Mini and CJ the key?

kosifantutti23 · Sun 16 Aug 2009 9:36pm

Nineteen straight wins with both of them in the team. As soon as they miss, so do we.

battye · Post: # 797060Post **battye** » Sun 16 Aug 2009 9:38pm

We probably missed Jones tagging role I think, and McQualter often chips in with a goal here and there. Hope they come back into the team soon

eel33 · Post: # 797065Post **eel33** » Sun 16 Aug 2009 9:39pm

Not just important for their tagging/forward pressure, but their speed too.

desertsaint · Sun 16 Aug 2009 9:40pm

don't think the loss was due to any outs - we just weren't switched on until the last.

battye · Post: # 797072Post **battye** » Sun 16 Aug 2009 9:42pm

And Essendon had everything to play for. We'll learn from the experience I'm sure.

samoht · Post: # 797095Post **samoht** » Sun 16 Aug 2009 9:50pm

desertsaint wrote:don't think the loss was due to any outs - we just weren't switched on until the last.

i think we came back largely because there were 3 injured Essendon players sitting on the bench - going into the last quarter.

They were clearly the best team and controlled the game.

they just ran out of steam and fresh players at the end.

But still a good effort to claw our way back.

I agree Mini and jones are important players .. maybe the missing ingredient ?

reincarnated · Sun 16 Aug 2009 9:58pm

Reincarnated says that they are average players in a good team, they will not have bearing on a result unless they perform above their natural abilities

Both McQ and CJ would not have influenced on the below par effort today

Young Georgie · Sun 16 Aug 2009 10:20pm

reincarnated wrote:Reincarnated says that they are average players in a good team, they will not have bearing on a result unless they perform above their natural abilities

Both McQ and CJ would not have influenced on the below par effort today

Cage rattler on cue...you should have a fun week.

Both IMO would have made a discernible difference today. We got done in the centre when it counted and CJ has proven all year he has the ability to quell the playmakers when it counts (ie Watson) while Mini's pressure up forward would've helped on a day when defensively the forwards were not working hard enough.

Both CJ and Mini have proven time and again to be invaluable contributors to the overall team performance and have earned the right to be walk up starts come finals time.

Legendary · Post: # 797177Post **Legendary** » Sun 16 Aug 2009 10:20pm

reincarnated wrote:Reincarnated says that they are average players in a good team, they will not have bearing on a result unless they perform above their natural abilities

Both McQ and CJ would not have influenced on the below par effort today

See this is where I TOTALLY disagree.

McQualter - #4 in the AFL for tackles inside 50m.

Jones - top 5 for tackles at the club.

Both huge pressure/second effort/guts and determination players. Our forward pressure was the worst I'd seen it all year.

reincarnated · Sun 16 Aug 2009 10:23pm

Legendary wrote:
reincarnated wrote:Reincarnated says that they are average players in a good team, they will not have bearing on a result unless they perform above their natural abilities

Both McQ and CJ would not have influenced on the below par effort today
See this is where I TOTALLY disagree.

McQualter - #4 in the AFL for tackles inside 50m.

Jones - top 5 for tackles at the club.

Both huge pressure/second effort/guts and determination players. Our forward pressure was the worst I'd seen it all year.

By that stat McQ is a good player and Jones can tackle and thats it....

Again both play well in a good team as we are currently

SainterK · Post: # 797193Post **SainterK** » Sun 16 Aug 2009 10:25pm

I disagree also...what do some players have to do to earn a little respect....

Legendary · Post: # 797196Post **Legendary** » Sun 16 Aug 2009 10:26pm

Jones also our #1 midfield tagger and our quickest player ... against the quickest team ...

We missed him enormously IMO.

Those two players typify what we are about this year, and why we are 19-1.

LaUrEnCe · Post: # 797197Post **LaUrEnCe** » Sun 16 Aug 2009 10:27pm

I would've thought one of the key reasons for us doing well was tackling..

and isnt CJ one of the best for us at that?

It was so frustrating watching our tackles not stick for a change ..and them wriggling out

starsign · Post: # 797210Post **starsign** » Sun 16 Aug 2009 10:33pm

Starsign says that Reincarnated is still a "born again proctologist"

anus painus excrutiatus!

sendmehomehappy · Sun 16 Aug 2009 10:33pm

CJ and Mini will be celebrating a club record personal winning streak...come GF day.....AS WELL as the big one!

FullMonty · Post: # 797438Post **FullMonty** » Sun 16 Aug 2009 11:51pm

Agree. CJ would have stopped Watson.
Noone else seemed to pay him the respect he deserved.

VietNam_Saint · Mon 17 Aug 2009 12:21am

reincarnated wrote:Reincarnated says that they are average players in a good team, they will not have bearing on a result unless they perform above their natural abilities

Both McQ and CJ would not have influenced on the below par effort today

VS wonders what planet reincarnated is living on to make such a statement.

Mate , I think you should ask your Doctor to cut back on the medication .

Seriously .

Bernard Shakey · Mon 17 Aug 2009 12:29am

Lyon decided not to tag Watson.

I'm sure that if CJ or Mini were available they would have been given that job.

Having said that it seemed that Ross was playing games today. They didn't work.

maverick · Post: # 797575Post **maverick** » Mon 17 Aug 2009 12:33am

Bernard Shakey wrote:Lyon decided not to tag Watson.

I'm sure that if CJ or Mini were available they would have been given that job.

Having said that it seemed that Ross was playing games today. They didn't work.

Agree on this, Fisher up forward for one.
Thought Dempster tagging Stanton was a strange one.

Teflon · Post: # 797576Post **Teflon** » Mon 17 Aug 2009 12:33am

Bernard Shakey wrote:Lyon decided not to tag Watson.

I'm sure that if CJ or Mini were available they would have been given that job.

Having said that it seemed that Ross was playing games today. They didn't work.

Im not sure if Ross was playing games or sitting back watching who would play....all of a sudden Dal Santo's defensive efforts came to the fore again...

Lyon said at the presser that when we were 40 odd points down he "let them have their head" a bit which tells me he wanted to see a few under pressure.

python · Post: # 797610Post **python** » Mon 17 Aug 2009 12:46am

Both would have helped immensely. CJ, whilst i dont think he wouldve gone to watson, as he is an in and under player, and very difficult to tag as he is so good with his hands while being tackled, but still wouldve made a big difference, and Mcqualter, he is one of the best tacklers at the club, puts on a lot of pressure, something we seemed to miss in the forward half for a good three quarters today

maverick · Post: # 797618Post **maverick** » Mon 17 Aug 2009 12:49am

Teflon wrote:
Bernard Shakey wrote:Lyon decided not to tag Watson.

I'm sure that if CJ or Mini were available they would have been given that job.

Having said that it seemed that Ross was playing games today. They didn't work.
Im not sure if Ross was playing games or sitting back watching who would play....all of a sudden Dal Santo's defensive efforts came to the fore again...

Lyon said at the presser that when we were 40 odd points down he "let them have their head" a bit which tells me he wanted to see a few under pressure.

I agree, reckon he was sitting back myself, none of the trademark game saving moves went on.

Goddard didn't go back and play loose
Roo didn't play up high
Kosi didn't go down back

He did let them play, a few of them stood up, and a few went back to old habits...

I thought our mids got smashed, even though I thought Gards did OK.

Munga · Post: # 797622Post **Munga** » Mon 17 Aug 2009 12:50am

Well Lyon certainly pointed to their importance in his post match. They'll be straight back.

Very interesting Lyon didn't shut down Watson or Monfries. First time in a while I have seen him not react, maybe he thought it was the team's job to stop them.

Country Kid · Mon 17 Aug 2009 12:20pm

maverick wrote:
Bernard Shakey wrote:Lyon decided not to tag Watson.

I'm sure that if CJ or Mini were available they would have been given that job.

Having said that it seemed that Ross was playing games today. They didn't work.
Agree on this, Fisher up forward for one.
Thought Dempster tagging Stanton was a strange one.

Looked like Dempster was on Stanton for the first qtr & 1/2 and then was taken off him after which Stanton started getting into the game. I guess Lyon put Dempster on him initially to match Stanton's stamina and run forward of the ball.
Perhaps Dempster should have been put on Watson or Monfries. The way the game panned out we were a tagger/run with player short.

mullet · Post: # 797869Post **mullet** » Mon 17 Aug 2009 12:24pm

maverick wrote:
Teflon wrote:
Bernard Shakey wrote:Lyon decided not to tag Watson.

I'm sure that if CJ or Mini were available they would have been given that job.

Having said that it seemed that Ross was playing games today. They didn't work.
Im not sure if Ross was playing games or sitting back watching who would play....all of a sudden Dal Santo's defensive efforts came to the fore again...

Lyon said at the presser that when we were 40 odd points down he "let them have their head" a bit which tells me he wanted to see a few under pressure.
I agree, reckon he was sitting back myself, none of the trademark game saving moves went on.

Goddard didn't go back and play loose
Roo didn't play up high
Kosi didn't go down back

He did let them play, a few of them stood up, and a few went back to old habits...

I thought our mids got smashed, even though I thought Gards did OK.

Yep agree, I reckon he was giving a few their final chance to prove what they are made of, unfortunately they didnt pass the test and will not play finals.