Largely played wing last week, whilst he would’ve received inside mid time around the ground, he only started inside at 2 centre bounces last week, compared to Zaka’s 7 and Walla’s 6.
Sorry, this exists is multiple Coburg cafes already.
Betcha they don’t have Hamborgers
2 Likes
Interesting.
Woosh very complementary of him in squad selection.
Not in coaches plans moving fwd?
On those not particularly mentioned:
Morgan is continuing to put a body of work together, I’ve not given up on him being AFL-useful.
Draper had better competition in the ruck today, but there were still plenty of perfect taps to advantage. He’s not aggressive with his body yet, but does have a decent go with tackles, shepherds and ground-level scrambles. As a key position player he ranges wildly, taking good contested marks and then being completely out of position.
Tommy got BOG because he was basically our sole tall forward, and stood up in that context. As ruck, he seems less inspiring. For throw-ins he seems to have two plays: if near goal, he throws the opponent out of the way, grabs the ball, and kicks it out on the full. If elsewhere, double fister forward (which often works).
Clarke is growing on me. Has shown he’s a reasonable contested mark the last two weeks, and he doesn’t drop out of it by nominally being a forward.
7 Likes
The ruckman booted six goals, pulled down six marks and collected 23 disposals in a best on ground performance as the Bombers stormed to their third win of the season.
“T-Bell’s leadership has been fantastic," Assistant Coach Wayne Schultz said.
"His ability to stick to the team things has been great.
“When you do the little things right, the rewards will come.”
Kyle Langford was also impressive finishing with a game-high 35 disposals, seven marks, four tackles and two goals.
“He’s been going really well, credit to him today, I thought he played really well on the inside and at times he played well on the outside,” Schultz said.
“He had good method and got the reward from playing his role well.”
It was a slow start for the Bombers, going into the first break 13 points behind the Lions.
“The effort from the boys was there in the first quarter,” Schultz said.
“We know Coburg are really strong with their contested football, they love that brand.
“We felt we matched that in the first quarter, we went away from that though in the second quarter.
“We just need to be a bit more aggressive with our press and lift the bar with the pressure on the ball.”
A seven goal third quarter turned the game in the Dons favour as they went into the final change with a 30 point lead.
“They identified the problems and in the second half we really improved in that space,” Schultz said.
“They did well with stepping up in the second half. The ability to listen to the messages at half time and the attitude and application to take that into the game was outstanding.
“We stuck to our brand really well and that really helped us finish off the second half.
“Our ability to persevere with the game and continue to stick to the things that we do well was really pleasing.”
Essendon’s forward line was smaller than in recent weeks, but the lack of height had no impact on the amount of opportunities they were able to generate.
“I think the ability for the boys to adjust each week has been brilliant,” Schultz said.
“At times if we didn’t have the tall forwards, the communication from the guys has been outstanding to adjust accordingly to our forward line structure.
“They were able to lower their eyes a little bit more and play to our strengths. I think that’s a real credit for the team.
“Regardless of the dynamics, we have a really good balance across all lines.
“Each week is going to be a little bit different. That’s the nature of the beast.”
Despite the missing talls, the Bombers were able to boot 22 goals and run away with an 89 point win.
Essendon 22.18.150 def. Coburg 9.7.61
Goals: Bellchambers 6, Begley 4, Boyse 3, Langford 2, Holmes 2, Mutch, Redman, Hocking, McNiece, Marklew
Disposals: Langford 35, Howlett 32, Redman 26, Clarke 26, Bellchambers 23
Is it legit last year was his first year of footy Boot ?
Scoring shots per quarter:
3 - 6
8 - 3
12 - 4
17 - 3
We needed another quarter or two 
You know there’s a burger place in Coburg called ‘Coburger & Co’?
Yep
2 Likes
I want Langford in the ones, I think he’s going to be a very good player, but there’s no point if they’re going to play him the same as they were at the start of the season. He needs to be getting at least 25% of his minutes as a mid if he’s going to develop. If they’re going to play him as a flanker, he’s going to continue to frustrate IMO.
3 Likes
The strategy is sound but there seems a fundamental flaw in the tactics.
2 Likes
Bird gets plenty of touches, but doesn’t do a hell of a lot of damage with them, and is very similar to a lot of our mids. As an inside mid, The Langford is the identified prospect, and hence a better use of game/development time. And medium term you would expect players like Clarke, The Eel etc to overtake him/take precedence. Can’t see Bird getting more than the occasional gap filler games.
2 Likes
Makes sense.
With that in mind and the fact that Bird clearly can still play and might have an impact in another team he’d have to be on trade table you’d think.
On another note- how do you quote multiple posts as you just did?
Cannot wait for the VFL highlight to be uploaded
First VFL match I’ve managed to get too this season (Shameful, huh?) so I cannot evaluate anything against previous matches. But here’s how it looked to my eye:
The first half can be best be summed up in totality by a single word: Horrid. But it shouldn’t be taken in an overly derogatory way in the sense that no-one was trying, more so that we just continued to stuff things up and looked mentally slow. Footy (and cricket too, fwiw) is sometimes a weird game where a malaise can spread like a contagion through 22 individuals and effect all aspects of the play. Thus it was today. We lacked real aggressive intent around the ball at the contest and when we did manage to start running the footy the mids were looking for present-up targets whilst the forwards were expecting a pagans-paddock style. It was all at sea. The muddle-headedness showed up in quite a few kicks being smothered and many more cut off as we tried to spear the ball low into half forward against the wind. In the second term, when we had a useful breeze, we still lacked bite around the hard ball and the ball movement was often lazy. Coburg stationed a loose player about 30 meters out and we kicked it to his advantage repeatedly, or else we went very wide and into the pockets. The thing that annoyed me most was that for the first half, our defence persisted in playing meters off their man, presumably anticipating a highly pressured midfield battle, and countless times we conceded easy marks between our wings and back pockets as we trailed into the contests. I’d have thought there’d come a point where you stop trying to set up for the back half rebound and instead lock onto the man to make everything a contest. I also felt that we weren’t terribly smart in general play, often going to tackle the man well after he’d given the obvious handball to the next guy rather than reading the situation and going to the second player first. Like I said, we worked physically but it was all a bit ho-hum mentally as we looked half a second off the pace.
There were, of course, some good things done and we scrambled and battled enough to be just a few points down at the Half, which seemed scarcely credible given how far below our potential we were. Chief amongst the reason for this scoreboard closeness was Howlett. Whatever intensity and bite we did have around the footy, much of it came from Benny. He cracked in, he won the footy, he pressured and he worked hard into defence to provide an outlet. At quarter time the playing group itself hailed him as an example of what we expect and demand. He kept things simple, worked his ■■■■ off and got the ball forward.
The other one that I thought was going ok , albeit more subtly ,was Langford. He did present to the footy at times. He was getting hands on the ball inside the stoppage too, and his handballs were effective in gaining the clearance. But we generally didn’t benefit as the subsequent play fell apart. He did miss a couple of goals though, which was a shame as his game was useful otherwise.
Enter the half time break and a badly needed reset. The ground announcer declared that a ripping contest was on its way with a close finish likely. Alas for him, He obviously failed his Soothsaying test.
It took all of about 20 seconds to detect a radical shift in our mindset and determination. we won the the opening clearance and it was done with a crispness and precision that was in marked contrast to anything we’d bumbled through in the first hour of play. We didnt score directly from that particularly foray, but the subsequent forward pressure proved to be the harbinger of doom for Coburg. We were remarkably ruthless around the stoppages and until the final few minutes of the 3rd term we simply didn’t let the ball out of our half. We kicked a couple of goals, and from our points Coburg started to panic trying to bring the ball back in. The defenders were able to be proactive, playing in front and running onto the hurried kicks forward. Long , Redman et al feasted on a game now played on their terms. The mids monstered the centre square, it became a procession going forward and if we weren’t marking it up front then we at least had players at the contest and our half forwards/mids were smart enough to follow up and set the zone outside 50.
The last term was predictable. With the wind to our end, and Coburg basically ground away by the third, it was largely one-way traffic. we had numbers at the ball and effective forwards in front of it. Redman, Long, Mcniece, Gleeson all streamed forward with impunity. Three of them kicked last term goals. It may or may not be related, but at 3/4 the defenders were told it was ok if one of the Coburg forwards stayed behind the defence. Clearly we were backing our pressure to minimise over-the-top damage and allow the back half to attack. Hocking started to find his feet, and Mutch became more prominent with ball in hand. The lead increased by very nearly 10 goals and its hard to find a player who wasnt good in the final half of footy. This was certainly a tale of two vastly different performances from the one side.
Thoughts on players? These are just random, not in any particular order:
Draper: I can see the hopes for this lad. His ruckwork seems good and well timed. His kicking action also seems very good, not just for a ruckman, but in its own right. He got a quick clearance kick in the last term and i remember being impressed how quickly it went from hand to foot. He took a few grabs around the ground but on just the one outing I didn’t see him as much of a threat up forward. Yet.
Mutch: Fairly ineffective in the first half but a couple of moments struck me. A full pace, one touch pickup through a contest was as smooth and apparently effortless as you could wish to see. He was then tackled and penalised for incorrect disposal but the surety of his hands was impressive. He then followed this later by attempting to control a bobbling ground ball through a mass of players whilst having one arm held. He kept it moving, at pace, in front of himself although ultimately it never bounced up for him to grab. But the indications are there that he can hunt the footy into and out of congested situations. Second half, he started to emerge as a factor and sometimes in less than obvious ways. His position in the kickout zones was out at the left half forward flank and unfortunately for him Coburg repeatedly tried to exit that side. Mutch was required go into aerial duals, sometimes back with the flight, to ensure the ball was brought to ground. He never flinched and usually made the spoil, allowing a repeat inside 50. He also started to get the ball on the outside, and I was impressed with his awareness to soak up time to allow players to get into position and then deliver it to their advantage. A fair bit to like about this kid.
Langford. I don’t necessarily think he SHOULD play midfield, but today was another decent hint that he COULD. The way he can kinda glide, and kinda power, through and around stoppages is quite unique. I understand that at AFL level people may question his peripheral vision, but Ive seen plenty of times where he evaluates options in his own time and fires off to someone you don’t really think he could be aware of. There were moments like that again today. There was also a bit mongrel in him. He copped a late hit on the far wing, took on two opponents in the aftermath and sat one on his ■■■■. He was shouldering and niggling his opponent at the bounces. He presented a leading target to his defence when in midfield and a target to his mids when up front. I maintain that there’s a Rolls Royce engine here, it just need some tuning to start running properly. Excellent game.
Begley. I like him. He’s not just dangerous in front of goals, he also plays to hurt people. Some crunching tackles inside 50 and genuine impact. If he can maintain that output, even if the goals aren’t coming, he’ll be valuable to the side. Today we had both.
Belly. Not sure if it was 5 or 6 goals but either way thats a good day out. Goal kicking seems better than I recall. Got around the ground fairly well, i didn’t think his tapwork was clearcut but he was ( well der, obviously!) a massive handfull elsewhere. A couple of the goals were a bit ‘cheap’ imo, but he also missed a couple of others and he contested well.
Redman. Excellent second half. Played half back and backed himself to intercept the ground ball and use it aggressively. Kicked a great one-two goal in the last after starting the chain by running from half back. Elsewhere, he had a lot of multi-involvement plays that transitioned us back into attack. We have to keep firmly in mind that this is a kid in his second year. We aren’t even close to knowing exactly what we have here.
Clarke. 1st time I’ve seen him. Was ok, i thought. Stood under the footy for a courageous mark, but then tried to pass it off, I wish he’d taken the shot. I didn’t see much of his infamous “terrible kicking”, just a kid finding his way around VFL packs.
Longy: Very good after half time. Part of the running defence, creative and dangerous, carried the footy a few times and stepped up the pressure when we needed it.
Hocking: I thought his last quarter was promising. Kicked a goal and started to get to contests. We know he’s tough as nails, its just a question of whether he can get AFL legs back.
Stants: I’m not sure about the defender role. Really not sure. he took a lot of the kick ins and that was fine. But I don’t think the back half provides enough space for his running ability to shine through and he doesn’t have the acceleration to open things up. I think its midfield and on bigger grounds for Stants or else its hard to see an effective role. True pro though, he’ll soldier on.
Morgan: did a role and seems to shift into the zone defence ok but i didn’t see too much proactive play making. Then again, he’s one player i struggle to spot and later find he had more of it than I thought.
Howlett; As mentioned, fantastic when few others were, really stood up. Continued on in the second, as honest a footballer as we have. Very very even and valuable game from Benny. Mainly impacted in the middle, don’t think he hit the scoreboard today from memory.
82 Likes
Excellent review, much appreciated. We would all value you attending more VFL games.
1 Like
After today we’re on 155% (with Nth Ballarat to come next week). Obviously we’re still down a few bad losses from the top of the ladder, but it’s a decent base to work from.
2 Likes
Sal’s reputation shot.
2 Likes