Bombertalk

We've won 2 of our last 12 at the G. It's because we've got no run through the middle, and no accountability. I'd like to see us play more games at the G just so we start to play accountable football again.

I think the winds of change are in the air at EFC. Whether this means that Sheedy is retained for next year, I'm not sure. However, I think we'll see a drastically changed playing style next year. We need to model our game on Geelong - they can play a very effective brand of "run and gun" football, but can close things down at the flick of a switch if the situation demands. The question is whether we have the personel to implement such a game plan.

We need to start recruiting palyers for a specific role. The days of drafting
"utilities" are over. We need quick, ball carriers who have sublime finishing skills. This must be our priority in this year's draft/trading period.

I agree. We need more games at the G so we can let guys like Stanton and Watson run amuck.

It's been said for years - more games at the 'G. Sounding like a cracked record really.

Our bookends are outstanding. We have some good talent coming through in and around the midfield - which will only improve. And I think we're only going to improve even more if we can successfully build on what we've got in the draft/trading periods.

Playing and winning more games at the 'G is a must. We MUST beat the scum and 16thmond, we MUST beat or match it with the filth and ditto with the Dawks. From those 4 games, if we can get 3/4 then things are on the improve. 2/4 - good, but not outstanding. 0/4 or 1/4 - we have a long, long way to go.

Why do we play so few games at the G anyway?

My memory fails me (it often seems to do that these days).
When we agreed to move to Colonial Stadium (or whatever it was called then), didn't the agreement include a minimum number of games still to be played at the G? Or did I imagine the whole thing?

We used to be good at the MCG and even though we have hardly won there for 3 years or so we can still play better there than we have as we have a team capable of playing on all sorts of grounds.

Collingwood aren't an overly quick side and seem to like a slog which could help us alot this weekend.

I tell you one thing, I hope we never have to play 3 in a row at the phone dome ever again. That hard packed sand on that ground has more to do with our soft tissue injuries that Quinn ever did.

I predicted on BB in mid June that we would win the 1st game & lose the next 2, with soft tissue injuries occurring in the 2nd & 3rd game & that's exactly what happened (Hird, Fletch, Campo).

We played very lack lustre on Anzac Day after a 4 day break playing on that compacted sand & i'm expecting a pretty ordinary performance this week against the filth.

Will be watching the Doggies next 2 games at the phone dome with great interest.

Yup, all that money we make securing our future is definately not worth it.....

Sismis wrote:Yup, all that money we make securing our future is definately not worth it.....

Yep, not playing finals is a good way of attracting sponsors. We may have secured our future, but at what cost? The ground is a disgrace, its very hard and the players pull up very sore.

But hey, being profitable is more important than winning premierships.

Indeed, as long as we have money to pay board members and set up expensive on-line auction sites, who gives a f*** about the ladder?

Where did we win our last premiership? Coincidentally also our most succesful season ever!

Ask Carlton how important off-feild success is.

Ask North Melbourne how inportant good facilities are.

The change was all for money and at the time we were successful on the field. So the plan was to attract 50,000 members and fill the place (Essendon and Collingwood being the only two Melbourne teams with half a chance in doing so).

Roll on 2007 where we haven't been doing so well on the park, but still very well off it. What would I prefer? On park success of course, but if we didn't have money behind us.....the success could be very short lived. I'm talking to you Geelong and Bulldogs.

My memory fails me (it often seems to do that these days).
When we agreed to move to Colonial Stadium (or whatever it was called then), didn't the agreement include a minimum number of games still to be played at the G? Or did I imagine the whole thing?

I think that we only acheived games at the G if they were blockbusters. Not too many of them for a team that finished 15th in 2006.

If we have won 2 of our last 12 at the 'G' - why would anyone want us to play more games there?

Sorry - I lapsed into 'Board' mode.

Our biggest mistake was to move from the 'G'. A place we once owned has become alien territory.

We wont top 33,000 members at the theatre when we should have 40,000

Sismis wrote:Where did we win our last premiership? Coincidentally also our most succesful season ever!

Ask Carlton how important off-feild success is.

Ask North Melbourne how inportant good facilities are.

I couldn't give a flying **** about the Bloos & Roos. Why don't you look at the filth, who are now the Number One team in Vic, a title we used to own. They have got plenty of cash, better facilities than us, & win more games at the G than we ever do. Too bad they have ordinary players, because they should be the best performed Vic team, year after year.

Next time I hear people whinge about what a soft draw the Filth get, I say, well let's get our mantle back of being the best team in Vic instead of sooking about it. You finish high on the ladder with the biggest attendances, you get an easier draw the following year.

And next time people whinge about our soft tissue injuries & blaming Quinn, I say stop playing consecutive games on that hard sand.

I was down in Melb for the Cats game & couldn't get a ticket for Hirdy's 250th. If that game had been at the G, there would have been 70k+ there.

Yeah let's play at the Phone Dome because it makes our club better off - pffft. As Rossi said, I'd take a flag any day.

And it's not like we were skint when we played at the G in the 90's - we were still the number one club in Vic in the 90's (both on field & off field).

And we would have won 2000 playing on a paddock in Bacchus Marsh.

And how many soft tissue injuries have the Doggies & Saints got atm?

Surely the financial future of EFC was not so bad that we HAD to move to the dome?

I think we would still get by very well without playing there.

Rossoneri wrote:

Sismis wrote:Yup, all that money we make securing our future is definately not worth it.....

Yep, not playing finals is a good way of attracting sponsors. We may have secured our future, but at what cost? The ground is a disgrace, its very hard and the players pull up very sore.

But hey, being profitable is more important than winning premierships.

If you think our association with Telstra Dome has been the reason we haven't played won a premiership in the past 5 years, you're kidding yourself.

What is the logic behind playing at the G will win you a flag? The strongest Victorian contenders of the last few years have been:

St Kilda: Where's their home ground again?
Geelong: Play less games at the G than we do!

What is your "Best team in vic" based on? When did we have more money than Collingwood?

How does a hard surface equate to soft tissue injuries? I could understand, kness and ankles which act as shock absorbers being damaged, yet we don't seem to have an over abundance of those issues.... Stress fractures maybe? once again there doesn't seem to be many.....

Sismis wrote:What is the logic behind playing at the G will win you a flag? The strongest Victorian contenders of the last few years have been:

St Kilda: Where's their home ground again?
Geelong: Play less games at the G than we do!

What is your "Best team in vic" based on? When did we have more money than Collingwood?

How does a hard surface equate to soft tissue injuries? I could understand, kness and ankles which act as shock absorbers being damaged, yet we don't seem to have an over abundance of those issues.... Stress fractures maybe? once again there doesn't seem to be many.....

Here are some reasons in dot point form:

1) Other than the SCG and occasionally Docklands, finals are played on big grounds

2) Essendon are rubbish on big grounds

3) We need to be able to play on big grounds to win finals

4) Ipso facto, we need to play more games on the MCG.

On top of that is we can fit more people into the MCG, the MCC is there, there is full strength beer, the Cougar Bar is NOT there…need I go on?

I can't remember us losing all that many games at Subi, Waverley and the MCG in 99/00/01

Yes, we have lost 2 of the last 12 at the MCG, but that includes last year, when we were lucky to win at any stadium in the land, and the year before when we lost more games than we won.

I think, so far, that it's a statistical anomaly, rather than anything else. The next few games will show more about this percieved difficulty on larger grounds than at any time in the last 2 years.

Sismis wrote:What is the logic behind playing at the G will win you a flag? The strongest Victorian contenders of the last few years have been:

St Kilda: Where's their home ground again?
Geelong: Play less games at the G than we do!

What is your "Best team in vic" based on? When did we have more money than Collingwood?

How does a hard surface equate to soft tissue injuries? I could understand, kness and ankles which act as shock absorbers being damaged, yet we don't seem to have an over abundance of those issues.... Stress fractures maybe? once again there doesn't seem to be many.....

Collingwood are the number one team in Vic re resources, training facilities, number of members, average attendances - all they lack is decent players & they are slowly fixing that with their influx of young blokes.

St Kilda would have been more successful in the last few years if they had no gotten so many injuries from playing at the Phone Dome & had such a crap coach as Grant Thomas.

Believe it or not, Kardinia Park is almost identical in size to the 'G' & has a good soft surface. Geelong has the best playing list in the comp, the best coach & will more than likely break the drought this year (maybe).

With our soft tissue injuries, it's not just the hard packed sand that is causing damage, it's the shifting surface also.

Sismis, I've never ever read one post from you that knocks the EFC - basically in your eyes they can do no wrong. Well I'm of a different opinion & all I know is that throughout the 80's & 90's, we were the number one team in Vic & we owned the G - no one liked playing us there, whereas nowadays even crap teams like Ninthmond & the Scum reckon they are a good chance of knocking us off there.

If you are staisfied with us forever being the number 2 side in Vic & no chance of winning finals at the G, but are financially better off, good luck to you. We were doing nicely in the 90's before the move & were the Vic side that no-one liked playing. Now it's like let's just get them away from the cozy confines of the Phone Dome (or play against us in the 2nd or 3rd consecutive game when we are physically stuffed) to get our chance of beating them.