absolutely fair enough IMO, I'd expect finals in 09 with our list + improvements too
Coaching Staff Past Coach: Matthew Knights - Finally gets his second shot - 5/5
- Thread starter Merv
- Start date
- Tagged users None
ant555
The Oracle
- May 4, 2004
- 35,800
- 55,435
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Penrith Panthers
Well the one good game he played for the season was when Sheedy told him to stick with Aker after 1/4 time.
Oggy's cousin
Senior List
I too have been puzzled by the Knights - Dyson love affair.
Then it occurred to me, Dyson is a very similar player to what Knights was...I wonder if Knights sees a bit of himself in Dyson.??
Then it occurred to me, Dyson is a very similar player to what Knights was...I wonder if Knights sees a bit of himself in Dyson.??
As would I -- I doubt that Jacko would say something like this if he didn't already know what Knights himself expected within the next few years.
Basically, for this to happen we need our young KPP prospects to start to really shine (particularly in defense) and we need our midfield to really step up. I would expect fletch and Mal to retire by the time 2010 comes along so it will be a young defense -- I hope that they step up because if they don't come along as strongly as necessary it may force Knights hand in recruiting another older guy to fill the hole so that he can push for finals.
Basically, for this to happen we need our young KPP prospects to start to really shine (particularly in defense) and we need our midfield to really step up. I would expect fletch and Mal to retire by the time 2010 comes along so it will be a young defense -- I hope that they step up because if they don't come along as strongly as necessary it may force Knights hand in recruiting another older guy to fill the hole so that he can push for finals.
If Knights can force Dyson to be a highly accountable midfielder, almost to the level of a tagger, then he could make a good job of it in the day of tagging players that still hurt the opposition going the other way.
I did enjoy watching Dyson get a bit aggro while playing on Yaka
I did enjoy watching Dyson get a bit aggro while playing on Yaka
matthewlloydwebber
Debutant
if he ends up racking 30+ possies every game like knights then i would be happy.
- Thread starter
- #757
Complex prelude to a Knights tale
25 October 2007 Herald Sun
Mark Robinson
ESSENDON managing director Peter Jackson explains the process that led the Bombers to appoint new coach Matthew Knights.
MARK ROBINSON: How has Essendon come out of the past three months?
PETER JACKSON: Right now we are OK, but the final judgment will be next season when the team starts playing. You can't have a marriage for 27 years, call it an end, without there being a certain amount of pain. A lot of people (as well as former coach Kevin Sheedy) have been around Essendon for 27 years and it affects them as well, just as it does the immediate people involved. They wonder and ask questions and that's totally expected. But the way Matthew (Knights) has handled himself, the way he's talked straight, I think people are ready to move on.
The perception is that you've become a very powerful figure, some say too powerful, as the managing director and spokesman.
It is about perception. In a normal business environment the CEO is the spokesman and what you're seeing here is the person filling the CEO's role has been the spokesman of the events of the past three to four months. The reality is the board as a whole made decisions, both of Kevin's non-reappointment and also Matthew's appointment, and I became the spokesman. Suddenly people are equating it to power. There are a few people around the periphery of football who don't understand due process. As a managing director you have one vote with 10 other people and don't have the power as people say.
Did you address the power issue with anyone at the club?
No, because I know it's just not the case. Not in any sense of my mind or my make-up am I too powerful, trust me. I think people who work closely with me and for me would laugh at that.
Unofficially, it was 10-1 on that infamous board night when Sheedy was sacked and chairman Ray Horsburgh lied to the media.
Infamous . . . well, it's almost a matter of public record that it was almost unanimous, which equates to 10-1, and that's right. So was the appointment of Matthew Knights.
How do you feel Ray Horsburgh has come through this period?
One of the things about football is that perception counts for so much and we're open to a lot of public scrutiny through the media, and rightly so. I think people should be judged on the whole package and not whether they can or can't handle a particular media situation. He tried to do the right thing at the time to protect Kevin and he's been judged harshly for that. If he had his time over again, he might do it differently.
Why did the club appoint a new coach on the Wednesday before the Grand Final when it had been waiting for so long to learn if Mark Thompson would be available? I was told that Thompson was ready to talk to Essendon after the Grand Final.
Any attempts at official contact to find out if he was interested didn't bring a response. Look, the board went into a process to look for a senior coach with a blank canvas and followed the due process. There was no time limit, it was going to happen when it happened and we got to Grand Final week and we had two candidates put up their final presentations. There was never official representation that Mark would be interested in the coaching position after the Grand Final. And when you're sitting there, before the Grand Final, the thing the board had to take into account was: Is he or isn't he interested? We could see ourselves, at that time, sitting in a vacuum and possibly not looking very professional while we're doing it, waiting for that process to unfold.
So, did the club jump?
No, we didn't jump, we didn't jump at all. We had two good candidates and one candidate at the end of the day we thought could do the role and that's the most compelling thing. Did we want to introduce a third candidate into that final stage? That was among the questions we asked ourselves. Is he interested or not? We didn't know officially.
Unofficially, Peter, had you been told by people at Essendon, who were close to Thompson, that he was interested? Again, I had been.
But that doesn't make it right. Let me take you through some scenarios. People close to him might have thought he might have been interested. But if you play in a Grand Final and lose it, perhaps you have unfinished business. If you win it, perhaps you're emotionally caught up, but in any event little would be done in the week after the GF while the emotion of winning or losing took its course. You might then get into a process the following week, where the guy wants to sit down and think, 'Do I really want to do this or am I happy where I am?'. He might think about that for a week. Two weeks goes by and he might say to you, 'Gee, the emotional impact of winning the Grand Final has been so immense, I can't walk away from all these fellas, so thanks but no thanks'. You have to try to make a judgment about what would be the circumstances after the Grand Final. It's a very emotional business.
But Thompson said on radio during Grand Final week he hadn't yet made a time to talk to Essendon, which was construed as interest.
I didn't hear him say that.
On 3AW.
At the end of the day it's irrelevant. There were two candidates before the board, the board was very happy with the candidate it chose -- very, very happy -- and the situation is we've got a coach.
You said blank canvas. Did that canvas get a little stained when Horsburgh said they wanted a coach with premiership experience, and that Mark Thompson and Mark Williams were top of the list?
I think I've already answered that question in a general way and I don't want to talk about the specifics of it.
There was speculation Damien Hardwick missed out because (a) he was less positive about the list than Matthew Knights, and (b) there was a query about indigenous players and he said they should be treated the same as other players. Can you respond to that?
That's simply not the reason why we preferred Matthew over Damien. I read that and the club's very disappointed. Some of those comments would have come from someone inside the club, there's no doubt about that, and that's extremely disappointing. It's not good for Damien Hardwick or good for the club. At the end of the day, it had little or nothing to do with why a vast majority of the board chose to go a certain path.
Through this final year, was there a time you thought board directors might have let their personal feelings cloud their judgment on Sheedy the coach?
I could fairly say no, that wasn't the case. I am absolutely confident the whole process the board put itself through was professional and fair.
For so long we heard that Sheedy would have a role at Essendon post-coaching. Now it has come to an end, has he got a role or is it a total break-up?
It should not be a total break-up, but that does not necessarily translate into some formal role. Gee, I hope it's not a break-up where he doesn't step into the football club again. I don't see that, I didn't see that, in his demeanour the last few weeks. I didn't see it at his celebration after the Grand Final.
Reality had set in by then. Didn't it start off rocky and then end in celebration?
I don't think it was that rocky. You're talking about a 27-year relationship here. It's going to be emotional. It's a long bow to then talk about that being rocky. I think the relationship will stand the test of time and Kevin will be around the club. I can't believe he will walk away from the Essendon Football Club.
Did the events negatively affect the relationship between you and Sheedy.
Not in any direct way I saw. Up until the last match and last event we were still able to talk to each other and have a professional working relationship. I didn't see anything outwardly that suggested anything differently.
In 2000, there was Sheedy, Robert Shaw, Mark Harvey, Matthew Drain, Graeme McMahon, Terry Daniher, Dean Wallis (playing), Dean Bailey, Adrian Dodoro, John Quinn and yourself. Only the last three remain. Your critics say you had problems with some of those people, namely Harvey and Wallis. Did you put the broom through the football department?
It's not a question of a clean-out, it's a question of things moving on in football. Look at Kevin's track record over his tenure. He's had a lot of assistants. Clubs need to be livened up. But the over-riding issue is, in every year since we played in a Grand Final in 2001, up until last year, we finished in a spot lower than we'd been the previous year. I said from a long time ago, 2007 wasn't a year of redevelopment. We had a playing list people thought we could run forward with and we haven't performed over the last three years. So, if you were playing all kids, like Hawthorn has or Collingwood has, you could accept the ups and downs, but when you see a graph that has slid down from No. 2 in 2001 down to No. 14 in 2006, you have to ask some questions about accountability.
Is it true you didn't have a great relationship with Mark Harvey and is it one of the reasons why Harvey wasn't in the mix for the coaching position?
I'm not aware of any relationship issues with Mark, not at all. If we have issues you'd have to ask him about them. The reality is Mark was a walk-up start for the Fremantle job. Stride Management made contact with his people, there was some discussions about him, but they never got anywhere. It wasn't because of anything we did.
Did you talk to Hardwick after the appointment of Knights, about how it was reported he was favourite for the job and that was, basically, representative of the board's feelings?
I don't know if the club made that representation. I don't know where that came from, so I'm not going to blame the club for that. I spoke to Damien and you could summarise the conversation by saying, by the time his own disappointment had subsided, he had probably exceeded his own expectations and ours to an extent because we didn't have him on the radar when the process started. That's what I think he might have said. He's going to be a very good head coach one day, I've no doubt about that.
Matthew Knights has been outstanding in his role. He's cut players, he's identified the future is youth and will play youth and in interviews has come across strong and confident. Fair comment?
Without sounding smug about it, I didn't expect anything different. This process was tough and exhaustive and stressful and at different times, different guys were in front. But the one bloke who kept on getting stronger and stronger was Matthew, to the point that he probably performed at his very best in the last presentation. He's got a very good ability to provide constructive, honest feedback to people without being judgmental or personal. He's got a very strong mental character. He believes in himself.
Is he operating his own mandate or the board's mandate?
He put a detailed coaching model up on day one. He's been planning for this job, in my opinion, for five years. He had all his intellectual property ready for that first presentation and he applied that to Essendon, applied it in terms of list, game plan, strengths and weaknesses and that model has become his modus operandi. So what you saw in terms of listings, we didn't have to sit and ask him because that was part of his model.
Did you sack Kevin Sheedy because Carlton had sacked Denis Pagan and you were worried you might miss out on Michael Voss?
No.
Was Voss in the calculation then?
There was a list of 18 people, I think.
Who wasn't on it?
Exactly right. We called head coaches in position and asked some of them, don't ask me who they were, but we asked them if they would be interested. The answer was no because they weren't available and no because they were happy where they were. I told you it was a blank canvas and that's where it stayed.
Did Chris Judd give Essendon lip service, or were you confident of securing him?
I have no idea, and it's not for us to judge whether he was giving us lip service or not. He made himself available to talk to us and we have to take that on face value.
Did it hurt not having a coach?
I don't think it hurt. What was more important is that he's a smart enough guy to realise we'd make a good decision and we had Lloyd and Hird in there talking about what Essendon was about, what makes it work, and our track record of making right decisions is for all to see.
Matthew Lloyd went on radio and then was linked to the suggestion all Essendon's WA kids were up for trade for Judd, and also said the coaching position was down to three men. Did it bother you in any way what he said?
He called me. He was actually more concerned by it than I was. Again, people make the odd comment they probably wish they hadn't, but he made a general comment and someone put some names to those general comments and everyone else translated that into fact. At the end of the day it won't matter for much.
Have you seen the last of the Save Essendon Group. Was it a financial and PR disaster for the club?
It wasn't a disaster. People have their democratic rights. I think the vote that went the club's way should be an indication to those people about where the vast majority of members' feelings are.
Were you at all worried?
You never know in those situations what might happen, but I think it was a good result for the club.
That was probably the first interview in 12 years that James Hird's name wasn't mentioned.
(Laughs) Well, it is a new era, isn't it?
25 October 2007 Herald Sun
Mark Robinson
ESSENDON managing director Peter Jackson explains the process that led the Bombers to appoint new coach Matthew Knights.
MARK ROBINSON: How has Essendon come out of the past three months?
PETER JACKSON: Right now we are OK, but the final judgment will be next season when the team starts playing. You can't have a marriage for 27 years, call it an end, without there being a certain amount of pain. A lot of people (as well as former coach Kevin Sheedy) have been around Essendon for 27 years and it affects them as well, just as it does the immediate people involved. They wonder and ask questions and that's totally expected. But the way Matthew (Knights) has handled himself, the way he's talked straight, I think people are ready to move on.
The perception is that you've become a very powerful figure, some say too powerful, as the managing director and spokesman.
It is about perception. In a normal business environment the CEO is the spokesman and what you're seeing here is the person filling the CEO's role has been the spokesman of the events of the past three to four months. The reality is the board as a whole made decisions, both of Kevin's non-reappointment and also Matthew's appointment, and I became the spokesman. Suddenly people are equating it to power. There are a few people around the periphery of football who don't understand due process. As a managing director you have one vote with 10 other people and don't have the power as people say.
Did you address the power issue with anyone at the club?
No, because I know it's just not the case. Not in any sense of my mind or my make-up am I too powerful, trust me. I think people who work closely with me and for me would laugh at that.
Unofficially, it was 10-1 on that infamous board night when Sheedy was sacked and chairman Ray Horsburgh lied to the media.
Infamous . . . well, it's almost a matter of public record that it was almost unanimous, which equates to 10-1, and that's right. So was the appointment of Matthew Knights.
How do you feel Ray Horsburgh has come through this period?
One of the things about football is that perception counts for so much and we're open to a lot of public scrutiny through the media, and rightly so. I think people should be judged on the whole package and not whether they can or can't handle a particular media situation. He tried to do the right thing at the time to protect Kevin and he's been judged harshly for that. If he had his time over again, he might do it differently.
Why did the club appoint a new coach on the Wednesday before the Grand Final when it had been waiting for so long to learn if Mark Thompson would be available? I was told that Thompson was ready to talk to Essendon after the Grand Final.
Any attempts at official contact to find out if he was interested didn't bring a response. Look, the board went into a process to look for a senior coach with a blank canvas and followed the due process. There was no time limit, it was going to happen when it happened and we got to Grand Final week and we had two candidates put up their final presentations. There was never official representation that Mark would be interested in the coaching position after the Grand Final. And when you're sitting there, before the Grand Final, the thing the board had to take into account was: Is he or isn't he interested? We could see ourselves, at that time, sitting in a vacuum and possibly not looking very professional while we're doing it, waiting for that process to unfold.
So, did the club jump?
No, we didn't jump, we didn't jump at all. We had two good candidates and one candidate at the end of the day we thought could do the role and that's the most compelling thing. Did we want to introduce a third candidate into that final stage? That was among the questions we asked ourselves. Is he interested or not? We didn't know officially.
Unofficially, Peter, had you been told by people at Essendon, who were close to Thompson, that he was interested? Again, I had been.
But that doesn't make it right. Let me take you through some scenarios. People close to him might have thought he might have been interested. But if you play in a Grand Final and lose it, perhaps you have unfinished business. If you win it, perhaps you're emotionally caught up, but in any event little would be done in the week after the GF while the emotion of winning or losing took its course. You might then get into a process the following week, where the guy wants to sit down and think, 'Do I really want to do this or am I happy where I am?'. He might think about that for a week. Two weeks goes by and he might say to you, 'Gee, the emotional impact of winning the Grand Final has been so immense, I can't walk away from all these fellas, so thanks but no thanks'. You have to try to make a judgment about what would be the circumstances after the Grand Final. It's a very emotional business.
But Thompson said on radio during Grand Final week he hadn't yet made a time to talk to Essendon, which was construed as interest.
I didn't hear him say that.
On 3AW.
At the end of the day it's irrelevant. There were two candidates before the board, the board was very happy with the candidate it chose -- very, very happy -- and the situation is we've got a coach.
You said blank canvas. Did that canvas get a little stained when Horsburgh said they wanted a coach with premiership experience, and that Mark Thompson and Mark Williams were top of the list?
I think I've already answered that question in a general way and I don't want to talk about the specifics of it.
There was speculation Damien Hardwick missed out because (a) he was less positive about the list than Matthew Knights, and (b) there was a query about indigenous players and he said they should be treated the same as other players. Can you respond to that?
That's simply not the reason why we preferred Matthew over Damien. I read that and the club's very disappointed. Some of those comments would have come from someone inside the club, there's no doubt about that, and that's extremely disappointing. It's not good for Damien Hardwick or good for the club. At the end of the day, it had little or nothing to do with why a vast majority of the board chose to go a certain path.
Through this final year, was there a time you thought board directors might have let their personal feelings cloud their judgment on Sheedy the coach?
I could fairly say no, that wasn't the case. I am absolutely confident the whole process the board put itself through was professional and fair.
For so long we heard that Sheedy would have a role at Essendon post-coaching. Now it has come to an end, has he got a role or is it a total break-up?
It should not be a total break-up, but that does not necessarily translate into some formal role. Gee, I hope it's not a break-up where he doesn't step into the football club again. I don't see that, I didn't see that, in his demeanour the last few weeks. I didn't see it at his celebration after the Grand Final.
Reality had set in by then. Didn't it start off rocky and then end in celebration?
I don't think it was that rocky. You're talking about a 27-year relationship here. It's going to be emotional. It's a long bow to then talk about that being rocky. I think the relationship will stand the test of time and Kevin will be around the club. I can't believe he will walk away from the Essendon Football Club.
Did the events negatively affect the relationship between you and Sheedy.
Not in any direct way I saw. Up until the last match and last event we were still able to talk to each other and have a professional working relationship. I didn't see anything outwardly that suggested anything differently.
In 2000, there was Sheedy, Robert Shaw, Mark Harvey, Matthew Drain, Graeme McMahon, Terry Daniher, Dean Wallis (playing), Dean Bailey, Adrian Dodoro, John Quinn and yourself. Only the last three remain. Your critics say you had problems with some of those people, namely Harvey and Wallis. Did you put the broom through the football department?
It's not a question of a clean-out, it's a question of things moving on in football. Look at Kevin's track record over his tenure. He's had a lot of assistants. Clubs need to be livened up. But the over-riding issue is, in every year since we played in a Grand Final in 2001, up until last year, we finished in a spot lower than we'd been the previous year. I said from a long time ago, 2007 wasn't a year of redevelopment. We had a playing list people thought we could run forward with and we haven't performed over the last three years. So, if you were playing all kids, like Hawthorn has or Collingwood has, you could accept the ups and downs, but when you see a graph that has slid down from No. 2 in 2001 down to No. 14 in 2006, you have to ask some questions about accountability.
Is it true you didn't have a great relationship with Mark Harvey and is it one of the reasons why Harvey wasn't in the mix for the coaching position?
I'm not aware of any relationship issues with Mark, not at all. If we have issues you'd have to ask him about them. The reality is Mark was a walk-up start for the Fremantle job. Stride Management made contact with his people, there was some discussions about him, but they never got anywhere. It wasn't because of anything we did.
Did you talk to Hardwick after the appointment of Knights, about how it was reported he was favourite for the job and that was, basically, representative of the board's feelings?
I don't know if the club made that representation. I don't know where that came from, so I'm not going to blame the club for that. I spoke to Damien and you could summarise the conversation by saying, by the time his own disappointment had subsided, he had probably exceeded his own expectations and ours to an extent because we didn't have him on the radar when the process started. That's what I think he might have said. He's going to be a very good head coach one day, I've no doubt about that.
Matthew Knights has been outstanding in his role. He's cut players, he's identified the future is youth and will play youth and in interviews has come across strong and confident. Fair comment?
Without sounding smug about it, I didn't expect anything different. This process was tough and exhaustive and stressful and at different times, different guys were in front. But the one bloke who kept on getting stronger and stronger was Matthew, to the point that he probably performed at his very best in the last presentation. He's got a very good ability to provide constructive, honest feedback to people without being judgmental or personal. He's got a very strong mental character. He believes in himself.
Is he operating his own mandate or the board's mandate?
He put a detailed coaching model up on day one. He's been planning for this job, in my opinion, for five years. He had all his intellectual property ready for that first presentation and he applied that to Essendon, applied it in terms of list, game plan, strengths and weaknesses and that model has become his modus operandi. So what you saw in terms of listings, we didn't have to sit and ask him because that was part of his model.
Did you sack Kevin Sheedy because Carlton had sacked Denis Pagan and you were worried you might miss out on Michael Voss?
No.
Was Voss in the calculation then?
There was a list of 18 people, I think.
Who wasn't on it?
Exactly right. We called head coaches in position and asked some of them, don't ask me who they were, but we asked them if they would be interested. The answer was no because they weren't available and no because they were happy where they were. I told you it was a blank canvas and that's where it stayed.
Did Chris Judd give Essendon lip service, or were you confident of securing him?
I have no idea, and it's not for us to judge whether he was giving us lip service or not. He made himself available to talk to us and we have to take that on face value.
Did it hurt not having a coach?
I don't think it hurt. What was more important is that he's a smart enough guy to realise we'd make a good decision and we had Lloyd and Hird in there talking about what Essendon was about, what makes it work, and our track record of making right decisions is for all to see.
Matthew Lloyd went on radio and then was linked to the suggestion all Essendon's WA kids were up for trade for Judd, and also said the coaching position was down to three men. Did it bother you in any way what he said?
He called me. He was actually more concerned by it than I was. Again, people make the odd comment they probably wish they hadn't, but he made a general comment and someone put some names to those general comments and everyone else translated that into fact. At the end of the day it won't matter for much.
Have you seen the last of the Save Essendon Group. Was it a financial and PR disaster for the club?
It wasn't a disaster. People have their democratic rights. I think the vote that went the club's way should be an indication to those people about where the vast majority of members' feelings are.
Were you at all worried?
You never know in those situations what might happen, but I think it was a good result for the club.
That was probably the first interview in 12 years that James Hird's name wasn't mentioned.
(Laughs) Well, it is a new era, isn't it?
nomad
Debutant
"We've been in the bottom four for three years in a row, we've slid, and there's a total understanding that perhaps Essendon has been a little overrated in recent times and a sense we've got to rebuild our credibility," Jackson said.
Didn't we finish 12th this year?
Didn't we finish 12th this year?
PJ isn't great at being a public face of the club. Stupid comments to make IMO. ATimelines for finals positions is pretty much always a bad idea. Personally I think we can play finals in 2009 but it certainly isn't guarenteed. If we are competitive in 2009, up around the finals w/ replacements for Lloyd/Lucas/Fletch then that is enough. We should definitely play finals in 2010 but to say we have to be top 4 is slightly disconcerting from PJ.
Thanks for putting that up Merv.
I'm still not satisfied with PJ's answer to why they did not wait to speak to Bomber Thompson after the GF. PJ's had quite a while to think of a response, and THIS is the best he can come up with?? Not especially impressive or convincing.
So... It was an "exhaustive process"... yet precluded discussions with a coach (and previous club captain) who looks to have expressed an interest in the position and had also previously been identified by the club (via Ray) as being one of their two top choices. Hmmm. Which one is it PJ??? It can't be both!
PJ (nor anyone on the board, apparently) heard Thompson's comment on 3AW, intimating interest in the job.... but they will still call it an informed decision to not even bother to wait 3 more days???
PJ seems to suggest that his primary concern was the possibility of not looking very professional, rather than getting the absolutely best candidate for the job? The jury's out on whether we got the best man, but I reckon the board and club has looked extremely unprofessional throughout this whole thing.
He sounds like a politician. Lots of words. Not much actually being said.
I'm still not satisfied with PJ's answer to why they did not wait to speak to Bomber Thompson after the GF. PJ's had quite a while to think of a response, and THIS is the best he can come up with?? Not especially impressive or convincing.
So... It was an "exhaustive process"... yet precluded discussions with a coach (and previous club captain) who looks to have expressed an interest in the position and had also previously been identified by the club (via Ray) as being one of their two top choices. Hmmm. Which one is it PJ??? It can't be both!
PJ (nor anyone on the board, apparently) heard Thompson's comment on 3AW, intimating interest in the job.... but they will still call it an informed decision to not even bother to wait 3 more days???
PJ seems to suggest that his primary concern was the possibility of not looking very professional, rather than getting the absolutely best candidate for the job? The jury's out on whether we got the best man, but I reckon the board and club has looked extremely unprofessional throughout this whole thing.
He sounds like a politician. Lots of words. Not much actually being said.
Pumper Rubberfunk
Senior List
Why cant the cheap pack of ciggies keep his mouth shut and wait until we get to the stage of having a decent team!!! This whole change of coach was for Peter jerk face to get his mug in the paper every second day opposed to Kev.. Oh did we mention the 2m plus profit the board has made!!! Matty wishing you all the best but you are the stage that PJ needed to drive his own media campaign not the clubs.. Dons need 2-3 years worth of draft picks to keep pace with the Cats, Hawks, and Pies it wont happen over night and we might not see the top 4 for another 5 years that means another new coach if ciggies keeps his word???
I think he's pretty much spot on.
Only issue I have is I wish we stopped mentioning dates as to when we play finals and when we become a force again.
It breeds a culture of mediocrity when you say we'll play finals in year x as you are resigned to sub standard performances till then.
We should be categorically stating that we aim to play finals next year and every year and any year we don't it is a massive disappointment.
Only issue I have is I wish we stopped mentioning dates as to when we play finals and when we become a force again.
It breeds a culture of mediocrity when you say we'll play finals in year x as you are resigned to sub standard performances till then.
We should be categorically stating that we aim to play finals next year and every year and any year we don't it is a massive disappointment.
- Banned
- #763
I think I must rate Dyson more than what you guys do.
His story is similar to Ted Richards' story at Essendon. Very good talent. Very comitted player. However not much opportunity given. Not as much as a Stanton anyway.
Even this year, I remember the two games he sparked us in the last quarter. Adelaide and Collingwood (late in the season). At crucial times
he broke clear from packs and kicked running goals from outside 50m.
I don't think I can think of anyone in the Essendon's midfield, who can kick goals from outside 50m consistantly. Even if you look at the whole list, I can only think of Lucas.
That is basically what we lack in our midfield. (Not the clearance part).
Dyson is also only just behind Davey and Lovett for speed over 20m. To my memory Stanton, Nash and Dyson were from the same draft, however the latter two haven't got much of an opportunity.
So in my opinion I am happy with what I am hearing in regards to Dyson.
His story is similar to Ted Richards' story at Essendon. Very good talent. Very comitted player. However not much opportunity given. Not as much as a Stanton anyway.
Even this year, I remember the two games he sparked us in the last quarter. Adelaide and Collingwood (late in the season). At crucial times
he broke clear from packs and kicked running goals from outside 50m.
I don't think I can think of anyone in the Essendon's midfield, who can kick goals from outside 50m consistantly. Even if you look at the whole list, I can only think of Lucas.
That is basically what we lack in our midfield. (Not the clearance part).
Dyson is also only just behind Davey and Lovett for speed over 20m. To my memory Stanton, Nash and Dyson were from the same draft, however the latter two haven't got much of an opportunity.
So in my opinion I am happy with what I am hearing in regards to Dyson.
Thats because Stanton came into the team and started racking up big possesion games straight away. He also had a few weaknesses with his disposal, but has been able to improve them.
Dyson on the other hand, came in and did a few nice things. Like Stanton he also had a few weaknesses, but in the 3 years he has been at the club hasn't improved at all.
I don't have anything against Dyson, and i hope Knights can make a player out of him, but it is a cop out to say he hasn't had an opportunity. He's had plenty of opportunities, he just hasn't taken any of them.
Thanks for putting that up Merv.
I'm still not satisfied with PJ's answer to why they did not wait to speak to Bomber Thompson after the GF. PJ's had quite a while to think of a response, and THIS is the best he can come up with?? Not especially impressive or convincing.
So... It was an "exhaustive process"... yet precluded discussions with a coach (and previous club captain) who looks to have expressed an interest in the position and had also previously been identified by the club (via Ray) as being one of their two top choices. Hmmm. Which one is it PJ??? It can't be both!
PJ (nor anyone on the board, apparently) heard Thompson's comment on 3AW, intimating interest in the job.... but they will still call it an informed decision to not even bother to wait 3 more days???
PJ seems to suggest that his primary concern was the possibility of not looking very professional, rather than getting the absolutely best candidate for the job? The jury's out on whether we got the best man, but I reckon the board and club has looked extremely unprofessional throughout this whole thing.
He sounds like a politician. Lots of words. Not much actually being said.
Yep, spot on. This whole thing hasnt sat well with me since it started. It stinks.
Anyway, time will tell if the Knights appointment really was the best man, or a puppet yes-man.
I pray like hell its the former.
- Banned
- #766
The Essendon board is obviously dillusional. This is half the problem with Essendon's culture right now, is the fact many of you are unable to accept that you aren't as good as you think you are, and your list isn't really capable of matching it anymore with the big guns in the long run.
Sheedy always took the line of topping up with players because the list was good enough to be successful, he brought in guys like Michael, Camporeale, Allen, Murphy etc, just to fill in holes thinking that having players like Hird, Lloyd, Lucas, McPhee, Fletcher would get you into the finals like it has in years past.
It doesn't work like that anymore, your young players who have finally been given a chance are still a couple of years off adequate experience, the group containing Watson, Stanton, Dyson seem to lying dormant (I'm not sure if they are much better than 1-2 years ago) and your older brigade are too old now.
The Bombers have finished in the bottom 4 the last 3 years, tell me what significant changes have been implemented that will see you jump all the way into the 8 in 2009? If anything, a new coach, the addition of even more youth and the loss of the off- field and on- field leaders of your club over the last decade and a half will see you go backwards.
I know it is the job of the board to say that you aim to make finals yada, yada, yada, that is accepted, but to catagorically say pretty much that Essendon has to make the finals in 2009 and then push for top 4 in 2010 is obsurd, and very ignorant on your boards behalf, do they actually watch the team play?
The point, that it breeds a culture of mediocrity is spot on, because now if it doesn't happen the negativity and tension and angst and frustration at Bomberland will be rife over the next couple of seasons, and it just places enourmous and uneccesary pressure on a rookie coach (particularly one who hasn't obtained any real success at any club he's coached at elsewhere thus far, and has had no AFL coaching experience), who is already having to deal with coming in under the shadow of Kevin Sheedy.
I don't want to hear any crap like, "we'll look at the Kangaroos, anything can happen!" First of all the Kangas made the finals in 2005, in fact they finished 5th with the same list, it was only because 2006 was such a poor year everybody jumped off the wagon with them. As I said Essendon has struggled for 3-4 years now. And besides this isn't a case of having a one- off "out of nowhere year", this is about obtaining success over an extended period, which the Bombers simply do not have the capabilities or resources to do in the immediete future.
Why you think you can obtain such finals success so soon is beyond me! Maybe you should have got rid of Jackson and Horsbraugh, because they don't know what they are talking about. Get realistic Bombers!
Sheedy always took the line of topping up with players because the list was good enough to be successful, he brought in guys like Michael, Camporeale, Allen, Murphy etc, just to fill in holes thinking that having players like Hird, Lloyd, Lucas, McPhee, Fletcher would get you into the finals like it has in years past.
It doesn't work like that anymore, your young players who have finally been given a chance are still a couple of years off adequate experience, the group containing Watson, Stanton, Dyson seem to lying dormant (I'm not sure if they are much better than 1-2 years ago) and your older brigade are too old now.
The Bombers have finished in the bottom 4 the last 3 years, tell me what significant changes have been implemented that will see you jump all the way into the 8 in 2009? If anything, a new coach, the addition of even more youth and the loss of the off- field and on- field leaders of your club over the last decade and a half will see you go backwards.
I know it is the job of the board to say that you aim to make finals yada, yada, yada, that is accepted, but to catagorically say pretty much that Essendon has to make the finals in 2009 and then push for top 4 in 2010 is obsurd, and very ignorant on your boards behalf, do they actually watch the team play?
The point, that it breeds a culture of mediocrity is spot on, because now if it doesn't happen the negativity and tension and angst and frustration at Bomberland will be rife over the next couple of seasons, and it just places enourmous and uneccesary pressure on a rookie coach (particularly one who hasn't obtained any real success at any club he's coached at elsewhere thus far, and has had no AFL coaching experience), who is already having to deal with coming in under the shadow of Kevin Sheedy.
I don't want to hear any crap like, "we'll look at the Kangaroos, anything can happen!" First of all the Kangas made the finals in 2005, in fact they finished 5th with the same list, it was only because 2006 was such a poor year everybody jumped off the wagon with them. As I said Essendon has struggled for 3-4 years now. And besides this isn't a case of having a one- off "out of nowhere year", this is about obtaining success over an extended period, which the Bombers simply do not have the capabilities or resources to do in the immediete future.
Why you think you can obtain such finals success so soon is beyond me! Maybe you should have got rid of Jackson and Horsbraugh, because they don't know what they are talking about. Get realistic Bombers!
What's to say you guys can't play finals next year. Look at the roos! If things go right any list can make the 8. Obviously like my club and yours alot of things would need to go right but you shouldn't place limits or expectations on a group ,like Jackson has done
Forget Stanton! I'm getting frustrated that people think he's good. Ask an opposition supporter what they think of Stanton!
Step aside for just one moment, take off your Essendon hat and put on your objective hat. What has he got that an opponent doesn't have???
I'd take Dyson over Stanton! I'm not interested in a player that plays a similar role to Robert Harvey... Harvey now not Harvey 10 years ago! That 15 metre kick that goes nowhere but adds a stat to their disposals column... numbers mean jack if you do FA with it!
I want to see way less turnovers!
Step aside for just one moment, take off your Essendon hat and put on your objective hat. What has he got that an opponent doesn't have???
I'd take Dyson over Stanton! I'm not interested in a player that plays a similar role to Robert Harvey... Harvey now not Harvey 10 years ago! That 15 metre kick that goes nowhere but adds a stat to their disposals column... numbers mean jack if you do FA with it!
I want to see way less turnovers!
- Thread starter
- #769
Try reading the article before you make assumptions next time
- Thread starter
- #770
....
- Banned
- #771
So be it, but tell me what diefference that makes? Potentially you could be worse off by then, because Lloyd, Lucas, Fletcher, Michael, Johnson, Peverill etc will be finished or gone (the players that have for so long and still do carry your team), all your best players including your entire spine. Your youngsters "should" be further developed by then, but will still only be 21-24 years old, so the majority of your team will not yet be at their prime balance needed for finals success.
matthewlloydwebber
Debutant
um stanton can find the ball and link play. his kicking aint the best but from what i saw in his first season, it has improved out of sight. whats the point in asking what he has that an opposition player doesnt have anyway? you could apply that to anyone in the league.
ant555
The Oracle
- May 4, 2004
- 35,800
- 55,435
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Penrith Panthers
So you would both have been happy to wait longer for Bomber to say he wasnt interested ?
On top of that we needed a coach who is looking to build the list over 3 plus seasons. Thompson is on record as saying his next contract will more than likely be his last. So you all would have been happy to have Bomber come over for two years and then say goodbye im finished with coaching ?
On top of that we needed a coach who is looking to build the list over 3 plus seasons. Thompson is on record as saying his next contract will more than likely be his last. So you all would have been happy to have Bomber come over for two years and then say goodbye im finished with coaching ?
In simple terms, is he better than any other midfielder playing for an opposing team? Name them if you like.
- Nov 28, 2006
- 28,856
- 11,894
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Jason Johnson doesn't carry our team.