Huge game vs the Cattery
- tonysoprano
- Club Captain
- Posts: 4639
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:31 pm
- Location: Perth
Re: Huge game vs the Cattery
....and I really can't see how skills are actually going to improve mid-season. Or mid-career?
Re: Huge game vs the Cattery
There's about 6 other players I'd drop before him.little_ripper wrote:Half of those who played in the seniors would have been dropped from the seconds based on the 2nd quarter performance.
Zach Merrett, Adam Cooney and Jake Melksham kicked at 55% efficiency
In Jake Melkshams game, he had 16 possessions for 8 Clangers.
So 50% of his disposals ended up as Turnovers. And we keep playing/paying/keeping this guy why???
Well I guess at least he can box.
FFS.
If Jake Melksham is not dropped then this club has no clue. I cannot see his worth to the side.
He has company, but really sticks out at the moment.
Essendunny
Re: Huge game vs the Cattery
7 inside 50s (Equal highest) and one goal assist. Interesting one to single out.BenDoolan wrote:There's about 6 other players I'd drop before him.little_ripper wrote:Half of those who played in the seniors would have been dropped from the seconds based on the 2nd quarter performance.
Zach Merrett, Adam Cooney and Jake Melksham kicked at 55% efficiency
In Jake Melkshams game, he had 16 possessions for 8 Clangers.
So 50% of his disposals ended up as Turnovers. And we keep playing/paying/keeping this guy why???
Well I guess at least he can box.
FFS.
If Jake Melksham is not dropped then this club has no clue. I cannot see his worth to the side.
He has company, but really sticks out at the moment.
-
- Champion of Essendon
- Posts: 7110
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:51 pm
- Location: Sydney (Don't hold it against me)
- Contact:
Re: Huge game vs the Cattery
And how many of those inside 50's were effective and at what stage was his ONLY goal assist?Sismis wrote:7 inside 50s (Equal highest) and one goal assist. Interesting one to single out.BenDoolan wrote:There's about 6 other players I'd drop before him.little_ripper wrote:Half of those who played in the seniors would have been dropped from the seconds based on the 2nd quarter performance.
Zach Merrett, Adam Cooney and Jake Melksham kicked at 55% efficiency
In Jake Melkshams game, he had 16 possessions for 8 Clangers.
So 50% of his disposals ended up as Turnovers. And we keep playing/paying/keeping this guy why???
Well I guess at least he can box.
FFS.
If Jake Melksham is not dropped then this club has no clue. I cannot see his worth to the side.
He has company, but really sticks out at the moment.
In a good side, Melksham could be carried, in our side, his 1 in 4 good performances are not enough...
-
- Top Up Player
- Posts: 170
- Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 5:46 pm
Re: Huge game vs the Cattery
A free kick is a clanger. It counts to the total and Jake had 4 FA and 4 disposal clangers.
I'd be playing Jake in front of Stanton every day of the week.
I'd be playing Jake in front of Stanton every day of the week.
- little_ripper
- Club Captain
- Posts: 3816
- Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:46 am
- Location: At a computer screen, punching out garbage on BT.
Re: Huge game vs the Cattery
Melksham runs 2nd in the comp to Buddy for Clangers.(who you can't really compare).
Equal to Fyfe. So yes I wouldnt on its own link it to bad performance.
but he doesnt get much of the pill, and his disposal efficiency is not great. he has maybe one or two noteable passes inside 50 a game.
Equal to Fyfe. So yes I wouldnt on its own link it to bad performance.
but he doesnt get much of the pill, and his disposal efficiency is not great. he has maybe one or two noteable passes inside 50 a game.
Re: Huge game vs the Cattery
He plays a negating game so he won't get much of the ball. His disposal has been crud. Just like 99% of the team. I would much rather persist with a bloke who applies pressure on the opposition rather than someone who allows his opponent to run amok. Any. Day. Of. The. Week.little_ripper wrote:Melksham runs 2nd in the comp to Buddy for Clangers.(who you can't really compare).
Equal to Fyfe. So yes I wouldnt on its own link it to bad performance.
but he doesnt get much of the pill, and his disposal efficiency is not great. he has maybe one or two noteable passes inside 50 a game.
Essendunny
-
- Champion of Essendon
- Posts: 7110
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:51 pm
- Location: Sydney (Don't hold it against me)
- Contact:
Re: Huge game vs the Cattery
What negating game is that?BenDoolan wrote:He plays a negating game so he won't get much of the ball. His disposal has been crud. Just like 99% of the team. I would much rather persist with a bloke who applies pressure on the opposition rather than someone who allows his opponent to run amok. Any. Day. Of. The. Week.little_ripper wrote:Melksham runs 2nd in the comp to Buddy for Clangers.(who you can't really compare).
Equal to Fyfe. So yes I wouldnt on its own link it to bad performance.
but he doesnt get much of the pill, and his disposal efficiency is not great. he has maybe one or two noteable passes inside 50 a game.
He has no idea how to defend (I know it's the obvious example but did you see how well he played 'on' Cotchin)...
I would rather keep Ambrose in the side - at least he works his arse off to pressure opponents (that's his one saving grace...)
Re: Huge game vs the Cattery
Yep, let's get rid of Hurley, drop Melksham, keep Stanton and Ambrose in the team. Winna!Crazyman wrote:What negating game is that?BenDoolan wrote:He plays a negating game so he won't get much of the ball. His disposal has been crud. Just like 99% of the team. I would much rather persist with a bloke who applies pressure on the opposition rather than someone who allows his opponent to run amok. Any. Day. Of. The. Week.little_ripper wrote:Melksham runs 2nd in the comp to Buddy for Clangers.(who you can't really compare).
Equal to Fyfe. So yes I wouldnt on its own link it to bad performance.
but he doesnt get much of the pill, and his disposal efficiency is not great. he has maybe one or two noteable passes inside 50 a game.
He has no idea how to defend (I know it's the obvious example but did you see how well he played 'on' Cotchin)...
I would rather keep Ambrose in the side - at least he works his arse off to pressure opponents (that's his one saving grace...)
Essendunny
Re: Huge game vs the Cattery
If I was Hooker I would be pissed. Absolutely destroyed Hawkins in any contest where he had a remote chance of being able to affect it, yet Hawkins still ended up kicking 4 for the night because we turned it over so many times coming out of the defensive 50, the Geelong players were able to slam it back in the 50 and hit Hawkins on the tit.
-
- Champion of Essendon
- Posts: 7110
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:51 pm
- Location: Sydney (Don't hold it against me)
- Contact:
Re: Huge game vs the Cattery
Good on ya BD, keep taking things completely out of context because you don't agree with my sentiments on an hypothetical trade where I have expressed an opinion different to yours...BenDoolan wrote:Yep, let's get rid of Hurley, drop Melksham, keep Stanton and Ambrose in the team. Winna!Crazyman wrote:What negating game is that?BenDoolan wrote:He plays a negating game so he won't get much of the ball. His disposal has been crud. Just like 99% of the team. I would much rather persist with a bloke who applies pressure on the opposition rather than someone who allows his opponent to run amok. Any. Day. Of. The. Week.little_ripper wrote:Melksham runs 2nd in the comp to Buddy for Clangers.(who you can't really compare).
Equal to Fyfe. So yes I wouldnt on its own link it to bad performance.
but he doesnt get much of the pill, and his disposal efficiency is not great. he has maybe one or two noteable passes inside 50 a game.
He has no idea how to defend (I know it's the obvious example but did you see how well he played 'on' Cotchin)...
I would rather keep Ambrose in the side - at least he works his arse off to pressure opponents (that's his one saving grace...)
1 - I never mentioned Stanton and hope he gets dumped
2 - Hurley was in reference to a hypothetical choice of trade between two players with my stated preference to keep both
3 - Ambrose, sure, he's not getting enough of the pill (neither is Milkshake) and Ambrose is not hitting the scoreboard (again, neither is Milkshake), but at least Ambrose gives a f*** and puts something resembling pressure on an opponent, at what point has Jake Milkshake ever done that?
Come on, you can do better that the above...
Re: Huge game vs the Cattery
OK;Crazyman wrote:Good on ya BD, keep taking things completely out of context because you don't agree with my sentiments on an hypothetical trade where I have expressed an opinion different to yours...BenDoolan wrote:Yep, let's get rid of Hurley, drop Melksham, keep Stanton and Ambrose in the team. Winna!Crazyman wrote:What negating game is that?BenDoolan wrote:He plays a negating game so he won't get much of the ball. His disposal has been crud. Just like 99% of the team. I would much rather persist with a bloke who applies pressure on the opposition rather than someone who allows his opponent to run amok. Any. Day. Of. The. Week.little_ripper wrote:Melksham runs 2nd in the comp to Buddy for Clangers.(who you can't really compare).
Equal to Fyfe. So yes I wouldnt on its own link it to bad performance.
but he doesnt get much of the pill, and his disposal efficiency is not great. he has maybe one or two noteable passes inside 50 a game.
He has no idea how to defend (I know it's the obvious example but did you see how well he played 'on' Cotchin)...
I would rather keep Ambrose in the side - at least he works his arse off to pressure opponents (that's his one saving grace...)
1 - I never mentioned Stanton and hope he gets dumped
2 - Hurley was in reference to a hypothetical choice of trade between two players with my stated preference to keep both
3 - Ambrose, sure, he's not getting enough of the pill (neither is Milkshake) and Ambrose is not hitting the scoreboard (again, neither is Milkshake), but at least Ambrose gives a f*** and puts something resembling pressure on an opponent, at what point has Jake Milkshake ever done that?
Come on, you can do better that the above...
1. I made reference to persisting with someone who applies pressure (Melksham) rather than someone who lets his opponent run amok (Stanton). So, you'd rather be stuck with an unaccountable bag of shit.
2. The Hurley reference is to highlight that you'd rather see a guy who puts his heart & soul into playing for our club traded away over a bloke who just doesn't give a shit.
3. Ambrose occupies a position in our forward line and is expected to contribute something to the scoreboard. I admire his tackling efforts. They've been great. But his meagre contributions up forward should no longer be tolerated. If you cannot see that Melksham has done well this season in his tagging role (apart from the last couple of weeks), then you are not a good observer.
Essendunny
Re: Huge game vs the Cattery
I agree. Really felt sorry for him that he was burned by several arsonists in our midfield.ealesy wrote:If I was Hooker I would be pissed. Absolutely destroyed Hawkins in any contest where he had a remote chance of being able to affect it, yet Hawkins still ended up kicking 4 for the night because we turned it over so many times coming out of the defensive 50, the Geelong players were able to slam it back in the 50 and hit Hawkins on the tit.
Essendunny
-
- Champion of Essendon
- Posts: 7110
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:51 pm
- Location: Sydney (Don't hold it against me)
- Contact:
Re: Huge game vs the Cattery
1 - Actually, you didn't compare Melksham to Stanton, you simply commented on dropping Melksham and keeping both Stanton and Ambrose, however, if your point was to compare Melksham to Stanton, then I agree with you, f***, I would almost take Cupido or Zantuck over Stanton...however, when referencing to pressure, surely even you have to concede that Melksham is not doing that right now...BenDoolan wrote:OK;
1. I made reference to persisting with someone who applies pressure (Melksham) rather than someone who lets his opponent run amok (Stanton). So, you'd rather be stuck with an unaccountable bag of shit.
2. The Hurley reference is to highlight that you'd rather see a guy who puts his heart & soul into playing for our club traded away over a bloke who just doesn't give a shit.
3. Ambrose occupies a position in our forward line and is expected to contribute something to the scoreboard. I admire his tackling efforts. They've been great. But his meagre contributions up forward should no longer be tolerated. If you cannot see that Melksham has done well this season in his tagging role (apart from the last couple of weeks), then you are not a good observer.
2 - Hurley, you and others are shooting me down for suggesting we should trade Hurley instead of Carlisle. Tell me, what position of strength does EFC have in regards to Carlisle when he can simply walk at the end of the year? I agree Hurls bleeds red & black and would give his left nut for the club, but f***, what percentage of players and clubs are about loyalty now-a-days? Also, please, do tell who you think has sufficient currency to get even a half decent trade over the line? Who would you happily put on the table that has any real currency?
3 - I agree Ambrose does not hit the scoreboard and should be dropped, just not on the basis of pressure which is what was originally referred to re Melksham...f***, right now both Melksham and Ambrose + Stanton (permanently) need a spell in the Magoos...however, assuming TBell is dropped, I would not want to see more than another 2 players dropped and Stanton is at the top of that list, so the question is, do you drop a guy that doesn't hit the board but tackles or a midfielder that right now doesn't know how to defend a stoppage?
Re: Huge game vs the Cattery
To use the terms "Trade" and "Hurley" in the same sentence defies belief. You want to get rid of a proven performer who is having his best year, a guy who bleeds for the club and who attacks the ball like a maniac, for some reject or high draft pick who may turn into absolute duds.
Hurley is the type of guy you build your team around, not someone who can be traded just because he has currency.
Hurley is the type of guy you build your team around, not someone who can be traded just because he has currency.
Too far for Baker now he's on to it, now he’s got it, OPEN GOAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Dons are in front by one point at the 8 minute mark
Re: Huge game vs the Cattery
To use the terms "Trade" and "Hurley" in the same sentence defies belief. You want to get rid of a proven performer who is having his best year, a guy who bleeds for the club and who attacks the ball like a maniac, for some reject or high draft pick who may turn into absolute duds.
Hurley is the type of guy you build your team around, not someone who can be traded just because he has currency.
Hurley is the type of guy you build your team around, not someone who can be traded just because he has currency.
Too far for Baker now he's on to it, now he’s got it, OPEN GOAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Dons are in front by one point at the 8 minute mark
Re: Huge game vs the Cattery
Have no idea when his ONLY assist was? The entire game is a blur. But I do know it was 1 out the 7 we kicked... He is ranked 11 in I50s in the league.Crazyman wrote:And how many of those inside 50's were effective and at what stage was his ONLY goal assist?Sismis wrote:7 inside 50s (Equal highest) and one goal assist. Interesting one to single out.BenDoolan wrote:There's about 6 other players I'd drop before him.little_ripper wrote:Half of those who played in the seniors would have been dropped from the seconds based on the 2nd quarter performance.
Zach Merrett, Adam Cooney and Jake Melksham kicked at 55% efficiency
In Jake Melkshams game, he had 16 possessions for 8 Clangers.
So 50% of his disposals ended up as Turnovers. And we keep playing/paying/keeping this guy why???
Well I guess at least he can box.
FFS.
If Jake Melksham is not dropped then this club has no clue. I cannot see his worth to the side.
He has company, but really sticks out at the moment.
In a good side, Melksham could be carried, in our side, his 1 in 4 good performances are not enough...
- j-mac31
- Essendon Legend
- Posts: 15233
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:13 pm
- Location: The city of brotherly love (Detroit)
Re: Huge game vs the Cattery
Hooker used to be completely incompetent.tonysoprano wrote:....and I really can't see how skills are actually going to improve mid-season. Or mid-career?
Aaron Francis is the Messiah.
- j-mac31
- Essendon Legend
- Posts: 15233
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:13 pm
- Location: The city of brotherly love (Detroit)
Re: Huge game vs the Cattery
He definitely needs to improve as a coach and I think he already said that earlier this year, but why assume at this stage that he won't?hop wrote:Can Hirdy see his short-comings and can he do anything about it? The litmus test is here and we have up to 12 Rounds to find out. The club is 10% down on membership from last year and the way we are travelling we will be lucky to get to 50,000 members next year.
He now has to perform as coach as he once did as a player. I think it maybe too much to ask.
He missed all of last year and this is his first year without Bomber. Maybe some shit games now and some list changes at the end of the season will have him doing better by this time next year.
Also C Scott was on Talking Footy last night and seemed quite pleased to admit that he's a better coach now than when he won a premiership.
Aaron Francis is the Messiah.