Apart from Melbourne which clubs have poor midfields?

[the dog's kennel]

Have you seen the context of what I responded to? A Dogs supporter that wanted to claim Essendon was amongst the WORST midfields in the league without listing his own side; who then foolishly followed that up by claiming Essendon fell off a cliff without Watson.

So which is it, our midfield is complete crap, WORSE than the Dogs, yet we keep winning more games because the rest of our side is ridiculously good? EVEN WHEN we lose the player we are seemingly so heavily reliant upon? Somebody really ought to tell the rest of BF - they're convinced our forward line is dysfunctional.

In all seriousness, your fellow Dogs supporter said something stupid, and was rightfully whacked for it.

Fair call.

It IS ludicrous to suggest that the Bombers mids are amongst the worst in the league. 3/4 of the way through the season the Bombers were contending for top spot.

What I think IS accurate is that the Bombers midfield isn't as good as the midfields of their peer teams (i.e. the other teams who could realistically contend for top spot on the ladder).

I'm assuming that's what many of the posters in this thread mean to say - i.e. that the Essendon midfield is a comparative weak spot when assessed wrt where the team is at.

However, if that is not what they mean to say, and they genuinely think that Essendon is even in the bottom half of midfields than that is laughable.

 

[The Prosecutor]

Not to mention that two of the three teams Essendon beat with Watson out were the Bulldogs (barely) and GWS

A 31-point win is considered barely?

 

[timtamWB]

Cool, so that would leaves around fifth to eighth, not bottom three or four like many have claimed.

It depends whether people are ranking them right now, or with potential over the next couple of years. Right now, you could make a case for Essendon's midfield being better than Gold Coast's. But if you factor in potential, then Gold Coast smashes Essendon.

I think similar about the Dogs, right now Essendon have got us covered. But include potential, and I reckon our midfield will be better than you.

It's why I said out of the developed midfields. And it would be around the 6-11 range in my mind, middle of the road, nothing special, but better than a few other teams, and not bottom four.

 

[HeHateMe]

Lets just say 9 players makes a modern midfeild,
A+=4
A=3
B=2
C=1

Adl: A+= Dangerfeild. A= Sloane. B= Thompson, Crouch, Douglas. 17.

Bris: A= Rockliff, Rich, Hanley. B= Moloney, Redden, Zorko
17

Carl: A= Murphy, Judd. B= Gibbs, Thomas, Carazzo, Simpson, McLean, Walker. 19

Coll: A+= Swan, Pendelbury. A= Beams. B= Ball, Sidebottom, Adams, Young. 21

Ess: A+= Watson. A= Goddard, Heppell. B= Stanton, Zaharakis, Chapman. 19

Freo: A+= Fyfe. A= Mundy, Hill, Barlow. B= Crowley, Sylvia, Pearce, Pearce. 22

Geel: A+= Selwood, Johnson. A= Bartel, Kelly, Motlop. B= Caddy, Stokes, Christensen. 24

GC: A+= Ablett A= Bennell. B= O'Meara, Swallow.
16

Haw: A+= Mitchell A= Hodge, Lewis, Smith. B= Sewell, Hill, Puopolo, Rioli, Burgoyne. 23

Melb: A= Jones. B= Vince, Cross.
13

North: A= Wells, Swallow. B= Harvey, Zeibell, DalSanto, Cunnington. 17

Port: A= Boak. B= Hartlett, Ebert, Cornes, Wines.
15

Rich: A= Cotchin, Deledio, Martin. B= Jackson, Foley, Grigg. 18

ST.K: A= Stevens, Montagna. B= Hayes, Armitage.
15

Syd: A= Kennedy, Jack, Hannebury, McVeigh B= O'Keffe, Goodes, Mitchell, Jetta, Parker. 22

WC: A= Priddis B= Shuey, Gaff, Selwood, Masten, Wellingham Ellis. 17

WB: A+= Griffen. A= Boyd. B= Liberatore, Cooney, Dalahuse, Higgins. 18

GWS: B= Ward, Greene, Shiel, Whitfeild, Coniglio. 14

 

[medhurstISGOD]

A 31-point win is considered barely?

The Dogs were right in that game midway through the last before an advantage call was called back for no apparent reason. If that advantage was paid, Essendon were in serious trouble.

 

[timtamWB]

9 players makes a modern midfeild,
A+=4
A=3
B=2
C=1

WB: A+= Griffen. A= Boyd. B= Liberatore, Cooney, Dalahuse, Higgins. 18

Boyd is a B. Liberatore is at the very least an A. Cooney could be argued as being A. I'd put Wallis in as a B over Higgins, but even then he performs his role very well and is an important part.

And then you have the other guys that make up the midfield like Smith, Macrae, Stringer, Hrovat, Hunter, Stevens etc.

You can't judge a midfield by such rigid rankings. You've also said 9 players makes a modern midfield, and have only included 6 players for the Dogs, and have said nothing about ruckmen. It's a flawed system.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

We have a very average midfield, no A Graders at all. Priddis and Selwood get mountains of possesions but have no influence on games and don't hit the scoreboard. Shuey we are still waiting on but he has been there 5 years, Masten may be at his best but is still B+ only and Wellingham has not played much for us as yet.
For a side who has arguably the best ruckmen in the comp our midfield is very average.
Really looking forward to seeing what Simpson does in this regard.

 

[The Prosecutor]

The Dogs were right in that game midway through the last before an advantage call was called back for no apparent reason. If that advantage was paid, Essendon were in serious trouble.

Yes, we barely won this game, the Dogs were robbed.

 

[Sub_Zero]

Lets just say 9 players makes a modern midfeild,
A+=4
A=3
B=2
C=1

Adl: A+= Dangerfeild. A= Sloane. B= Thompson, Crouch, Douglas. 17.

Bris: A= Rockliff, Rich, Hanley. B= Moloney, Redden, Zorko
17

Carl: A= Murphy, Judd. B= Gibbs, Thomas, Carazzo, Simpson, McLean, Walker. 19

Coll: A+= Swan, Pendelbury. A= Beams. B= Ball, Sidebottom, Adams, Young. 21

Ess: A+= Watson. A= Goddard, Heppell. B= Stanton, Zaharakis, Chapman. 19

Freo: A+= Fyfe. A= Mundy, Hill, Barlow. B= Crowley, Sylvia, Pearce, Pearce. 22

Geel: A+= Selwood, Johnson. A= Bartel, Kelly, Motlop. B= Caddy, Stokes, Christensen. 24

GC: A+= Ablett A= Bennell. B= O'Meara, Swallow.
16

Haw: A+= Mitchell A= Hodge, Lewis, Smith. B= Sewell, Hill, Puopolo, Rioli, Burgoyne. 23

Melb: A= Jones. B= Vince, Cross.
13

North: A= Wells, Swallow. B= Harvey, Zeibell, DalSanto, Cunnington. 17

Port: A= Boak. B= Hartlett, Ebert, Cornes, Wines.
15

Rich: A= Cotchin, Deledio, Martin. B= Jackson, Foley, Grigg. 18

ST.K: A= Stevens, Montagna. B= Hayes, Armitage.
15

Syd: A= Kennedy, Jack, Hannebury, McVeigh B= O'Keffe, Goodes, Mitchell, Jetta, Parker. 22

WC: A= Priddis B= Shuey, Gaff, Selwood, Masten, Wellingham Ellis. 17

WB: A+= Griffen. A= Boyd. B= Liberatore, Cooney, Dalahuse, Higgins. 18

GWS: B= Ward, Greene, Shiel, Whitfeild, Coniglio. 14

Those are horrible ratings

 

[HeHateMe]

Boyd is a B. Liberatore is at the very least an A. Cooney could be argued as being A. I'd put Wallis in as a B over Higgins, but even then he performs his role very well and is an important part.

And then you have the other guys that make up the midfield like Smith, Macrae, Stringer, Hrovat, Hunter, Stevens etc.

You can't judge a midfield by such rigid rankings. You've also said 9 players makes a modern midfield, and have only included 6 players for the Dogs, and have said nothing about ruckmen. It's a flawed system.

I agree very much so. Just for the sake of the the thread and I bit of fun I throw this together in like 10 mins. It very vaguely hits the mark with most teams. Made all role players a C and didnt didn't include. But added the 1 point each to the score. Dont take my shitty ranking to hart.

 

[medhurstISGOD]

Yes, we barely won this game, the Dogs were robbed.

Which part of my post is incorrect?

 

[HeHateMe]

Those are horrible ratings

fell free to modify them for for accuracy.

 

[The Prosecutor]

Which part of my post is incorrect?

The part where Essendon 'barely' won and the part where Essendon were in serious trouble if something that didn't happen actually happened.

And by the way, the advantage was not paid because the free kick was paid by the non-controlling umpire. So there was a genuine reason, actually.

 

[100action]

Have you seen the context of what I responded to? A Dogs supporter that wanted to claim Essendon was amongst the WORST midfields in the league without listing his own side; who then foolishly followed that up by claiming Essendon fell off a cliff without Watson.

So which is it, our midfield is complete crap, WORSE than the Dogs, yet we keep winning more games because the rest of our side is ridiculously good? EVEN WHEN we lose the player we are seemingly so heavily reliant upon? Somebody really ought to tell the rest of BF - they're convinced our forward line is dysfunctional.

In all seriousness, your fellow Dogs supporter said something stupid, and was rightfully whacked for it.

Essendon have a decent Forward line and back line to cover up a loss like jobe in the midfield and go 3-0.

Bulldogs have the worst backline and forwardline in the league, reducing our midfield stocks by even 1% by removing Griffen has disastrous effects. If we had a good forward line and backline then the Griffen loss wouldnt hurt too much.

You have only whacked yourself with stupidity tbh since you took what he said out of context.

 

[Andronicus]

Essendon have a decent Forward line

Since when?

 

[Kaiser Powser]

I see the annual underrating of Essendon's midfield continues.

Amazing that we were contesting top spot in round 18 considering we have one of the worst and most disfunctional forward lines and according to many here the 3rd worst midfield in the comp.

Sure it's not the best in the comp, but it's not as far off as most of you are making out.

 

[100action]

Since when?

since prior to the departure of your king, Stewart Crameri..

 

[Andronicus]

since prior to the departure of your king, Stewart Crameri..

Did you watch any of our games this year?

Our biggest issue was our lack of any sort of forward line cohesion.

Guess who was part of that?

 

[Engimal]

I would say Saints have the worst midfield.

Hayes, Armitage, Stevens, montagna - They have absolutely no depth and very little young talent coming through. They have 3 draft picks to improve there midfield and need to find a good player with each pick.

Hayes, Stevens and Montagna are no slouches, by any means.

 

[medhurstISGOD]

The part where Essendon 'barely' won and the part where Essendon were in serious trouble if something that didn't happen actually happened.

And by the way, the advantage was not paid because the free kick was paid by the non-controlling umpire. So there was a genuine reason, actually.

If the goal was paid, the Dogs would have been six points behind with 12 minutes on the clock, having kicked 3 goals in a handful of minutes. I would call that serious trouble.

And whether Essendon 'barely' won or not doesn't really matter, they had to rely on some obscure technicality to beat a team who had won 4 games up to that point, not what I'd call convincing. Which brings us back to my original point, this '3-1 without Watson' stat is not nearly as impressive as it sounds.

 

[TheMcGrathMan]

Really, Essendon?

A midfield consisting of the likes Watson, Goddard, Heppell, Zaharakis and Stanton is the worst in the AFL?

Jesus people.

I would take Watson, Goddard, Heppell, Zaharakis, Stanton and Hocking to tag over Shuey/Selwood/Priddis/Gaff/Wellingham/Masten. Watson makes it easy, but even such criticisms that Essendons mid attract (like 'soft') could be applied to some Eagles mids..
Hell I'd even prefer the whole Essendon midfield over Dangerfield/Sloane/Crouch/Thompson (2013 version)/Van Berlo (I'd guess this will be unpopular).

Yes, the Crows have 2 A-graders (Danger and Sloane) and a very exciting young gun (Crouch) but I don't rate their depth. I'm tipping a rise back up the ladder for the Crows in 2014, but banking on the likes of Thompson/Van Berlo/Mackay/Wright to return to previous form, and as of right now (end of season 2013) the Crows midfield is not great. Until proven otherwise.

edit: Forgot about Douglas, a fine player. Makes the Crows look a lot better having an extra player in there, knocking back Thompson/VB/Mackay/Wright another spot in terms of 'depth'

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

yes that's true and don't take this wrong way as I rate Richmond myself but if you look at the draw they have had in recent years and compare it to the usual suspects, I think you can see why the defense gathers very good numbers all across the board but in reality, how many of the eventual top 8 sides did Richmond defeat this season?
And more importantly, how many goals did they concede to those sides in the process?

Hawthorn, Fremantle, Carlton and Port Adelaide, so 4/7. They kicked 9, 8, 14 and 10 goals respectively.

 

[Jobe Watson]

GWS, Melbourne, Saints, West Coast, Adelaide, Brisbane are all fairly ordinary. Dangerfield is the only elite midfielder out of those teams.

 

[timtamWB]

GWS, Melbourne, Saints, West Coast, Adelaide, Brisbane are all fairly ordinary. Dangerfield is the only elite midfielder out of those teams.

Rockliff goes alright.

Steven will be elite for the Saints. GWS have a whole stack of them but are too young.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Tigers midfield is very ordinary IMO, Cotchin just doesnt get it enough and has limited hurt factor when he does, Martin seems to play a good half only to consistently go missing in the next, I rate their midfield the worst out of this year finalists, but they have more scope to improve than some.

What a strange comment.

26.0 possesions a game this year and 27.6 a game last year.