Analysis The mental ineptitude against so called "lesser" sides & general mediocrity of EFC (Since 2005)

Remove this Banner Ad

We should never shrug at mediocrity! I hate losing too. Shit happens it's footy. I just don't think we are that good...
I was pleased Richmond kicked the shit out of us in the preseason because I hoped that would dampen expectations.

I don’t think we’re that good either and it only makes things worse when we’re expected to be top 4.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Disagree. We came off some totally unprecedented circumstances to win 12 games last year, and we recruited pretty well. We’re not a poor side and show that often. We have mental issues within games and in the lead up to some games.
We have mental issues within games ergo we are a poor side. The worry for me is it has become cultural.
 
Isn't this part and parcel of being a mid-range team?

The inconsistency of intensity and execution that results in these losses is precisely why you're a mid-range team. The same has applied to WC for perhaps the last 5-6 years, not counting 2015, exemplified by shocking lapses that have cost us games from winning positions.

In WC's case – and this might apply to Essendon as well – these results can sometimes be explained by a lack of quality and leadership in the midfield, because that's where momentum changes, whether it's seized or surrendered. And if you don't have the players in there who can impose themselves, you rely on things like team defence or turnovers, and you need to do that for four quarters. It becomes attritional. And if you're a mid-range team, that four-quarter effort can be elusive. It's more likely to come and go, which gives the other team the sense they're always a chance.

Also, without that quality in the midfield, WC rely on being able to play the way they like. If they can run and link up and flick the ball around, they look OK. But if it becomes an arm wrestle, or even if the other team plays efficient, fast footy, WC can get overrun because they don't have the players to turn the tide in the middle. At times, it looks like WC have only one way to win and if that gets shut down, we could lose to anyone. I don't know if that's specifically the case with Essendon but it may be that you have a preferred mode and if you're denied that, things goes pear-shaped.
 
Same again today. Biggest crack of the game when 30 points down in the last. Daniher doesn’t do the unforgivable there in the goalsquare and we could well go on and win.
Problem is, if we won it furthers drives the mindset that we don't have to try until the end.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

And do you think Essendon will come out fired up in the same manner as the Bulldogs did today?
This is an interesting question.
When we have these 'rev ups' we might show some intent for a quarter, maybe a half but that's it. Then it is back to type. The Dogs were at us all day evidenced by the swarming of Green when he tried to accept that ridiculous Daniher handball.
Some good points made in this thread but i dare say it is all for nought...
 
The trouble for us guys who were around albeit very young early on, is that we have been around to see 6 Premierships, about 10 Grannies and quite a lot of success.
In the 70's not so. But no matter what, we came out in those years, and the other side if they won at least came off very sore.
Watching that gutless rubbish yesterday, the only thing the Bulldogs would have been sore from was running us off our feet.
The only way to get through a message, that is being ignored by a bunch of these playing morons, is for some high profile people kicking off the dew in the Ressies.
It worked for Simon Madden who started on the Reserves bench against Fitzroy one time after Sheed's let rip.
Later he won Norm Smith Medals, Flags and is on the Board. I suggest Daniher be dropped. Not kidding. He'll get a message. And his 42 mates sure will too.
Can you imagine what is going the minds of Simon and the Board, the Staff, the volunteers, the past players, and the 1 million Supporter Nationwide that puts the girls out on the ground week in, week out after yesterday, given our History and Culture of Success?
A f**king disgrace to the Club, all involved behind the scenes, the old timers and the supporters.
FUMING. :devil::thumbsdown:
 
Last edited:
Our last finals win was 2004. For a club that beats it's chest about how big and successful we are, that's pathetic. Only other team I can think of that has a worse record is Melbourne.

In any private organisation with that type of failure the whole place would be cleaned out. Something is wrong.

Yet we may just limp into another elimination final, get smashed again, then the whole club will be looking to 'improve' yet again for the next year for it all to happen again.
 
Last edited:
Our last finals win was 2004. For a club that beats it's chest about how big and successful we are, that's pathetic. Only other team I can think of that has a worse record is Melbourne.

In any private organisation with that type of failure the whole place would be cleaned out. Something is wrong.

Yet we may just limp into another elimination final, get smashed again, then the whole club will be looking to 'improve' yet again for the next year for it all to happen again.

Whole place has been cleaned out multiple times.
 
I suspect if Paul Roos came in and did the basic ball handling test he did at the end of '13 with the squad he would find much the same results as he would find at Melbourne.

Coincidentally the most fair dinkum coach we've had at the helm post-Sheeds was (supposedly) the one advocating going back to basics and starting from the ground up. There is no selflessness, no authority, and as Tassieboy pointed out, no brains.

The peaks and troughs are what hurt the club more. A healthy, steady rise rather than a meteoric one would be more helpful. Going from wooden spoon to an EF isn't overly helpful.
 
Isn't this part and parcel of being a mid-range team?

The inconsistency of intensity and execution that results in these losses is precisely why you're a mid-range team. The same has applied to WC for perhaps the last 5-6 years, not counting 2015, exemplified by shocking lapses that have cost us games from winning positions.

In WC's case – and this might apply to Essendon as well – these results can sometimes be explained by a lack of quality and leadership in the midfield, because that's where momentum changes, whether it's seized or surrendered. And if you don't have the players in there who can impose themselves, you rely on things like team defence or turnovers, and you need to do that for four quarters. It becomes attritional. And if you're a mid-range team, that four-quarter effort can be elusive. It's more likely to come and go, which gives the other team the sense they're always a chance.

Also, without that quality in the midfield, WC rely on being able to play the way they like. If they can run and link up and flick the ball around, they look OK. But if it becomes an arm wrestle, or even if the other team plays efficient, fast footy, WC can get overrun because they don't have the players to turn the tide in the middle. At times, it looks like WC have only one way to win and if that gets shut down, we could lose to anyone. I don't know if that's specifically the case with Essendon but it may be that you have a preferred mode and if you're denied that, things goes pear-shaped.

Agree. There are a handful of sides that are consistently good and rarely get upset (for example, Geelong or Sydney); those that have been consistently bad and rarely cause upsets (Brisbane or Gold Coast); and those that fluctuate between pretty good and woeful on a regular basis. Essendon fits into that latter group and they are joined by quite a few teams.

Essendon looks like a million dollars when they are allowed to dictate play. What separates the good teams from the middle-of-the-road or poor teams, is their ability to play well when an opponent tries to impose their will on the contest. The likes of Geelong and Sydney consistently play good footy because they are resilient and can absorb an opponent's pressure. The likes of Essendon simply cannot do that consistently and that ultimately leads to inconsistent results.
 
It's called being an average side (which has also been abysmal during parts of the period in discussion).

Average sides, lose games they 'should win' and upset good teams when they get their shit together. They have hoodoos at certain grounds and struggle to win games interstate. Good sides don't really have any of these problems (except maybe the interstate sides who only play at the MCG once or twice a year and whose home grounds are completely different shapes).

We have the makings of a really good side but our midfield gets belted in the most important facet of the modern game which is winning the ball and pressuring an opponents when we don't have it. It doesn't matter how good our defense and attack are, if we can't win the ball in the middle we can't control the tempo of a game or the way it is played, and we're inherently reactive.

Finishing seventh last year not even a game clear from 9th is not inconsistent with any of this.

It's why David King's call that we would win the flag is possibly the worst of a long line of terrible calls. At least the Richmond side he tipped had a quality ball winning midfield.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Analysis The mental ineptitude against so called "lesser" sides & general mediocrity of EFC (Since 2005)

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top