We scored 58 points from defensive half. Our past three matches have produced three of the top four defensive-half scoring matches of the season as well as being more than any other team for the entire season.
When we lost to St Kilda it was 9 points from 70 opportunities.
1 Like
Watching the replay I was very happy to see Woosha get frustrated and yell in the box in the third quarter when Parish shanked the kick across half back.
6 Likes
Thanks for sharing.
Honestly though, what part of the last 15 years would give an Essendon player confidence that things just happen for this club.
Yep.
The pies are the benchmark, so it should be a good test of how good we really are ATM.
No excuses either way, if we win, there should be no denying Woosha has this list up and running and we should be contending this year.
If we lose, we can’t blame the 6 day break or injuries, or rust or a poor list, etc, and Woosha will continue to have a question mark over him.
Woosha Hates The Kids- or does he?
One of the repeated tropes on Blitz is that Woosha hates the kids.
Now everyone has their favourite young players who might not be getting a game, myself included (Draper please), but I thought it might be interesting to actually look at some numbers.
Round 5 is a fair snapshot- far enough in to see if a kid tried in Round 1 or 2 has held his spot. Not too far to burn kids out, or see teams go into rebuilding ( or tanking) mode.
Definition of a Kid - 21 years old, or younger on game day.
Essendon - 6
Norf- 4
Serious finals contenders
Collingwood- 2
WC - 3
GWS - 4
Geelong - 5
Richmond. - 6
‘Young teams’
Brisbane. - 5
St Kilda - 3
Freo - 4
Hack teams on the supposed slide
Hawthorn - 6
Sydney - 5
Port- 6
A couple of notes.
I chose 21 as the definition because it evens up draft picks - access to early draft picks means high pick 19 year olds are more AFL ready than a later draft pick who may need more time to develop/ put on muscle etc. Age 21 is a fairer measure of a coaches willingness to pick young blokes.
Variables. I know we had two late ins on Friday under21. But the same can be said for many other teams as injuries hit - Richmond without Rance Riewoldt & Cotchin for example. The coaches choice is still to pick kids, or older mid- career replacements. Even without Ham & Guelfi included we’re firmly mid table, if not higher.
These numbers actually surprised me. Maybe it’s because I don’t follow other teams closely enough to realise that many of their supposed kids are actually 22 or 23 years old.
So, next time someone parrots ‘Woosha hates the kids’, maybe they should do a reality check.
PS - I didn’t bother doing the numbers for totally rebuilding teams like Gold Coast & FarkCarlton- feel free to do it yourselves
8 Likes
As a mild Worsfold lover, I think he’s been a bit too conservative.
Is this 21 years inclusive or is exactly 21 the cut off?
Would have to be inclusive - Redman & Parish are 21, Ridley & McGrath 20 , Ham 19.
I think it illustrates there’s just not that many 1st & 2nd years getting consistent games.
1 Like
I’m not one of the ‘play the kids’ mob.
But I do think it’s pretty clear that we have a pattern of dropping younger players for more senior ones.
We’re going to have an issue at the end of the year with players like Langford, Laverde, Begley, you’d hope not Francis but he must be included, and perhaps Parish if he can’t retain his position.
These guys are going to be asking themselves if Essendon is the best place for them to continue their career.
Again, I’m not criticising. That just seems a reasonable possibility to me.
And it could be an opportunity for us, too.
1 Like
As I said it includes players who are 21.
This doesn’t skew the numbers particularly.
For example, the ‘young’ Bears have 5 players 21 and under in this Rounds side.
Three of those 5 are 21, so if you had a lower cut off they’d be playing just two 18, 19, or 20 year olds.
The kids numbers become statistically meaningless because they’re so low. As HAP said, it’s really a surprising reflection of how few young first, second, and even third year players are in any sides
And it’s Buckley who really hates the kids.
He’s quite fond of 22 and 23 year olds though.
After doing the numbers I’m actually less concerned about losing relatively young players than I was.
Given that this seems to apply across the League.
Unless they want to go and play for FarkCarlton or Gold Coast, most players don’t seem to nail down a regular spot until they’re 22 or 23.
In any team.
And I’m sure players & managers are a bit more aware of this than we are.
1 Like
Which I suppose is better than being fond of 17 year olds. Cue Ricky Nixon gif.
1 Like
+jakeystring
James Sicily made some interesting comments about playing seconds whilst his more senior teammates were winning premiership after premiership.
He said it’s good for a young player’s development and he got regular games in the 1sts when he was good enough.
Experienced coaches know when a kid is ready. So do good managers.
4 Likes
So, pretty similar to our situation then?
5 Likes
Probably depends how the team is performing. If those kids can’t break into a side that doesn’t make finals then they probably should look around. If we win a flag then it’s hard for them to argue that they should have played.
Absolutely. There is some depth developing and they will need to start demanding games through performance otherwise it works both ways.
Sort of. Both Sicily and Essendon’s current junior players weren’t getting a game in the 1sts. They have that experience in common. Sicily has the added complication of team success and could have got shtty about not being selected but he believes he’s a better player now because of it. He trusted the coaches and his manager.
Sicily is more than just a good player, he’s a gun and if the stars line up he may one day be a premiership player as well. Same with some of those Essendon juniors toiling away from the bright lights. Learn how to do it well and consistently and you will have a long and fulfilling career.
2 Likes
It’s a possibility, but I’m not sure it’s any more likely than the end of last year or the year before.
Worsfold seems - if nothing else - consistent and clear with his external messaging, and I can only assume that carries through internally, and through to everyone on the list.
Surely we would’ve heard by now if anyone thinks they’ve been really shafted.
I’m just not convinced Francis would leave over being overlooked for a returning Hooker, nor Langford for Myers. Both of the two older guys have been voted into leadership for years, and been best 22 players for 8-10 years, so they’re rated internally, whatever we think.
And given Hooker and Myers are both 29 ish, they shouldn’t be issues for more than a year or so.
I think?
1 Like