Sheedy

[Tubbs]

Is it just me or did anyone else get the impression from the press conference that Sheedy thought the reason Essendon lost was the umpiring, and not his side's inferior ability?

Essendon were lucky not to get pumped by 10 goals.

Considering the Mathews holding the ball decision and The Lloyd "Me not play On!" decision resulted in two gift goals, I'd worry more about a midfield that can't run out four quarters than blaming the officials.

It never ceases to amaze me that people feel free kicks should be relatively even.

Condidering we are likely to be at the G in Week 1, I wouldn't mind if we met Essendon there so we can really pump them!

[swansrule100]

sheedy wants to put his team in the best light possible and keep confidence high

[Dave]

He metioned that he wasn't that impressed by the Swan's perfomance.

It doesn't say much for his team to be beaten by an unimpressive side.

He is a total tosspot. It will be good to see them miss the finals.

[hammo]

I don't know what game he was watching.

It is strange logic to describe a team that kicks straight and totally outplays you for 3 quarters as 'unimpressive'.

[swansrule100]

i agree what he said was dumb

but i think he is great for his club and usually for the game as a whole

[Rob-bloods]

Originally posted by Dave
He metioned that he wasn't that impressed by the Swan's perfomance.

It doesn't say much for his team to be beaten by an unimpressive side.

He is a total tosspot. It will be good to see them miss the finals.

Here here..

Highly ingracious as you would expect from that overrated slob!

Roos was quick to apologise when the poor umpiring jibes seemed to indicate he was being a sore loser after match at MCG.

No such reciprocation....

[NMWBloods]

Firstly, on the 'gift' goals, I think the Mathews one was, but I can't see how you can say the Lloyd one was. Perhaps he was playing on, but the umpire didn't call it and typically in those line-ball cases they don't.

Secondly, when I read Sheedy's comments I thought he was mainly referring to the lost opportunities in the first quarter. In some ways we were lucky that Essendon kicked poorly in the first quarter. If they hadn't we may have been 6 goals down and in real trouble. Certainly we outplayed them for the rest of the game and I think Sheedy is a bit ungracious for not giving us that.

However, I think Essendon were also pretty unimpressive, so while being pleased with our efforts, I wouldn't get too over-excited about our form just yet.

[Doctor]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
[B In some ways we were lucky that Essendon kicked poorly in the first quarter. If they hadn't we may have been 6 goals down and in real trouble. [/B]

Couldn't agree more. The game should have been over at quarter time. Essendon kicked 3 9 from memory. Lucky for us eh? :-)

[CureTheSane]

I like Sheedy, but making 'reasons' is the same as excuses in my book.
Sore loser.

Same with Roos.
Hopefully he has learnt a bit about how he comes across when he mentions the unpiring etc after a loss.

As for free kicks being even.
I never understood that.
If a team is fired up and giving away frees, then that's that.
I hate it when the commentators say "WOW! 10 to 4 frees this quarter"

Big deal?
One team is offending more in that particular game...
They say it as if the unpired should be keeping their own individual tally to be 'fair'...

[cressakel]

Originally posted by Doctor
Couldn't agree more. The game should have been over at quarter time. Essendon kicked 3 9 from memory. Lucky for us eh? :-)

What people don't take into account with points and goals is that the ball goes back into the CENTRE after a goal and gets kicked out from the goal line after a point. Therefore, if Essendon did kick a goal or goals with those nine points, the ball would have been back in the centre and not kicked straight back to Watson, a la Nicksy.....

The score would not have been 9.3, as we couldn't clear the ball from a behind ( major bugbear of mine this season ) but we would have probably won half the centre clearances and therefore Essendon would not have had 12 shots on goal.

The scoreline would have more likely read 5.5 to 4.2 Essendon's way.

[cressakel]

Originally posted by Dave
He metioned that he wasn't that impressed by the Swan's perfomance.

It doesn't say much for his team to be beaten by an unimpressive side.

He is a total tosspot. It will be good to see them miss the finals.

Sheedy = Karma

Kevin may have forgotten the earlier game at the MCG when Soloman got three charity free kicks, Hird got one and Lloyd got two that all resulted in goals, not to mention Lovett-Murray's throw to Rioli ( I think ) on the goal line at the Punt Road End

Sheedy,Malthouse = Moron

How many times do we hear these old farts whinge about the umpiring, but when they get the right end of the stick they don't compliment the umpires but talk about the youth, positives etc etc etc - MORONS & HYPOCRITS !!

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by cressakel
What people don't take into account with points and goals is that the ball goes back into the CENTRE after a goal and gets kicked out from the goal line after a point. Therefore, if Essendon did kick a goal or goals with those nine points, the ball would have been back in the centre and not kicked straight back to Watson, a la Nicksy.....

The score would not have been 9.3, as we couldn't clear the ball from a behind ( major bugbear of mine this season ) but we would have probably won half the centre clearances and therefore Essendon would not have had 12 shots on goal.

The scoreline would have more likely read 5.5 to 4.2 Essendon's way.

Why would we have won the centre clearances? We lost that stat for the full game and they were killing us in the first quarter. I'm not saying that the score would have been reversed to become 9.3. However, if instead of 3.9 they were say 7.3 or 8.3 and we were still 2.2, then we were in heaps of trouble. Also, as a side kicks more goals and moves further ahead, this can produce momentum and also a down effect for the losing side. If they had kicked those goals then they might have managed to get the ball from the centre and kick more goals before we could settle.

Strangely you have us doing better if they kicked straight - we were down 13 points at qtr time, but above you have us down only 9 points. I can't imagine anyone seriosuly thinking that Essendon did better by kicking so poorly.

[Diego]

Bah we got the 4 points and they didn't. We are in the finals now and they prob are going to miss out.

Sour grapes from Sheeds, you kinda expect it these days.

But at the end of the day 4 points to us..do we care what he said? HELL NO.

[cressakel]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Why would we have won the centre clearances? We lost that stat for the full game and they were killing us in the first quarter. I'm not saying that the score would have been reversed to become 9.3. However, if instead of 3.9 they were say 7.3 or 8.3 and we were still 2.2, then we were in heaps of trouble. Also, as a side kicks more goals and moves further ahead, this can produce momentum and also a down effect for the losing side. If they had kicked those goals then they might have managed to get the ball from the centre and kick more goals before we could settle.

Strangely you have us doing better if they kicked straight - we were down 13 points at qtr time, but above you have us down only 9 points. I can't imagine anyone seriosuly thinking that Essendon did better by kicking so poorly.

Very good points you have there but, fortunately, Essendon are not that good in the midfield to continually win the centre clearances and therefore have a scoreline as mentioned above.

Also, Roosy had the match-ups wrong starting with Crouch on Hird, letting Peverill run free, Goodes in the BACKLINE and Schauble on Watson and eventually these match-ups were rectified or would have been rectified if Essendon were kicking accurately and continually winning the centre clearances.

[cressakel]

Originally posted by NMWBloods

Strangely you have us doing better if they kicked straight - we were down 13 points at qtr time, but above you have us down only 9 points. I can't imagine anyone seriosuly thinking that Essendon did better by kicking so poorly.

We would have won the clearances and therefore would have had more scoring opportunities.

As the ball didn't move much out of Essendon's forward line when a behind was kicked, we therefore didn't have many shots on goal due to the ball being locked in there forward line.

However, with a centre clearance there would have been more of a chance to kick a score. Considering our accuracy recently, these shots on goal would have probably amounted in goals - hence the reason the scoreboard lied in regard to Essendon's shots on goal and overall lead.