Obscure for a reason, by the looks of that.
2 Likes
That was a good read. I especially liked the use of the term “rover” when describing Parish. There’s not enough of that these days.
And thus is built the Strawman.
What a rubbish, self-indulgent pos ‘article’.
2 Likes
Yeah I don’t really agree with the premise at all
The article is kinda funny really
First couple of paragraphs: ‘lol delusional essendon fans think they’re going to be really good this year’
Rest of article: ‘this analysis of essendon’s list shows that they’re going to be really good this year’
I mean, there ARE legit question marks over us going into the season (ruck depth, 2nd key defensive post behind Hurley, ability to compete in a stoppage-heavy game) but after talking us down in the first chunk of the article, the author doesn’t even mention this stuff.
10 Likes
I’m not sure ruck depth is necessarily our problem…it’s the quality of the first 3 rucks that is a concern. We need TBell or Lueunberger to have a big year.
Everything but the initial premise of the article is a good read.
2 Likes
I like the bit where he says Essendon is good.
I didn’t like the bit where he said Essendon is bad.
21 Likes
Possibly the worst constructed bench four ever. It’s as if he’s said these guys are good enough to be in the 22 but can’t find spots for them. At least 3 of the 4 should be rotating midfielders and the fourth a utility tall.
But I have been telling my Geelong-supporting family members just to buy me the pre-paid premiership victory pack of DVDs or Blu-Rays.
1 Like
A communications specialist shows “a little flare” and gets bagged for it… yeah, I glossed over the rest after seeing that one.
These communication specialists selecting our best 22, in position, & naming Hooker in the backline are either stupid, arrogant or just have NFI.
What’s the farking point speculating about it when the coaches continually tell us he will be playing fwd.
They might as well name Barry Grinter at fullback; it’s about as likely.
So stop wasting everyone’s time!
2 Likes
Seems more a fanboy blogger than journo/com specialist, no?
Yep, blitzers usually only do that with one or two of their bench spots.
Perhaps the writer wanted to appeal to both Essendon fans and the haters. I think you hit the nail on the head HM. Another alternative is that he started from an position of bias against Essendon but then as he thought about it his position evolved to a more balanced assesment
Brisbane did not rob us of back-to-back flags (or a dynasty for that matter). Our 2000 team was better than any of their flags. EFCs complete mismanagement of their salary cap is what robbed us of more flags.
3 Likes
Salary cap stuff ups had zero to do with 2001. Hird, fletch, long, and wallis all being injured mattered though.
5 Likes
Bewick being let go didn’t help, either.
I think he’s right when he says too many people are assuming too much about how good our list is. We certainly have some very good players, but at this stage Joe Daniher is the only one you can call a matchwinner, and all the “best 22s” you see have quite a few who are in there on the basis of potential rather than proven ability.
I hope he’s right about Worsfold keeping the players level-headed, because they need to keep working their arses off if we really are to be really in it next year.
Hurley and Hooker are both proven AA and are match winners on their day. I would add Merrett to that group also.
Fantasia and Walla are not far behind.
Stringer is also proven elite but obviously needs to prove himself again.
I’m curious who you think from Footscray and Richmond were elite before starting there premiership campaigns.
1 Like
I agree. But What is the definition of a match winner anyway?
I reckon arguably Richmond only have Martin and maybe Rance. The rest just all played their role very well. You need lots of blokes doing that regardless of how many mystical match winners you have
2 Likes