Game Day Round 9 2016 - GWS Giants V Western Bulldogs

[Go_Dogs]

Well, that was about what I expected today.

We're not going to be able to beat the better sides (I hate to say it, but GWS are clearly one of those) until we start getting a few players back.

Today also highlighted we need to continue to add speed and good users to our list. Our recent drafting seems to have been addressing the latter, but as we're going to have to compete with GWS at the pointy end as we continue our rise we'll need to add some pace around the ball.

[chef]

Shit?? Been on the piss? Surely this site is better than this?

He was actually very effective in the 2nd half.. Won seem key contests and used it efficiently.

Yep. I didn't think Adcock was that bad and could hold his head up after his effort today. There was many worse but i guess they escape the same criticism for some reason.

[bornadog]

Posters can sugar coat Adcock's performance all you want, but for me Bailey Williams a kid 10 years his junior in his second game, played a better game off the backline. There was a reason why Brisbane didn't want him and we are finding out now.

[dadsgirl16]

Dickson had a mare and not on his pat Malone ..not sure how you can single out Adcock

[Hotdog60]

We butchered the ball and they made us pay. That's the bottom line and I hope Boyd and Redpath feel ashamed of letting down their team mates with some undisciplined moves last week. We needed Boyd in defense and Redpath up forward, Williams looks a goer and maybe a long term Murphy replacement.
I would have liked Picken to go to Shaw for the game to dry up the rebound. Picko is a good stopper and a reasonable forward.
Anyway we were under manned and I hope next time we put the boot on the other foot.

[Mantis]

Today also highlighted we need to continue to add speed and good users to our list. Our recent drafting seems to have been addressing the latter, but as we're going to have to compete with GWS at the pointy end as we continue our rise we'll need to add some pace around the ball.

Agree... Need some more pace and class.. I don't think our best team when we get the final product contains all of Libba, Wallis, Stevens, Hunter and Macrae.

[bornadog]

Dickson had a mare and not on his pat Malone ..not sure how you can single out Adcock

Ok, Stringer, Roughead, Dickson for most of the game, but played out of position until he got two goals when he went forward, Jong, Stevens all not their usual selves.

[F'scary]

We did well to keep it to a 25 point loss. You could see the structural deficiencies today. KPB and KPF.

[Twodogs]

Were we really that bad?

Same amount of scoring shots, 1 less inside 50, more contested ball... Just very wasteful.

Our tackling was also terrible, GWS had more 30.. They made us pay with the ones we missed.

Spot on. If I were a GWS supporter i would be wondering why and worried that they didn't win by at least ten goals. Absolutely everything fell their way today, apart from losing two players along the way. But give us back our All Australians, captain, gun recruits and all the rest and we win. Easily

Oh well, just keep pissing the money, players and draft picks against the wall. Maybe ten thousand people will turn up one day-although i doubt it.

[Twodogs]

We butchered the ball and they made us pay. That's the bottom line and I hope Boyd and Redpath feel ashamed of letting down their team mates with some undisciplined moves last week. We needed Boyd in defense and Redpath up forward, Williams looks a goer and maybe a long term Murphy replacement.
I would have liked Picken to go to Shaw for the game to dry up the rebound. Picko is a good stopper and a reasonable forward.
Anyway we were under manned and I hope next time we put the boot on the other foot.


Boyd I agree but the Redpath suspension was pure bullshit. It wouldn't even have been given a second look if we weren't playing GWS.

[1eyedog]

Shit?? Been on the piss? Surely this site is better than this?

He was actually very effective in the 2nd half.. Won seem key contests and used it efficiently.
Sometimes it is sometimes it isn't. My statement is to the point yes but Adcock is will do that to a man. I will qualify my statement by saying shite, which seems to be the more respectable way of saying shit here.

[Hotdog60]

Boyd I agree but the Redpath suspension was pure bullshit. It wouldn't even have been given a second look if we weren't playing GWS.

From the limited vision on Redpath I thought he should have appealed, but still he got rubbed out which still hurt our structure.

[Remi Moses]

Really really noticeable that we need one more in the outside speed dept .
The Redpath out was huge, although not a star, he's absence hurt our forward structure
Really liked the Bailey Williams Game .

[Sedat]

Really really noticeable that we need one more in the outside speed dept .
The Redpath out was huge, although not a star, he's absence hurt our forward structure .
Redpath would have helped but the delivery into forward 50 was poor, and our efforts to keep it in our forward 50 were even poorer. Stringer needs to work hard defensively when he isn't getting it on a platter - that means bringing it to ground in a marking contest and running maniacally to pressure the defensive rebounders. Only 5 tackles inside forward 50 compared to 22 by GWS. All things considered our defence held up well after the first crap 10 minutes.

[Remi Moses]

Redpath would have helped but the delivery into forward 50 was poor, and our efforts to keep it in our forward 50 were even poorer. Stringer needs to work hard defensively when he isn't getting it on a platter - that means bringing it to ground in a marking contest and running maniacally to pressure the defensive rebounders. Only 5 tackles inside forward 50 compared to 22 by GWS. All things considered our defence held up well after the first crap 10 minutes.

Seems to help take some of the load off mentally for Jake to have Redpath in the side .
We kicked woefully into the forward half

[Mantis]

Sometimes it is sometimes it isn't. My statement is to the point yes but Adcock is will do that to a man. I will qualify my statement by saying shite, which seems to be the more respectable way of saying shit here.

Why don't you qualify your statement by explaining why he is on the nose?

[always right]

Adcock is an easy target. Apart from one poor passage there was nothing wrong with his game. Does he make us a better side? No.....but he is playing a role until better players are available.

Reckon people should be looking closer at the blokes we consider part of our best 22 for criticism.

[1eyedog]

Why don't you qualify your statement by explaining why he is on the nose?
Check my past posts if you're that interested. I've discussed him at length each week. I'm tired of talking about him. He makes a lot of mistakes for a 200 game player. He wasn't on his own today.

[GVGjr]

Posters can sugar coat Adcock's performance all you want, but for me Bailey Williams a kid 10 years his junior in his second game, played a better game off the backline. There was a reason why Brisbane didn't want him and we are finding out now.

I'm not knocking Williams and I was genuinely pleased with his game but he was a loose man for a decent stretch and it's not apples and apples.

The thing is BAD, you consistently knock Adcock for not getting a lot of possessions but he was promoted from Footscray after a couple of games where he got a bit of the footy and you seem to discount that for him. When a younger guy gets a bit of the ball at Footscray you want him in but not so when it's an older guy. Your fascination with having the youngest playing list isn't right.

I've seen a bit of Footscray and there isn't a lot of players genuinely knocking the door down and a lot of the injured guys will still need a week or two at Footscray.

To me we never recruited Adcock to get 20 + possessions or to play 15 senior games, we got him to potentially back up the likes M.Boyd, Murphy and Morris during a long season. Losing Murphy just got him into the side a bit quicker than expected.

[ratsmac]

Gee I'm flat after that. I shouldn't be because with so many of our best 22 players out it should probably be expected. We can only get better with players returning. All in all after all emotion has settled we were a few freak goals from Johnson and Sheil from being right in it.

[LostDoggy]

We were smashed today. I know the stats probably don't show it but we were way out-classed.

The fact they were 2 down for 80% of the match and still spread and out worked us was really alarming.

Dickson is just putrid when not inside 50. He needs to stay there.

Our depth is ok. But not good enough to cover 6 or 7 players out.

[always right]

If GWS could choose the two players to go off injured, it would be Buntine and Mohr. They didn't really impact on their rotations and we don't have key forwards that couldn't be covered by others.

[Eastdog]

I'm not sure why you singled out Jong? Playing half forward and doubled teamed all day with a midfield boming it in long. Surely Dickson and Stringer were more disappointing?

Certainly was not the only that is for sure that was down. Agree Dicko and Stringer didn't have great days either. Adcock was not too bad today. How did you rate Roberts game?

[Mantis]

Our depth is ok. But not good enough to cover 6 or 7 players out.

Having 5 of those players missing from the one zone has stretched us a little too far, but besides some bad ball use our defence wasn't all that bad.. Just a little out classed.

[Eastdog]

Not a great day today at the office. A lot of players way down. I liked Wood's game. Dahl, Picken battled really hard. Dale Morris is great. We had a some good ball movement but not enough and our forward line was below par today. Hunter got a lot of it early on. Thought Campbell did alright today. Despite the disappointment it was good we kept battling it out right at the end and not allow them to increase their lead and that's helps our percentage not getting a battering.

[hujsh]

I'm not knocking Williams and I was genuinely pleased with his game but he was a loose man for a decent stretch and it's not apples and apples.

The thing is BAD, you consistently knock Adcock for not getting a lot of possessions but he was promoted from Footscray after a couple of games where he got a bit of the footy and you seem to discount that for him. When a younger guy gets a bit of the ball at Footscray you want him in but not so when it's an older guy. Your fascination with having the youngest playing list isn't right.

I've seen a bit of Footscray and there isn't a lot of players genuinely knocking the door down and a lot of the injured guys will still need a week or two at Footscray.

To me we never recruited Adcock to get 20 + possessions or to play 15 senior games, we got him to potentially back up the likes M.Boyd, Murphy and Morris during a long season. Losing Murphy just got him into the side a bit quicker than expected.

I don't want to get too invested in the Adcock discussion but I don't see how that is relevant now. If BAD want's to see more of an output from him at AFL level, the fact he racked up a few touches at VFL level weeks ago doesn't really change anything.

I understand why BAD would prefer to play younger players. One reason is
a) he thinks they might play better and if Adcock isn't giving us that much there's no harm in trying and
b) if Adcock isn't going to become a best 22-25 player (like Dickson did) but rather play a few games over a couple of years (like Goodes) then it may be that we're missing a chance to invest a few games into guys like Webb or Dunkley or to find out if Honeychurch will make it.

I don't think Adcock is horrible but I doubt he's the best guy short term or long term for the team.

[ratsmac]

I thought Adcock was below average in the first half and average in the 2nd half. I think I have to come to terms with the fact that he is only an average player. He is definitely worth a spot in the team right now because we nothing better to bring in.

[1eyedog]

Dickson had a mare and not on his pat Malone ..not sure how you can single out Adcock

Cmon already with the Adcock love. Dicko has the runs on the board as do others who performed badly. Adcock has been bad to ordinary at best the moment he pulled on the jumper.

If he brings leadership then bring it and at least be strong at the contest. He simply hasn't been. Williams added more than Adcock today and I should think that Webb would as well. How he is keeping Webb out of the team is beyond my comprehension.

[1eyedog]

I'm not knocking Williams and I was genuinely pleased with his game but he was a loose man for a decent stretch and it's not apples and apples.

The thing is BAD, you consistently knock Adcock for not getting a lot of possessions but he was promoted from Footscray after a couple of games where he got a bit of the footy and you seem to discount that for him. When a younger guy gets a bit of the ball at Footscray you want him in but not so when it's an older guy. Your fascination with having the youngest playing list isn't right.

I've seen a bit of Footscray and there isn't a lot of players genuinely knocking the door down and a lot of the injured guys will still need a week or two at Footscray.

To me we never recruited Adcock to get 20 + possessions or to play 15 senior games, we got him to potentially back up the likes M.Boyd, Murphy and Morris during a long season. Losing Murphy just got him into the side a bit quicker than expected.

That's a cop out post. I've seen a bit of Footscray as well and feel HC and Webb would offer more. Rather than pot Adcock I'll ask a simple question. What does he bring to the team that keeps him in? Leadership? Hardness at contest? What does he bring that Webb, HC don't? Because if it comes down to dinky positional reasons I just don't think that's good enough reason and may actually have an effect on our ability to win contests and maybe even more than that.

[ledge]

Anyone watch fox footy when Hunter kicked the first goal and the commentator says lets go to the western bulldogs coach Leon Cameron . So they went up to him and said you would be happy to get that goal on the board .. Whereas Leon replied well actually no I am not.
How stupid are the commentators ???

[Eastdog]

Anyone watch fox footy when Hunter kicked the first goal and the commentator says lets go to the western bulldogs coach Leon Cameron . So they went up to him and said you would be happy to get that goal on the board .. Whereas Leon replied well actually no I am not.
How stupid are the commentators ???

Yep on the 7 coverage. Yes they are stupid that's for sure. They probably thought he was still associated with us.

[dadsgirl16]

Not sure about the "Adcock love" and I too would love to see Webb get a go but just think he is being singled out and perhaps unfairly
..just saying..

[F'scary]

Anyone watch fox footy when Hunter kicked the first goal and the commentator says lets go to the western bulldogs coach Leon Cameron . So they went up to him and said you would be happy to get that goal on the board .. Whereas Leon replied well actually no I am not.
How stupid are the commentators ???

Yeah I saw that on ch7 too, I think it was the syphilis guy who asked it.

[LostDoggy]

Anyone watch fox footy when Hunter kicked the first goal and the commentator says lets go to the western bulldogs coach Leon Cameron . So they went up to him and said you would be happy to get that goal on the board .. Whereas Leon replied well actually no I am not.
How stupid are the commentators ???

Plenty of blokes looking for a job, they should be amongst them.

[Eastdog]

Plenty of blokes looking for a job, they should be amongst them.

You would think with a record TV rights deal we would get good commentators who know their stuff.

[always right]

Cmon already with the Adcock love. Dicko has the runs on the board as do others who performed badly. Adcock has been bad to ordinary at best the moment he pulled on the jumper.

If he brings leadership then bring it and at least be strong at the contest. He simply hasn't been. Williams added more than Adcock today and I should think that Webb would as well. How he is keeping Webb out of the team is beyond my comprehension.
Mate....because people have a different view to you doesn't warrant the condescending reference to "Adcock love". You don't rate him...we get it.

[kruder]

I'm not his biggest fan but I thought Macrae was the only player looking to open up the game, play the angles rather than just bomb it long to an under sized forward line. I thought it was his best game for the year.

Really disappointing that we fell for the same trap against North. Like that night, it was an industrious effort which lacked class. I really hope Lynch makes it at AFL level as has the atributes we are looking for, along with JJ, Suckling and hopefully Murphy.

[GVGjr]

I don't want to get too invested in the Adcock discussion but I don't see how that is relevant now. If BAD want's to see more of an output from him at AFL level, the fact he racked up a few touches at VFL level weeks ago doesn't really change anything.

I understand why BAD would prefer to play younger players. One reason is
a) he thinks they might play better and if Adcock isn't giving us that much there's no harm in trying and
b) if Adcock isn't going to become a best 22-25 player (like Dickson did) but rather play a few games over a couple of years (like Goodes) then it may be that we're missing a chance to invest a few games into guys like Webb or Dunkley or to find out if Honeychurch will make it.

I don't think Adcock is horrible but I doubt he's the best guy short term or long term for the team.

But here is the thing, he says he isn't anti Adcock (or Goodes before him) because of their age however he then uses how we need to play 'younger players' to support his comments. Even BAD's reasoning for calling out Adcock today was that Williams was 10 years younger and got more of the ball than he did. As I've kept saying, I don't have an issue with anyone calling for Adcock to be dropped provided their reasoning isn't about his age and is largely form related. My preference is that selections are largely based on form not age considerations. Gifting games to youngsters or maintaining older players just because of past performances is not ideal if they don't have the form to support it.

We are a contending team that gives many youngsters a good go. We don't need to force out or promote players due to age considerations.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

I kind of expected that today - it went to script.

Let's be honest - we are missing some of our best players. You simply cannot replace the combination of pace and skill which Murphy, JJ and Suckling offer. They're right at the top of the tree in terms of their strengths.

M. Boyd compounds the trio of medium defenders missing. He has his flaws but he knows the game and structures well, providing good support for his other defenders.

We played Collins and we simply shouldn't have. He's a country mile off it and it was a bewildering decision to play him ahead of Hamling, given our long list of outs. Adams would have been handy today too - hopefully he's back soon.

No Redpath/T Boyd hurt us up forward - no more explanation needed. I thought we should have brought Minson in so that Campbell could play at FF for the bulk of the game. In the end, we had little structure up forward and Mummy dominated us in the ruck and around the clearances.

It's annoying and bloody frustrating to 'be in the game' at points, but not many lists in the AFL can lose 7-8 of their best 22 and still beat a top 4 side (which unfortunately, the AFL-GWS are). Our depth is good but we're asking too much.

For mine, I have some concern over our selections. I thought Dale received too many games when he hadn't earned them (he was good in the last qtr v Adelaide), I think we have better options than Adcock and Collins, and today would have been the time to play Minson. We have our injury issues and we probably lack another 1-2 quality/silky players. Our effort was right up there with GWS' despite what was counting against us, but they had more silk.

We need to continue drafting good ball users/good decision makers as this is still a big issue for us and I'd continue looking at free agency (ie. Suckling).

Not all is lost. We're just not there yet and have some work to do.

[Sedat]

The Adcock play in the 2nd qtr wasn't the greatest piece of defensive forward pressure in the world, but Shaw did infringe against Adcock and should have been penalised. And why didn't the pass hit Adcock on the chest when the kick was under no pressure at all?

My only issue with Adcock is that he lacks leg speed and we are already carrying our fair share of one-paced players.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

I kind of expected that today - it went to script.

Let's be honest - we are missing some of our best players. You simply cannot replace the combination of pace and skill which Murphy, JJ and Suckling offer. They're right at the top of the tree in terms of their strengths.

M. Boyd compounds the trio of medium defenders missing. He has his flaws but he knows the game and structures well, providing good support for his other defenders.

We played Collins and we simply shouldn't have. He's a country mile off it and it was a bewildering decision to play him ahead of Hamling, given our long list of outs. Adams would have been handy today too - hopefully he's back soon.

No Redpath/T Boyd hurt us up forward - no more explanation needed. I thought we should have brought Minson in so that Campbell could play at FF for the bulk of the game. In the end, we had little structure up forward and Mummy dominated us in the ruck and around the clearances.

It's annoying and bloody frustrating to 'be in the game' at points, but not many lists in the AFL can lose 7-8 of their best 22 and still beat a top 4 side (which unfortunately, the AFL-GWS are). Our depth is good but we're asking too much.

For mine, I have some concern over our selections. I thought Dale received too many games when he hadn't earned them (he was good in the last qtr v Adelaide), I think we have better options than Adcock and Collins, and today would have been the time to play Minson. We have our injury issues and we probably lack another 1-2 quality/silky players. Our effort was right up there with GWS' despite what was counting against us, but they had more silk.

We need to continue drafting good ball users/good decision makers as this is still a big issue for us and I'd continue looking at free agency (ie. Suckling).

Not all is lost. We're just not there yet and have some work to do.

To lose Murphy JJ M Boyd Adams and Suckling left our defence thread bare today with only Wood Biggs and Morris good enough to match it with the GWS forward line. I agree with your sentiments on Adcock and Collins who are inadequate. Stringer will be a lot better player with Redpath back next week. Both Jong and Stevens do not have enough skill in disposing of the ball which showed up today in the talented GWS midfielders better skills.

[The Underdog]

Posters can sugar coat Adcock's performance all you want, but for me Bailey Williams a kid 10 years his junior in his second game, played a better game off the backline. There was a reason why Brisbane didn't want him and we are finding out now.

They were both in the team though. Who would you have had playing Adcock's role (small defender) given our injuries?

[LostDoggy]

All in all, I was most encouraged by today. GWS at home are formidable (to date they have beaten Geelong by 13, Port by 86, Hawthorn by 75 and GCS by 91 so far this year) and were good today but we were still highly competitive, breaking even in most stats and separated only by forward 50 efficiency, a highly promising result given all of our outs and the breaks generally going GWS way.

Biggest plusses were Williams efforts, Camheads continued competitiveness and Bont's 3rd 30+ effort in a row (and the likes of Morris, Picken, Macrae and Dahl delivering with typical honesty and class). Biggest impediment was our forward structure without Boyd/Redpath. Stringer so needs to not be the main man.

We are well on course with so many not far from return.

[Twodogs]

For the second time this season I'm at least happy we didn't get blown out if the water and lose by 10+ goals. At least part of our game held up.

[bornadog]

But here is the thing, he says he isn't anti Adcock (or Goodes before him) because of their age however he then uses how we need to play 'younger players' to support his comments. Even BAD's reasoning for calling out Adcock today was that Williams was 10 years younger and got more of the ball than he did. As I've kept saying, I don't have an issue with anyone calling for Adcock to be dropped provided their reasoning isn't about his age and is largely form related. My preference is that selections are largely based on form not age considerations. Gifting games to youngsters or maintaining older players just because of past performances is not ideal if they don't have the form to support it.

We are a contending team that gives many youngsters a good go. We don't need to force out or promote players due to age considerations.

Either I am not explaining it or you don't get it. It has nothing to do with his age. I just expect an experienced player to give us more on the ground. He has played over 200 games, surely he can contribute? If you can't get your hands on the ball, then you are not contributing. I used the Williams example because the kid did some good things with the ball.

I do not condone gifting games to young players, not sure why you keep bringing that up. Guys like Honeychurch have been averging 30 disposals a week at VFL, as is Dunkley and to a lesser extent Webb. I think they have earned a call up.

[1eyedog]

Mate....because people have a different view to you doesn't warrant the condescending reference to "Adcock love". You don't rate him...we get it.

Ease up champ. You're easily offended. It was no more or less inappropriate than your pull up Captain Censorship.

[SonofScray]

For the second time this season I'm at least happy we didn't get blown out if the water and lose by 10+ goals. At least part of our game held up.

That is something that gave me a bit of hope out of yesterday. We have a resilient & robust defensive strategy that looks after the scoreboard pretty well. Feels like we are aways a chance so long as the other areas of the game get going.

Even yesterday, in a game we were never really in at all, you feel like two goals on the trot would have shifted things. Follow up Campbell's 150m drop punt goal with a quick one and all of a sudden the wheels start turning properly. The goal reversal hurt a little in that context as well, emotional let down after building towards some momentum.

[Mofra]

I do not condone gifting games to young players, not sure why you keep bringing that up. Guys like Honeychurch have been averging 30 disposals a week at VFL, as is Dunkley and to a lesser extent Webb. I think they have earned a call up.
Dunkley and Honeychurch must be close to playing but with Adams, Boyd & Redpath likely to be available this week it will be hard enough getting those three into the side.

Personally I'm not convinced we can play both Boyd and Adcock in the same defence but clearly the MC see it differently.
Honeychurch's defensive pressure is elite and would perhaps stop the best opposition distributer in the back half cutting us up (Shaw killed us yesterday) but Mclean is the more attacking weapon and Dickson has the runs on the board, despite having an absolute shocker yesterday,

[Mantis]

I do not condone gifting games to young players, not sure why you keep bringing that up. Guys like Honeychurch have been averging 30 disposals a week at VFL, as is Dunkley and to a lesser extent Webb. I think they have earned a call up.

Those guys are all playing midfield and last time time I checked our midfield is at full strength and has been functioning well.

[Dancin' Douggy]

Koby has only had about 10 missed tackles... Not good enough from a strong/ mature player.

He might still be sore

[merantau]

Didn't see the game as was on a plane. Have read this thread in its entirety. Conclusion: too many are 'glass half-empty.' Scoreboard indicates same number of shots on goal, we weren't crushed and they have crushed some decent sides this year. Next week will be a good indication of where we are at.

[stefoid]

Didn't see the game as was on a plane. Have read this thread in its entirety. Conclusion: too many are 'glass half-empty.' Scoreboard indicates same number of shots on goal, we weren't crushed and they have crushed some decent sides this year. Next week will be a good indication of where we are at.

Our midfield did fine around the stoppages and we held our own in the contests around the ground, but GWS was better with their field kicking. Their midfield has a lot of players who are good in all aspects of the game whereas ours is a bit more varied in terms of what each player brings.

[Mofra]

Didn't see the game as was on a plane. Have read this thread in its entirety. Conclusion: too many are 'glass half-empty.' Scoreboard indicates same number of shots on goal, we weren't crushed and they have crushed some decent sides this year. Next week will be a good indication of where we are at.
We were probably slightly behind them on general play but we really need to work on our forwardline, too often this year we've smashed sides but only had modest victories. If we don't dominate a team in our midfield and defence they're a chance as we just don't seem to be able to trouble opposition defences.

Even our victories have been more about the midfield working hard to provide options forward than having genuinely dangerous forwards (with the exception of Stringer, and only if we have a genuine KPF next him and he's having an "on" day).
Clearly we have significant improvement left in us and hopefully we work it out as the year wears on (and Redpath may be a big part of the solution).

[Ozza]

I didn't expect us to win this week. The two suspension, along with the existing injuries, travelling to a ground we haven't played at before, and the Giants hot form - all was building up to it being a bridge too far. I'm not that worried about this game in the context of the season.

On one hand, the margin possibly flattered us - but we did manage to scrounge together enough scoring shots to give ourselves a chance. Getting M.Boyd, Redpath, Adams and Suckling back in the next week or two will be big. I think we can also expect a better Stevens & Dickson also, a better Stringer and Caleb Daniel who were both well down, and a better Easton Wood - who had a rare poor game. McLean has been fantastic for us, but looks like he could do with a rest. Dunkley should get another opportunity in his spot for a week or two. And the rucks met their match with Mumford - the big fella played with real purpose and got the better of us.

Considering we had two babies in the backline, in Collins and Williams - I thought the backs battled on ok. Considering the way GWS ran in waves from the stoppages and the ball was coming in so quickly - Morris and Roberts defended the ball in the air well.

[bornadog]

Those guys are all playing midfield and last time time I checked our midfield is at full strength and has been functioning well.

So therefore Adcock is a better option in your opinion.

[Mantis]

So therefore Adcock is a better option in your opinion.

To play in defence, with our current structure he is... I'm not a massive fan of Adcock, but with 8 defenders currently injured/ suspended we are scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Once we get a few of these back Adcock doesn't play.

And rightly or wrongly Webb is being developed as a mid and I'm happy for the MC to not compromise this development to fill a short term hole.

[bornadog]

To play in defence, with our current structure he is... I'm not a massive fan of Adcock, but with 8 defenders currently injured/ suspended we are scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Once we get a few of these back Adcock doesn't play.

And rightly or wrongly Webb is being developed as a mid and I'm happy for the MC to not compromise this development to fill a short term hole.

Who does MBoyd replace this week when he is back.

[Sedat]

And rightly or wrongly Webb is being developed as a mid and I'm happy for the MC to not compromise this development to fill a short term hole.
I reckon this is a positive thing - presumably the MC has identified a massive lack of run and spread and foot skill on the outside in our midfield group and Webb has the tools to fill this current glaring weakness. Definitely worth the effort.

[Ozza]

Interesting to note that we fielded a younger and less experienced side than GWS this weekend.

I know that we don't use age or experience as an excuse - but I still think it is worth keeping in mind that we didn't get run over by a group that's only just come together.

[LostDoggy]

Who does MBoyd replace this week when he is back.

Adcock please.

[Mantis]

Who does MBoyd replace this week when he is back.

Who replaced him this week? Was it Collins?

[bornadog]

Who replaced him this week? Was it Collins?

Not sure, but he can replace Adcock, but I doubt Adcock will be dropped.

[Ozza]

Who replaced him this week? Was it Collins?

I would have though Boyd is straight back in for Collins.
Adams will be back also, meaning Biggs can play higher.

Adams, Morris and Roberts will be manning Cox, Moore and White.

[soupman]

A few observations on our forward set-up again.

Yesterday showed the huge difference between Melbournes laughable defence and GWS. Much like the North game, yesterday we struggled against a defence that sat numbers back and set-up well. So many of our goals were from lucky plays or required a mountain of work. Like to often this season we played stupid football: Long bombs to talls, no big guys on the goal-line despite a team propensity to drop the ball just short of that goal-line, and a complete lack of movement.

I'm starting to question the coaching of the forward setup, because it appears we are not learning anything from previous experiences in favour of "if we just keep banging our head against this wall it will eventually crack" method. We are relying on scoring through sheer weight of opportunities up there, and lack a real system or easy method to score goals.

Redpath back this week will help, although the only reason i think he unlocks it a bit is because unlike others he presents. Dickson is horribly out of form, is getting time put into him by the opposition and is just struggling to get involved. If there was a VFL game this next week I would be inclined to drop him because atm he is fumbling, has sloppy disposal and looks like he would benefit from being able to get involved mutplie times a quarter to find some touch.

Redpath, unlike others, leads, and if not still comes at the ball carrier. Almost every contest he is involved in sees him moving towards the drop of the ball and demanding the ball is put in front of him. This means we actually kick the ball to his advantage, and he gives himself the best chance of using his momentum to affect the contest.

My question is why isn't Stringer doing this or apparently being told to do this. He is the perfect leading forward. he is quick, strong, a good mark, a decent set shot and should he not take the mark there is no one else I would rather have in the vicinity of a groundball in our forwardline. He has shown the odd glimpse where he looks awesome on the lead and when he does it we do honour it. So why does he spend every game sitting deep and either hoping the ball comes over the back as he tries to nudge defenders underneath the ball (who are now expecting him to do this), or flying for high balls off two steps against multiple bigger defenders? It makes him predictable and too easy to stop. He was a non factor yesterday, but i can't help but feel that if he actually moved maybe he gets the ball put infront of him to his advantage and something happens.

I just think that against better sides that drop their best intercept marks to the top of the square where they know Stringer is lurking waiting for the high ball, why don't we get him to lead away from them, meaning the ball is on the move, isn't kicked to their best intercept mark and even if it still spills we have Stringer in the most dangerous of spots; 35m out, picking up the ball and running through the 2 defenders unlucky enough to be in that part of the zone.

[bornadog]

I'm starting to question the coaching of the forward setup, because it appears we are not learning anything from previous experiences in favour of "if we just keep banging our head against this wall it will eventually crack" method. We are relying on scoring through sheer weight of opportunities up there, and lack a real system or easy method to score goals.

I would question the midfield coaching, as the mids are not delivering the ball correctly into the forward line. You may recall under Rocket, we had a small forward line with no big target (pre Hall), yet we were in the top two for scoring. Time and time again we just bomb the ball and don't give our forwards a chance.

Another observation, when Patton was put behind the ball, where was Roughead or Campbell resting, yet Patton grabbed some uncontested marks, all on his lonesome.

[LostDoggy]

I would question the midfield coaching, as the mids are not delivering the ball correctly into the forward line. You may recall under Rocket, we had a small forward line with no big target (pre Hall), yet we were in the top two for scoring. Time and time again we just bomb the ball and don't give our forwards a chance.


All you can do is bomb the ball when none of your forwards show any intent to lead to the ball carrier. Johnson, Gia, Hahn, Welsh, Higgins, Cooney, Aker ect all were brilliant at leading.

[bornadog]

All you can do is bomb the ball when none of your forwards show any intent to lead to the ball carrier. Johnson, Gia, Hahn, Welsh, Higgins, Cooney, Aker ect all were brilliant at leading.

Well its an overall coaching issue then

[soupman]

I would question the midfield coaching, as the mids are not delivering the ball correctly into the forward line. You may recall under Rocket, we had a small forward line with no big target (pre Hall), yet we were in the top two for scoring. Time and time again we just bomb the ball and don't give our forwards a chance.


I originally did, including against the North game, but they have shown an ability to hit targets (although still have a propensity to bomb). I think the answer is more as follows:


All you can do is bomb the ball when none of your forwards show any intent to lead to the ball carrier. Johnson, Gia, Hahn, Welsh, Higgins, Cooney, Aker ect all were brilliant at leading.

Who do they kick to when Stringer is standing behind his man, Dickson is covered and that's it??? Either the mids stop and prop and the fans get frustrated as we lose forward momentum and the opposition floods back, we bomb it long to a low percentage contest hoping our wave of mids can compete for the ground ball or our forwards move and try to create something. We do have enough clever kicks to pierce zones even without JJ, Murphy and Suckling (Daniel, McLean, Biggs, Hunter, Libba, Bont are all very capable of hitting targets in tight places).

[hujsh]

I would question the midfield coaching, as the mids are not delivering the ball correctly into the forward line. You may recall under Rocket, we had a small forward line with no big target (pre Hall), yet we were in the top two for scoring. Time and time again we just bomb the ball and don't give our forwards a chance.

Another observation, when Patton was put behind the ball, where was Roughead or Campbell resting, yet Patton grabbed some uncontested marks, all on his lonesome.

Let's not re-write history here. We knew how to bomb long. ESPECIALLY against good sides.

[kruder]

A few observations on our forward set-up again.

Yesterday showed the huge difference between Melbournes laughable defence and GWS. Much like the North game, yesterday we struggled against a defence that sat numbers back and set-up well. So many of our goals were from lucky plays or required a mountain of work. Like to often this season we played stupid football: Long bombs to talls, no big guys on the goal-line despite a team propensity to drop the ball just short of that goal-line, and a complete lack of movement.

I'm starting to question the coaching of the forward setup, because it appears we are not learning anything from previous experiences in favour of "if we just keep banging our head against this wall it will eventually crack" method. We are relying on scoring through sheer weight of opportunities up there, and lack a real system or easy method to score goals.

Redpath back this week will help, although the only reason i think he unlocks it a bit is because unlike others he presents. Dickson is horribly out of form, is getting time put into him by the opposition and is just struggling to get involved. If there was a VFL game this next week I would be inclined to drop him because atm he is fumbling, has sloppy disposal and looks like he would benefit from being able to get involved mutplie times a quarter to find some touch.

Redpath, unlike others, leads, and if not still comes at the ball carrier. Almost every contest he is involved in sees him moving towards the drop of the ball and demanding the ball is put in front of him. This means we actually kick the ball to his advantage, and he gives himself the best chance of using his momentum to affect the contest.

My question is why isn't Stringer doing this or apparently being told to do this. He is the perfect leading forward. he is quick, strong, a good mark, a decent set shot and should he not take the mark there is no one else I would rather have in the vicinity of a groundball in our forwardline. He has shown the odd glimpse where he looks awesome on the lead and when he does it we do honour it. So why does he spend every game sitting deep and either hoping the ball comes over the back as he tries to nudge defenders underneath the ball (who are now expecting him to do this), or flying for high balls off two steps against multiple bigger defenders? It makes him predictable and too easy to stop. He was a non factor yesterday, but i can't help but feel that if he actually moved maybe he gets the ball put infront of him to his advantage and something happens.

I just think that against better sides that drop their best intercept marks to the top of the square where they know Stringer is lurking waiting for the high ball, why don't we get him to lead away from them, meaning the ball is on the move, isn't kicked to their best intercept mark and even if it still spills we have Stringer in the most dangerous of spots; 35m out, picking up the ball and running through the 2 defenders unlucky enough to be in that part of the zone.

Yeah agree. Redpath has become the key player in the forward line because he presents. It drove many players to lower their eyes last week into the forward line and made us play the angles. It was impressive stuff.Make no mistake having Tom Boyd yesterday would not have made a difference as for some reason he does not lead at the pill.

On Stringer, I watched him last week against Melbourne and its hard to be negative when he kicks 5 but he was nearly the laziest player on the ground. I think there is a sense of entitlement with him ATM and we just need to bring him back down to earth as work rate is what will make him the player we all know he can be. I just think he is mentally shot before its starts when he believes he has to carry the forward line. Really dissapointing our match committee didn't try something different yesterday.

There are a few simple fixes with out team, plus adding personal and we can give this season a real shake. I went to the Geelong game on the weekend and there was nothing to state they can be the dominant team of the season. Usually by this time of the year its obvious who has the extra gear but this year I'm not so sure. Time is now for the Bulldogs as we need to contend before GWS become the colossus.

[jeemak]

Let's not re-write history here. We knew how to bomb long. ESPECIALLY against good sides.

Absolutely.

I nearly put my hand up at the 2009 preliminary final because of this.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

A few observations on our forward set-up again.

Yesterday showed the huge difference between Melbournes laughable defence and GWS. Much like the North game, yesterday we struggled against a defence that sat numbers back and set-up well. So many of our goals were from lucky plays or required a mountain of work. Like to often this season we played stupid football: Long bombs to talls, no big guys on the goal-line despite a team propensity to drop the ball just short of that goal-line, and a complete lack of movement.

I'm starting to question the coaching of the forward setup, because it appears we are not learning anything from previous experiences in favour of "if we just keep banging our head against this wall it will eventually crack" method. We are relying on scoring through sheer weight of opportunities up there, and lack a real system or easy method to score goals.

Redpath back this week will help, although the only reason i think he unlocks it a bit is because unlike others he presents. Dickson is horribly out of form, is getting time put into him by the opposition and is just struggling to get involved. If there was a VFL game this next week I would be inclined to drop him because atm he is fumbling, has sloppy disposal and looks like he would benefit from being able to get involved mutplie times a quarter to find some touch.

Redpath, unlike others, leads, and if not still comes at the ball carrier. Almost every contest he is involved in sees him moving towards the drop of the ball and demanding the ball is put in front of him. This means we actually kick the ball to his advantage, and he gives himself the best chance of using his momentum to affect the contest.

My question is why isn't Stringer doing this or apparently being told to do this. He is the perfect leading forward. he is quick, strong, a good mark, a decent set shot and should he not take the mark there is no one else I would rather have in the vicinity of a groundball in our forwardline. He has shown the odd glimpse where he looks awesome on the lead and when he does it we do honour it. So why does he spend every game sitting deep and either hoping the ball comes over the back as he tries to nudge defenders underneath the ball (who are now expecting him to do this), or flying for high balls off two steps against multiple bigger defenders? It makes him predictable and too easy to stop. He was a non factor yesterday, but i can't help but feel that if he actually moved maybe he gets the ball put infront of him to his advantage and something happens.

I just think that against better sides that drop their best intercept marks to the top of the square where they know Stringer is lurking waiting for the high ball, why don't we get him to lead away from them, meaning the ball is on the move, isn't kicked to their best intercept mark and even if it still spills we have Stringer in the most dangerous of spots; 35m out, picking up the ball and running through the 2 defenders unlucky enough to be in that part of the zone.

Great post.

Redpath is the least talented of our forwards, yet right at this moment the most important and it's for the sheer fact that he continually moves around. Every other forward we have (Stringer, Dickson, Campbell, Roughead and even TBoyd) stand still. It's incredibly frustrating to watch - our mids have been absolute beasts this year and whilst their delivery has been ordinary at times, much of it is due to the refusal of our forwards to move and create space for one another.

Agree that it is hugely concerning we are still failing in the same way. Either the players are being told and are not listening or there is a massive flaw in our coaching direction.

[jeemak]

If I was to guess our forwards are lost somewhere in between trying to hold their position, protecting space, leaving enough of it to lead into and finding the right time to lead.

Everyone here can see it, I'm pretty sure the coaching staff can as well.

The way our midfield moves the ball is part of the issue, we always seem to be over possessing it in chains of forward movement by one or two touches. I can't figure out if this is because we're a little bit too clever for ourselves or whether we think this is our best means of getting it into our forward line deeply enough not to be exposed by opposition half backs and create multiple opportunities to score.

The result is a forward line stagnated by indecision and congested by opposition players given an opportunity to get back.

[bornadog]

Great post.

Redpath is the least talented of our forwards, yet right at this moment the most important and it's for the sheer fact that he continually moves around. Every other forward we have (Stringer, Dickson, Campbell, Roughead and even TBoyd) stand still. It's incredibly frustrating to watch - our mids have been absolute beasts this year and whilst their delivery has been ordinary at times, much of it is due to the refusal of our forwards to move and create space for one another.

Agree that it is hugely concerning we are still failing in the same way. Either the players are being told and are not listening or there is a massive flaw in our coaching direction.

The game is different these days, there is no space in the forward line, all good teams clog up the 50 metre arc and make it difficult for the opposition to score. Redpath has a long long way to go. He goes missing for more than half the game.

[soupman]

The game is different these days, there is no space in the forward line, all good teams clog up the 50 metre arc and make it difficult for the opposition to score. Redpath has a long long way to go. He goes missing for more than half the game.
Yep agreed, but leading allows us to dictate where we want the ball on our terms, and as a result makes the matchups more favourable.

Atm the opposition just sets up it's best to intercept marks about 20m out from our goal and waits for the long bombs. If we lead there may still be defenders but we are competing with Ben Jacobs and Luke McDonald in the air instead of Scott Thompson and Robbie Tarrant.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

The game is different these days, there is no space in the forward line, all good teams clog up the 50 metre arc and make it difficult for the opposition to score. Redpath has a long long way to go. He goes missing for more than half the game.

"No space" is a myth. Leading and movement with purpose creates space anywhere on the ground. With correct ball movement and good leading patterns you can always open up space. The best teams do it well - Collingwood actually executed this very well v Geelong, Hawthorn are experts at it and even Sydney do it pretty well. Adelaide might just be the best of the lot, they just can't get it in the F50 anywhere near enough.

There is "no space" when teams are stagnate with ball movement up the field (ie. Richmond up until 2 weeks ago) or forwards don't move and work for one another (us).

[bornadog]

"No space" is a myth. Leading and movement with purpose creates space anywhere on the ground. With correct ball movement and good leading patterns you can always open up space. The best teams do it well - Collingwood actually executed this very well v Geelong, Hawthorn are experts at it and even Sydney do it pretty well. Adelaide might just be the best of the lot, they just can't get it in the F50 anywhere near enough.

There is "no space" when teams are stagnate with ball movement up the field (ie. Richmond up until 2 weeks ago) or forwards don't move and work for one another (us).

Looks different when you watch on TV

[hujsh]

"No space" is a myth. Leading and movement with purpose creates space anywhere on the ground. With correct ball movement and good leading patterns you can always open up space. The best teams do it well - Collingwood actually executed this very well v Geelong, Hawthorn are experts at it and even Sydney do it pretty well. Adelaide might just be the best of the lot, they just can't get it in the F50 anywhere near enough.

There is "no space" when teams are stagnate with ball movement up the field (ie. Richmond up until 2 weeks ago) or forwards don't move and work for one another (us).
Yes! When no one leads and creates space there will of course be no space. Nothing less dangerous then a stagnant forward line.

[bornadog]

Yes! When no one leads and creates space there will of course be no space. Nothing less dangerous then a stagnant forward line.

Goes back to my original question, do we have a coaching issue, ie forwards and mids.

[EasternWest]

Looks different when you watch on TV

It does but it doesn't make the point incorrect. Our forwards don't lead anywhere near enough.

[bornadog]

It does but it doesn't make the point incorrect. Our forwards don't lead anywhere near enough.

which goes back to my original point - is it coaching, or the players aren't good enough.

The reason I mention the TV aspect is some posters don't go to games, yet feel watching on TV they can work out what is happening at the ground. On TV you don't see the bigger picture and the movement of all 18 players. I don't know if TBB goes to many games or not so not directed at him. The way the ball moves these days from back to forward, and the way players cover the forwards in that move, there is almost no chance to prop, and then lead.

Our forwards move up the ground to help the defenders and mids and when we gain possession, we have to run quickly into the forward line and often we don't have players there, and sitting back taking marks are guys like Shaw, or Tarrant/Thompson on their own.

It certainly helps Stringer, Dickson to have a big forward in the forward line. Stringer is not superman, and I think people expect more from a 58 game player.

[EasternWest]

To be fair, expecting a 58 game player to lead once in a while is not unrealistic. I'm not bagging Stringer because he's a gem, but he does need to mix his repertoire up.

[1eyedog]

Tom Boyd doesn't do it either - at all!

[Bulldog4life]

Tom Boyd doesn't do it either - at all!

Let's hope he learns to.

[Hotdog60]

I kinda wonder if Boyd might make a better CHF and use Redpath at FF.

[Remi Moses]

I think it effects Jake mentally not having another target there.
You put Jack or T Boyd, and Crameri next season makes a massive difference

[stefoid]

On forward structure, we spend a lot of time bottling the ball in our forward half, or flooding back.

In the first situation, there is nowhere to lead to. I have noticed we like to create a small crowd of dogs about 45m out. I guess this is a 'hot spot' for us, but also guards the corridor transition if an opposition defender kicks it long out of our F50 - he has to go to the boundary to be safer.

Flooding back, there is often nobody to kick to. This is where a steeple chaser like Princess Riewolt comes in very handy - our version is Crameri :( who got quite a lot of his goals leading his man back to the goalsquare. Stringer would dominate at this if he could sprint further than 50m without blowing up.

That doesnt leave many minutes in a game where:
a) the forwards are deep in a relatively clear forward line and
b) the ball isnt in our forward half

Center bounces and very quick turnovers, I guess, where the opposition has rebounded the ball out of our F50 and promptly turned it over in the midfield.

[jeemak]

On forward structure, we spend a lot of time bottling the ball in our forward half, or flooding back.

In the first situation, there is nowhere to lead to. I have noticed we like to create a small crowd of dogs about 45m out. I guess this is a 'hot spot' for us, but also guards the corridor transition if an opposition defender kicks it long out of our F50 - he has to go to the boundary to be safer.

Flooding back, there is often nobody to kick to. This is where a steeple chaser like Princess Riewolt comes in very handy - our version is Crameri :( who got quite a lot of his goals leading his man back to the goalsquare. Stringer would dominate at this if he could sprint further than 50m without blowing up.

That doesnt leave many minutes in a game where:
a) the forwards are deep in a relatively clear forward line and
b) the ball isnt in our forward half

Center bounces and very quick turnovers, I guess, where the opposition has rebounded the ball out of our F50 and promptly turned it over in the midfield.

Good work Stefoid.

I have little doubt our strategy for forward movement in the last few weeks has been close to the Bmac strategy of getting the ball forward and creating as much scoring opportunity through repetition as we possibly can, because we've had so much of our half back drive taken away from us due to injury.

It will be interesting to see whether or how it might change to a more open structure with Boyd and Suckling back in the side this week, and Stringer freed up with Red's inclusion.

[stefoid]

I dont think what Ive described is a new thing, its just how we play under Bev always, as far as I can tell. The difference with Bev vs Bmac is we defend space rather than a man, obviously, and that we retain the ball by kicking it around to create space rather than instantly give up if there are no easy options and kick it down the line for another stoppage.

We still kick down the line sometimes, but according to bev, that an admission of defeat (plan C) rather than an integral part of plan A. (there was no plan B under Bmac)

I dont think we can survive with only one tall marking threat because of the frequency with which we are forced to kick deep into the F50. And we have to push up into the F50 so aggressively because our young key backs are so inexperienced, they need all the help they can get. We need the 2nd tall marking threat to split their tall defenders and force them to make decisions.