He’s been dropped (often unfairly imo) and left in the reserves for several years. I suspect it’s got bugger all to do with him deciding to leave.
He didn’t and hasn’t.
3 Likes
don’t know why they’d speculate on something they’re ignorant on. if something feels off its because i don’t have all the info.
1 Like
Probably the dumbest theory I’ve heard on Blitz
3 Likes
Oh boy. Have you forgotten the saga so soon?
3 Likes
It wasn’t a theory.
yeah cmon read man, it was a crazy scenario
1 Like
I just don’t get it with Langford the club obviously thought he’d be something this year.
They gave him #4
Hyped him up all preseason
Played one bad game and was dropped for Myers who has had plenty of stinkers and now he can’t get a look in.
I’ve never seen such a disconnect from the club and it’s supporter base and that includes the saga.
2 Likes
He would not have even been in the side if Myers wasn’t injured at start of season
We were lining up to go with Myers and Stringer as they’d been our best performed in clearance & contested work all preseason.
Myers got injured so Langford came in as a big body.
In Round1 Langford however had about 90% of his possessions uncontested. And then we lost to Freo.
Myers fit again and in he came to play inside role, needed moreso as Stringers impact limited.
It’s not Myers he competing with as Langford is not a contested clearance mid. Unfortunately for us Myers is the best we had in that area and he is average… hopefully Clarke comes in soon.
Watson gave him the #4. Not the club.
Does anyone here really think Skipworth or Worsfold were consulted about this?
I don’t know how they make the decisions.
I think I heard on here Watto handed it down Hird-like
Not sure the numbers are a reflection of anything. Never understood the No. 5 complaints on Stants and won’t understand the No. 4 complaints on Langford.
Almost as good as passing comment on hair cuts, beards the month players are born in and whether they smile.
1 Like
Except its a bit different because Stants played nearly 100 games before he was handed the fabled number, whereas Langfords very future at the club is up in the air, and hasnt even put a season of footy together.
Should have rested number 4 for a couple of years until we found an adequate replacement.
I agree with this but you still have to question what the thinking of the club is. The club DID give him No# 4. That did seem to indicate that they had plans for him (Langford). The current situation only makes sense to me if they are actually happy for Langford to spend time honing his craft in the two’s and despite many peoples opinions, as far as Essendon is concerned Langford is tracking as planned.
The other scenario (which is popular here at the moment) is that the club has been living in La La Land as far as it’s midfield prospects are concerned and the players have failed to develop as planed/hoped/prayed/sacrificed animals to pagan gods and that this thread is a huge waste of text on a player who is never going to have a significant AFL career.
I can understand the difference between the two with respect to the amount of games. My point is that regardless of holding it, or not holding it, the jumper will never transfer from one brownlow medalist directly to another brownlow medalist.
Put it this way, I’d prefer to get grumpy at what the players do or don’t do, inside and not outside their control and the jumper number is not a reflection of this. Just a bit of fan romance.
1 Like
For the 3000th time. The club never handed Kyle no 4, Jobe did. Just like Hird, not the club, gave Stants no 5.
3 Likes
You’re probably right.
Yes but thats not nearly half as interesting.
I may have missed a few posts (I usually avoid any match threads and losing match review threads), but by my count it’s only 2847
6 Likes
The rest were flagged for inappropriate content.
5 Likes
Right, let’s name the Draft and Trade page after some sad K.D. Lang song and also rename this thread “#4 Languishing in the VFL”.
You know you want to get back to doing puns again, Blitz