John Worsfold - lucky to be playing against bad teams and bad umpires


Smith was very very good last year.
He’s not been good this year.
Saad’s been very good, maybe even improved which is saying something.
Stringer has maintained.
Shiel has hit a rut after a good first month.
I don’t think you can draw any sort of conclusion whatsoever.


I thought I just did, but elected not to individualise the response.
Might I add that ballsiness is not making hasty comments without fully considering the impact of trade benefit, which is a position that you’ve initiated. Based on your assessment to get rid of each of these players what do you deem to be their trade value, and in line with that do you believe that this trade value can deliver improvement to our list and club culture? I’d argue that it is unlikely.


Being a professional footballer, its a job isn’t? You go to work, you do your job and get well paid, you do what is expected of you and if you are very good at it, you may be further rewarded, by getting promoted, you sit pat or leave and go elsewhere. Why is footy be any different to other professions? I heard Heppell after coming back from the saga banning speak about it one day in that exact way as his job. Unless you love what you do and are more or less in love with what you do and love doing it or in some way are tied to that club. If you feel that way then its more than a job. If not, it is only a job. The club itself is unimportant its where you work, is your place of employment and you do your job as best you can.

For supporters it is very different. The club is everything and its part of the game. And; as so many have said “its only a game.” Well its also only a club. Whilst players and coaches may move elsewhere and continue on with their careers. The supporters seldom change clubs. They are loyal and attached and it is like a blood tie. I guess you sort of have to divorce yourself from something that’s almost family or like a lover. Its our tribe.


We’re not winning games of football.

And yes, I do think we’ve chronically understressed kicking, over a decade or more - a period largely dominated by Hawthorn.

Some very, very ordinary kicks have played lots of games for us. All the way back to Welsh and Peverill, through NLM, Lonergan, and on to Heppell and Myers and Smith now.

But that’s only part of it, we’ve also failed to set things up to harness the good kicks we do have/have had. From Winderlich in the 00s through Zaha and Hurley to Tippa right now. We let the leaders get the ball and take the kick, rather than working it to those slightly lesser lifhts to use their boots.

You can’t handball goals.




You just made things up to argue with. Nobody mentioned chopping blokes and winning a flag instantly.


Once again you didn’t answer the question. Bravo sir


Help me


It’s the underlying theme every game we lose!

“It’s only X and Y old guys holding us back, drop them and everything will be great”

You’re the driver of the Myers bandwagon, you’ve read enough of it over the years.

I’m convinced the key bit of the rebuild is not which 28 or 29yo you chop. It’s the build - who you bring in and how you develop them.


I think our kicking skills are our downfall also but as I have said many times the players can only be partly responsible for that. Heppell for example will never be a great kick and same can be said of many others.

I actually think Dodoro is a very good list manager but I wonder just how much discussion happens between he and the coaching panel because I think he has a very distinct purpose for drafting particular players but it’s not translating on field.

I’m a fan of our game plan also but again I don’t feel that we are using the right players in the correct positions to execute it properly.

I still think leadership is our biggest problem though and that’s from both the coaching panel and the playing group.


Maybe if the coaching arrangements weren’t set up as some HR guru’s wet dream.


Not from me. I don’t even think dropping these players will mean an immediate win, but I think in the long term it will fix the culture of the club.

I don’t mean they are bad people either, or bad team mates, or doing anything on purpose. But for 10+ years they have been training in a way that’s not a finals team, they have been playing in a way that’s not a finals team, they have been “backed in” based off talent and bursts of brilliance. This happens at other clubs but the way it’s happened and for the period of time it’s happened at Essendon has created a culture that makes it incredibly difficult to develop and build players.

Imagine rocking up to Essendon for your first training session. You’d be hyped, pumped up, thinking “wow this is how AFL guys train!!!”. Reality is - it’s not. We need to be doing better and we’re bringing guys in thinking that’s the correct way to go about it. Our senior players are role models for the younger players and the intensity that way play at is nowhere near where it needs to be (consistently, anyway).

The difference in intensity between our drafted players and our recruited players is astounding. It’s really eye opening. Even in the last quarter last night, while being held onto at every contest, Dylan Shiel was willing himself on to bring it home while the “Essendon” players plodded along and allowed kids to take easy park marks in defensive 50.

Honestly, if you are David Zaharakis, are you DYING to win? Are you DYING to do your best? Then why the fk do we expect Kyle Langford to come in and pick up his intensity to the point where he can compete? His role models aren’t doing it, he probably doesn’t even realise it’s not up to standard.

Some young players sometimes come in and look fantastic… and then fall away. Players literally get WORSE the more time they spend at our club. The habits they pick up, the way they play, their intensity, mental strength - it actually gets worse as the more time they spend.

And the “old guys” I think we need to move on;

  • Bags
  • Myers
  • Bellchambers
  • Zaharakis

And honestly, Hurley is very replaceable for the right price.

I don’t think this will immediately make us a better side and I understand most of those guys play really important roles, but they are now complacent. To progress we need to start shipping out some players and creating a competitive, hard nosed edge.

We need a tipping point where we build a win at all costs mentality and the fact we’ve had a losing culture for 15 years means THAT’S what embedded in our senior players.


Has Blitz just hit an all time low in critical thinking, reasoning and logical argument?. I’m really struggling at the moment with the neanderthalic level of discourse which to be fair has followed a steep downward trajectory for some time. I’m proposing that we delist a number of contributors with immediate effect in order to maintain standards.


“Tipping point”? How/why? What is the mechanism?

We cut 4 old guys (or 3 guys or 10 guys) who’ve been best 22 players for however many yearsc and get in that many extra picks, and the culture improves… how?

Is it the sacking?

Is it the reach into the 6th, 7th, 8th round of the draft (or, what, delisted FAs??) the culture and leadership improves as you get deeper?

I genuinely don’t get your theory on how you think this works.


Something I don’t quite get with this argument, and maybe you can explain your opinion in this, is - these ‘older’ guys you’re speaking of…who did they learn under, and who were their role-models? The way you put it makes it sound like the only way you can reverse that trend is to import experienced finalist players en-masse, which of course, is not possible. So - there must be other ways, as other clubs that have had very limited success have shown. What are these ways, and why do you think they are not being employed?


any more buzz words and you’d be in a corporate board meeting.


These other ways include having an inspiring coach, competent coaching staff, and adaptable game plans.

Do you think we have any of these?


Who was around in 2009?

  • Neagle
  • Dyson
  • Gumby
  • Monfries
  • Jetta
  • Winders
  • Lovett
  • Lonergan
  • Dempsey
  • Pears
  • Laycock
  • Darcy Daniher
  • McPhee
  • Magin
  • Reimers
  • Atkinson
  • Hocking
  • Quinn
  • Bock


  • Jobe
  • old Lloyd
  • Old Lucas

This is kind of what I mean. Go back through our playing list and look at the sheer amount of waste, the sheer amount of players who SHOWED promise but never made it. So in 2010 we draft in new guys, lose Lloyd and Lucas, and THAT LIST is who is leading the way on the training track.

2011, new guys come in and it’s that list, 2012, 2013, 2014 and so on.

Where are the real leaders? Where are the, “this is how we win finals, this is the standard” type players? We haven’t had one of those on the training track in 10 years.

TBH - It’s not a case of “get rid of old guys and suddenly we are good with good culture”. It’s about doing what you said, recruiting smart, in the coaches box and on the field. It’s about setting hard standards with all players - not gifting games to experienced guys who aren’t performing. It’s about recruiting smart, bringing in kids based off emotional intelligence as much as their footballing ability.

That’s a theory anyway. No idea how to fix it, but our culture is ■■■■■■. Can see it in any game we play.


Competent, yes, of course.
Excellent? I’m not sure. I don’t think that’s a question anyone here could (or would) answer. yet. Personally, with regards to those specific questions, I would be more comfortable giving an opinion at the end of this season.

Game plan-wise - yes, I do think we do. I may, of course, be wrong.

But I was asking the question of the poster.


He is ruining our club and our list. Parish will seek a trade. Langford has zero confidence now thanks to his mismanagement - legit looks like he wants to neck himself. Joe mismanaged last year. Myers and Baguley continually robbing other players of development time.