussed there Windy.

Big Zac has no worries getting Hit Outs.

If you were to worry,we’d have snapped up Sandilands from the Dorkers. :lol:

User avatar
Windy Hille
High Draft Pick
Posts: 661
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 7:49 pm

Re: How Does Our Midfield Rate with Shiel

Post by Windy Hille » Tue Nov 20, 2018 5:28 pm

grassy1 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:49 am
Reckon it was Dylan Clark being discussed there Windy.

Big Zac has no worries getting Hit Outs.

If you were to worry,we’d have snapped up Sandilands from the Dorkers. :lol:
Ah, that makes sense.

Would Zac be able to take on forward duties in tandem with Bellcho? Is his mobility good enough to be accountable up forward for rebounding defenders??

User avatar
Windy_Hill
Champion of Essendon
Posts: 11573
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:23 pm

Re: How Does Our Midfield Rate with Shiel

Post by Windy_Hill » Wed Nov 21, 2018 11:56 pm

nudder12 wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 6:12 pm
boncer34 wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:01 am
nudder12 wrote:
Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:56 pm
Windy_Hill wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:23 pm
I stand by my original ratings after seeing the various discussions in this thread. However, its worth also considering the upside potential in which case the following I believe is plausible which is the second rating - future potential

Shiel - A > A+
Merrett - A > A+
Smith - B+ > A
Heppell - B+ > A
Zaharakis - B > B
McGrath - C+ > A
Parish - C+ > B+
Langford - C+ > B
Myers. - C > C
Guelfi - C- > B
Mutch - D > C+
Colyer - D = Gone
Clark - E > C
Care to explain your "upside potential ratings"??
Isn't everyone POTENTIALLY an A+.....IF they can (insert necessary skills improvements here) ??
In theory. In reality someone like Clark has such poor skills the improvement needed to get to A+ would be insane.
Fair enough (although I'm disappointed to hear Clark's skills are so poor).
But that leads me back to my query about the upside ratings.....which aspects of those players does Windy think can be improved, and which aspects cannot, resulting in his rating? Not trying to be difficult, or disagreeing, just curious about the perspective.
This is obviously an exercise in pure speculation so there is no science to it rather just my own observations based on 45 years playing and studying the game. So yeah, Kobe Mutch could come out and surprise me by becoming an Elite footballer with 2 Brownlow medals to his name. I just dont think it will happen based on what I have seen (admittedly not mutch - :wink: ) - Kobe looks like your typical honest hardworking player that could probably carve out a career of 35 to 55 odd games over a six or seven year period. Thats not bad and better than most who get drafted. So if he can achieve that he qualifies as a C ranking in the future. Guelfi, who I gave seen a fair bit of strikes me as similar, hard working, middle of the road player. His aggression and determination are really positive characteristics but I haven't seen the glimpses of sheer class that above average players tend to show very early in their careers. I think its fair to say that players like Heppell, Zach Merrett, Andy McGrath each showed those glimpse of sheer class very early and have /will no doubt reach A to A+ level. Langford in my opinion has been around long enough now to show that he can be a B level player which would place him in the Top 10 on the future playing list - I have not seen any glimpses of an A or A+ potential. That doesnt mean he wont have games where he is BoG - not at all. But they will be once or twice a year as opposed to the five times a year that we should expect from an A or A+ player. I would suggest Laverde has shown more "glimpses" of potential than Langford,but perhaps lacks the hunger to ever be more than a B grade. Parish is an interesting one. In my opinion he needs to step up a little more next year with a clearer role having been defined for him in 2018. He has the basic skills but perhaps not the physical attributes to really go much further than a B or maybe at most , B+. Nevertheless, that would again make him a top 10 selection in years to come and a 150+ game player. Zaharakis remains a B. Some could argue he deserves a B+. In my opinion he doesn't. We need to see more consistency from Zaka who is going into his 10th season now and is amazingly approaching his career twighlight (that famous ANZAC day goal seems like only yesterday!!). Zaka remains in my opinion a B grade player based on his output over the years. He may have a stunner next season and slide into the A level. By that I mean, 10+ Brownlow votes, a Top 2 finish in the Crichton, 20+ games, average 25+ disposals

So that's my thinking - don't profess to be perfect or correct in my assumptions

Post Reply