Esse-don fans, you do realise you've lost your last 7 games by an average of 51 points right?

Remove this Banner Ad

_RT_ said:
Essenson Position before round 17 -6th 130%
Round 17 67-134 Geelong position before game 7th, position after round 17 -6th
Round 18 86-180 Hawthorn position before game 3rd, position after round 18 -7th
Round 19 100-104 Adelaide position before game 3th, position after round 19 -8th
Round 20 76-100 NM position before game 7th, position after round 20 -8th
Round 21 60-156 Carlton position before game 11th, position after round 21-10th
Round 22 57-102 Richmond position before game 12th, position after round 22 -11th
Round 23 72-104 Collingwood position before game 5th

Position after round 23 - 11th 100%

7 games average margin 51 points.
7 games conceding 100+ points.
2 games with 15 goal margins and another with an 11 goal margin
and 1 game where you lost to 12th place.

Perhaps sometime in this thread you can discuss those numbers.
Click to expand...

Record against top 8 sides at time Essendon played them prior to round 17:

Round 1 NM W - no team played games prior to round
Round 2 Port W - Port 7th prior to game
Round 3 GC W - LOL
Round 4 Carlton W - Carlton 2nd
Round 5 Collingwood L- Collingwood 12th
Round 6 Brisbane W - Brisbane 12th
Round 7 WCE W - WCE 1st
Round 8 Richmond W- Richmond 12th
Round 9 GWS W - LOL
Round 10 Melbourne W - Melbourne LOL
Round 11 SS L - Sydney 5th
Round 12 Bye
Round 13 Fremantle W - Fremantle 11th before game
Round 14 WB W - WB LOL
Round 15 St Kilda L - St Kilda 9th
Round 16 Port Adelaide W - Port Adelaide LOL

5 LOL games in the first 16 as compared to 5 for NM and 5 for Richmond.

It's called a choke.
 
Jobe Watson said:
Self-inflicted suspensions are completely different from injuries. If your players weren't so reckless (Jackson) or stupid (pill popping Duhsteh) they wouldn't have missed games at all.

I suppose Daniel Connors getting delisted mid way through the year also made your team weaker? He was basically a best 22 player at that point. Why don't you chuck him in there too as an omission.


How are we supposed to adjust when we were losing more players each week?

Go through the matches and see which team had to use their sub at or before half time the most in season 2012. I'd wager Essendon was close to the top, if not at the top.


The comparison was between Essendon's game vs. Gold Coast and Richmond's game vs. Gold Coast - did you play in the rain for the majority of the game against them?
Click to expand...

This pretty much sums up the way Bummer fans view the situation compared to Tiger fans. I look for reasons why the teams performed/underperformed, you're looking for excuses as to why they underperformed.

Who cares if they got injured or suspended? Whether it's injury or suspension, Dustin Martin missing games means the team gets weaker. That's reality. And not just that, but the odds of players being suspended again next year is much lower than those soft tissue injuries reoccuring next year (except for Jackson).

You could just as easily say all those injuries are the Bummers fault because they hired a guy who thought "Deadlifts, deadlifts, deadlifts" was a good training philosphy.

Who cares why they missed or what you think is an acceptable or unacceptable reason for missing games? Fact is they missed games and made their sides weaker.



And lol at suggesting losing good players for the season doesn't matter because the team should be able to readjust around the inferior players that replace them. Again, you're just looking for excuses:D:D

And lol at the rain comment. We don't complain that Richmond had to play the GC with a 6 goal breeze blowing to one end in 2011, because the GC had to play in it too. Yet here you are claiming rain is the reason the Bummers struggled, as if it only rained on Esso'dun players.
 
OK so here's your best 22 Jobe with games played in 2012 in brackets:

Hardingham (21), Hooker (17), Fletcher (18)
Hibberd (13), Carlisle (18), Dempsey (20)
Zaharakis (13), Watson (22), Stanton (20)
Winderlich (2), Hurley (16), Jetta (21)
Crameri (18), Ryder (15), Davey (17)
Bellchambers (16), Howlett (19), Heppell (20)

Myers (9), Hocking (18), Melksham (22), Lovett-Murray (17)


So that's 372/484 possible games played for a total of 112 games missed. Compared to Richmond's:

Morris (21), Rance (22), Grimes (9)
Newman (22), Griffiths (9), Houli (22)
Grigg (22), Cotchin (22), Deledio (22)
Martin (20), Vickery (9), S.Edwards (20)
King (12), Riewoldt (22), Nahas (22)
Maric (21), Foley (10), Tuck (22)

Batchelor (14), Astbury (2), Conca (18), Jackson/Ellis (19-21)

So that's 382/484 possible games with a total of 102 games missed.



This means on average the Bummers had 5.1 players missing per game and Richmond had 4.6 players missing per game. So a 0.5 player per game difference. This of course doesn't take into account your "re-adjusting over time factor".

I find this quite interesting as up until now I was under the belief that only the Bummers suffered injuries this year.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Barry_Badrinath said:
Who cares if they got injured or suspended? Whether it's injury or suspension, Dustin Martin missing games means the team gets weaker.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they aren't the same as injuries. With injuries, you are unable to train for a period of time, you may come back underdone, and you can't choose to have them. Suspensions are the fault of no one but themselves. Yes they make the team weaker, but if Clarkson decides to rest his entire Hawthorn team of stars and then losses to GWS, do you think he'd use that as an excuse? It was, of course, his decision after all.

And lol at suggesting losing good players for the season doesn't matter because the team should be able to readjust around the inferior players that replace them. Again, you're just looking for excuses:D:D
Click to expand...
No I'm not. Losing Foley and Vickery for the year makes your team weaker, yes. But you had weeks to adjust to life without them. You were able to alter your gameplan and your structures to deal with their loss. Yes the players replacing them might not have been as good, but in a tactical sense, you had time to get used to not having them around.

Players were dropping like flies for us every week. We'd get Stanton back only to lose Howlett that same week. You didn't have a run as bad as we did.

And lol at the rain comment. We don't complain that Richmond had to play the GC with a 6 goal breeze blowing to one end in 2011, because the GC had to play in it too. Yet here you are claiming rain is the reason the Bummers struggled, as if it only rained on Esso'dun players.
Click to expand...
Honestly, you still don't understand...

Rain lowers the skill level of teams, it turns matches into a slog, and it decreases the winning margins of games. Basically, it evens the game up more than a match played in dry conditions. Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me rain didn't play even a minor part in you barely being able to beat GWS? Go back through history, and I'd bet the average margin in a rain affected game is lower than that in perfectly dry conditions. Therefore, you'd expect the margin in our game vs. Gold Coast in rain to be lower than the margin in Richmond's game vs. Gold Coast in dry conditions.

Well, if you weren't so shit that'd be the case...
 
Jobe Watson said:
Honestly, you still don't understand...

Rain lowers the skill level of teams, it turns matches into a slog, and it decreases the winning margins of games. Basically, it evens the game up more than a match played in dry conditions. Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me rain didn't play even a minor part in you barely being able to beat GWS? Go back through history, and I'd bet the average margin in a rain affected game is lower than that in perfectly dry conditions. Therefore, you'd expect the margin in our game vs. Gold Coast in rain to be lower than the margin in Richmond's game vs. Gold Coast in dry conditions.

Well, if you weren't so shit that'd be the case...
Click to expand...


Did it even rain for much of the game? I remember the game being pretty open and high scoring (105-88)
 
Barry_Badrinath said:
I saw some briefly at the end of the 2nd quarter, was that it? So many excuses, so much fail.
Click to expand...
This just keeps getting better and better.

Did you even watch the whole video? Did you see a soaked Fletcher getting carried off the field, by a soaked Ryder and Hurley?

Generally, when one has wet clothes, it indicates that water is present...
 
Barry_Badrinath said:
OK so here's your best 22 Jobe with games played in 2012 in brackets:

Hardingham (21), Hooker (17), Fletcher (18)
Hibberd (13), Carlisle (18), Dempsey (20)
Zaharakis (13), Watson (22), Stanton (20)
Winderlich (2), Hurley (16), Jetta (21)
Crameri (18), Ryder (15), Davey (17)
Bellchambers (16), Howlett (19), Heppell (20)

Myers (9), Hocking (18), Melksham (22), Lovett-Murray (17)


So that's 372/484 possible games played for a total of 112 games missed. Compared to Richmond's:

Morris (21), Rance (22), Grimes (9)
Newman (22), Griffiths (9), Houli (22)
Grigg (22), Cotchin (22), Deledio (22)
Martin (20), Vickery (9), S.Edwards (20)
King (12), Riewoldt (22), Nahas (22)
Maric (21), Foley (10), Tuck (22)

Batchelor (14), Astbury (2), Conca (18), Jackson/Ellis (19-21)

So that's 382/484 possible games with a total of 102 games missed.



This means on average the Bummers had 5.1 players missing per game and Richmond had 4.6 players missing per game. So a 0.5 player per game difference. This of course doesn't take into account your "re-adjusting over time factor".

I find this quite interesting as up until now I was under the belief that only the Bummers suffered injuries this year.
Click to expand...

Tigers had 3 season ending injuries (Vickery, Foley, Grimes) but other than that their side had a lot of continuity with 14 of their best 22 playing 20 or more games, with 9 playing the full 22. Compared to Essendon's 7 with only 2 playing the full 22.
 
paddy love said:
Tigers had 3 season ending injuries (Vickery, Foley, Grimes) but other than that their side had a lot of continuity with 14 of their best 22 playing 20 or more games, with 9 playing the full 22. Compared to Essendon's 7 with only 2 playing the full 22.
Click to expand...

Players to play at least 16 games:

Richmond: 16
Esse-done: 17

Season ending injuries:

Richmond: 3
Esse-done: 1
 
Barry_Badrinath said:
OK so here's your best 22 Jobe with games played in 2012 in brackets:

Hardingham (21), Hooker (17), Fletcher (18)
Hibberd (13), Carlisle (18), Dempsey (20)
Zaharakis (13), Watson (22), Stanton (20)
Winderlich (2), Hurley (16), Jetta (21)
Crameri (18), Ryder (15), Davey (17)
Bellchambers (16), Howlett (19), Heppell (20)

Myers (9), Hocking (18), Melksham (22), Lovett-Murray (17)


So that's 372/484 possible games played for a total of 112 games missed. Compared to Richmond's:

Morris (21), Rance (22), Grimes (9)
Newman (22), Griffiths (9), Houli (22)
Grigg (22), Cotchin (22), Deledio (22)
Martin (20), Vickery (9), S.Edwards (20)
King (12), Riewoldt (22), Nahas (22)
Maric (21), Foley (10), Tuck (22)

Batchelor (14), Astbury (2), Conca (18), Jackson/Ellis (19-21)

So that's 382/484 possible games with a total of 102 games missed.

This means on average the Bummers had 5.1 players missing per game and Richmond had 4.6 players missing per game. So a 0.5 player per game difference. This of course doesn't take into account your "re-adjusting over time factor".

I find this quite interesting as up until now I was under the belief that only the Bummers suffered injuries this year.
Click to expand...
So what you're telling me is that you had 9 best 22 players play the full season (5 of them are in your best ten players) and a further 4 of them play 20+ games (2 of them are in your best 10 players), where as we had 2 and 5 respectively - and your injury list is comparable to ours? You got full seasons out of 40% of your best team; we got full seasons out of 9% of our best team. Says it all right there really.

I also don't agree with Astbury being on the bench while Ellis isn't included (I only included Jackson, since you couldn't split them). Astbury played majority of his games in the VFL and Ellis was one of your first picked. But I can see why you included him; Astbury only played 2 games so it helps your argument a bit more. Ellis is closer to best 22 than Astbury.

We had to use 39 different players last year, including guys like Merrett and Kavanagh who clearly weren't ready, and spuds like Slattery who were delist material. GWS, Gold Coast, Carlton (another injury ravaged team) - they were the only squads in the league that had to rotate more players throughout the season than we did. Also, if you're going to sit there and tell me Zaharakis was playing at full fitness at the end of the season, I'll go he. Stevie Wonder could see he was physically underdone and buggered.

You had 4 injuries that could be classed as long term and remained realtively unscathed apart from that. There's a reason articles in the newspapers described our situation as an "injury curse", a "crisis", a "horror run", and a "plague of soft tissue injuries". We had more than 21 soft tissue injuries last year - a record. We were hit hard all throughout the season, and I don't care what any of you flogs say; it affected us.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Barry_Badrinath said:
OK so here's your best 22 Jobe with games played in 2012 in brackets:

Hardingham (21), Hooker (17), Fletcher (18)
Hibberd (13), Carlisle (18), Dempsey (20)
Zaharakis (13), Watson (22), Stanton (20)
Winderlich (2), Hurley (16), Jetta (21)
Crameri (18), Ryder (15), Davey (17)
Bellchambers (16), Howlett (19), Heppell (20)

Myers (9), Hocking (18), Melksham (22), Lovett-Murray (17)


So that's 372/484 possible games played for a total of 112 games missed. Compared to Richmond's:

Morris (21), Rance (22), Grimes (9)
Newman (22), Griffiths (9), Houli (22)
Grigg (22), Cotchin (22), Deledio (22)
Martin (20), Vickery (9), S.Edwards (20)
King (12), Riewoldt (22), Nahas (22)
Maric (21), Foley (10), Tuck (22)

Batchelor (14), Astbury (2), Conca (18), Jackson/Ellis (19-21)

So that's 382/484 possible games with a total of 102 games missed.



This means on average the Bummers had 5.1 players missing per game and Richmond had 4.6 players missing per game. So a 0.5 player per game difference. This of course doesn't take into account your "re-adjusting over time factor".

I find this quite interesting as up until now I was under the belief that only the Bummers suffered injuries this year.
Click to expand...

They will need a big hangar at Tulla to hold the excuse book. :D
 
Jobe Watson said:
So what you're telling me is that you had 9 best 22 players play the full season (5 of them are in your best ten players) and a further 4 of them play 20+ games (2 of them are in your best 10 players), where as we had 2 and 5 respectively - and your injury list is comparable to ours? You got full seasons out of 40% of your best team; we got full seasons out of 9% of our best team. Says it all right there really.

I also don't agree with Astbury being on the bench while Ellis isn't included (I only included Jackson, since you couldn't split them). Astbury played majority of his games in the VFL and Ellis was one of your first picked. But I can see why you included him; Astbury only played 2 games so it helps your argument a bit more. Ellis is closer to best 22 than Astbury.

We had to use 39 different players last year, including guys like Merrett and Kavanagh who clearly weren't ready, and spuds like Slattery who were delist material. GWS, Gold Coast, Carlton (another injury ravaged team) - they were the only squads in the league that had to rotate more players throughout the season than we did. Also, if you're going to sit there and tell me Zaharakis was playing at full fitness at the end of the season, I'll go he. Stevie Wonder could see he was physically underdone and buggered.

You had 4 injuries that could be classed as long term and remained realtively unscathed apart from that. There's a reason articles in the newspapers described our situation as an "injury curse", a "crisis", a "horror run", and a "plague of soft tissue injuries". We had more than 21 soft tissue injuries last year - a record. We were hit hard all throughout the season, and I don't care what any of you flogs say; it affected us.
Click to expand...


 
Astbury played an exceptional 2010 for a first year player. He was rewarded with the number 12 because of it. He started in the side in 2011 before getting injured a few rounds in. He then sat out the next year with injury before returning to VFL with about 7 rounds to go. This was to build up fitness for a quality youngster who had missed so much footy. Unlike at Bummer land where they rush back in Zaharakis despite their "youth blooding" policy that they started after round 10. He then played well enough to suggest he is best 22, despite having to adjust to the speed of the game. Clearly best 22.

And Ellis was not "one of the first picked", he was subbed 6-7 times.



Anyway it seems Bummer fans can't accept the reality that 20/22 of their best players played at least half the season and 18/22 played at least two thirds of the season. Compare that to Richmond's 17/22 playing half the season and 16/22 playing at least two thirds of the season. It seems the Bummer fans are buying into the media propaganda regarding injuries. They still think they were the only ones affected.
 
Barry_Badrinath said:
Astbury played an exceptional 2010 for a first year player. He was rewarded with the number 12 because of it. He started in the side in 2011 before getting injured a few rounds in. He then sat out the next year with injury before returning to VFL with about 7 rounds to go. This was to build up fitness for a quality youngster who had missed so much footy. Unlike at Bummer land where they rush back in Zaharakis despite their "youth blooding" policy that they started after round 10. He then played well enough to suggest he is best 22, despite having to adjust to the speed of the game. Clearly best 22.

And Ellis was not "one of the first picked", he was subbed 6-7 times

They still think they were the only ones affected.
Click to expand...
lol, you're trying so hard to back out of it now.

Ellis played 95% of possible games. For a first year player, that suggests he is in or close to your best 22. First year players aren't just given full-seasons for the sake of it. And the reason he was given the sub vest so many times was because he's young, not because he's untalented. Astbury, meanwhile, was drafted in a year where Richmond were one of the worst teams in the AFL - no surprise he was gifted games. In his 2nd year he was dropped after 4 games due to shocking performances and spent the next 5 weeks in the VFL, then came back into the AFL and got injured. Then in 2012 spent a further 9 games in the magoos, before being brought back for junktime games. This tells me he wasn't a first choice player then, or last year. Ellis is closer to best 22 than him, no question.

I've repeatedly stated that Carlton had a terrible run with injury. I hate them to bits, more so than Richmond and North, but I can admit they suffered from injuries this season. Just like I can admit WCE would've easily been top 4 if it weren't for their injuries, and the loss of Ball, Krakouer and Macaffer from Collingwood's team for most of the season cost them. We don't think we were the only club affected by injury at all - it's just that we were one of the most affected.
 
Barry_Badrinath said:
Interesting to note that Ellis was dropped for the same round in which Astbury was brought back in. Coincidence Jobe?
Click to expand...
They play the same position do they?

Interesting to note that Ellis was brought back in just a week after being "dropped" and didn't play any VFL games. Surely he wasn't just a young player that needed a rest?
 
Jobe Watson said:
We're back to square one.

You. lost. to. the. Gold. Coast. Twice.

From a game you had to sell interstate just to eradicate the pathetic amount of debt your club has taken on. There is nothing more embarrassing than that.

We had a mammoth injury list to a young team and suffered by dropping games to good teams. If we ever lost to Gold Coast though I'd seriously contemplate microwaving my membership or dropping chicken shit at Hird's door.
Click to expand...
At what point in 2012 were Melbourne a good team? In fact at what point in 2010-2012 were Melbourne a good team?

BTW I'd get the microwave ready if I was you, first game between Essendon and Gold Coast was a 139 point win to the Bummers, second meeting saw the Bummers squeak home by under 3 goals after trailing at 3/4 time. If GC can improve by the same amount again heading into your clash this year they'll wipe the floor with you by 10+ goals.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Esse-don fans, you do realise you've lost your last 7 games by an average of 51 points right?

Similar threads

Saveloy Rockstar
Podcast Post here if you've won most of your last 7 games at your Cheat Ground
Replies
1
Views
223
frggr
frggr
V_23
  • Poll
Post here if your team has won a final in the last 7,000 days AND you’ve never mashed on anyone
Replies
15
Views
371
zackah
zackah
zackah
Backfire Post here if you have won at least 80% of your last 5 games and are undefeated
Replies
11
Views
402
AvantGardener
AvantGardener
JoseMourinho
Post here if you won't make finals because your last 2 games are insanely hard
2 3
Replies
65
Views
2K
JoseMourinho
JoseMourinho
frggr
Post here if you've lead by 100 points at half time, three times or more
Replies
6
Views
141
STPer18
STPer18
AvantGardener
Post here if you've never had a player lose their last 10 games heading into their 300th
Replies
4
Views
191
frggr
frggr
V_23
Meltdown Post here if you've never read any deleted posts, don't support a team that hasn't won a final in 7,000+ days, and can start an electric fireplace
2
Replies
37
Views
772
JustaBattler
JustaBattler

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top