Dangerfield, Selwood, Hawkins, Henderson, Menzel

[Twodogs]

OK. Before anyone slips into a hot bath and opens a vein just have a look at the names in the thread title. They are the players Geelong had available to them whereas their counterparts in our team were missing. By the time finals come around Dahlhaus, Stevens, Smith, Wood, McLean, JJ and Boyd will be available. Those guys are just as important to us as the five Geelong players I named are to them.

Take their five out and give us our five back and I bet we wouldn't let them have two more scoring shots than us and we would smash them in every stat as opposed to being lucky to win by 57 points.

Geelong were bloody lucky tonight, give us something close to a full strength team and give them a less than full strength team and let's see who is better.

[Greystache]

Hawkins and Menzel kicked 4 straight each in a top of the table clash. Have two Bulldogs players in the past hundred years done that? Perhaps, but I wasn't around in the 1920's.

[Mantis]

Hawkins and Menzel kicked 4 straight each in a top of the table clash. Have two Bulldogs players in the past hundred years done that? Perhaps, but I wasn't around in the 1920's.

Hawkins didn't touch the thing until the game was done.. Menzel got a few gifts as well. Pretty easy being on the end of it when it's going your way.

To the OP, the names don't match up, but no doubt we were under-strength and it showed.. We should have them all back for our clash in 6 or 7 weeks so it will be interesting to see what difference they make.

[EasternWest]

OK. Before anyone slips into a hot bath and opens a vein just have a look at the names in the thread title. They are the players Geelong had available to them whereas their counterparts in our team were missing. By the time finals come around Dahlhaus, Stevens, Smith, Wood, McLean, JJ and Boyd will be available. Those guys are just as important to us as the five Geelong players I named are to them.

Take their five out and give us our five back and I bet we wouldn't let them have two more scoring shots than us and we would smash them in every stat as opposed to being lucky to win by 57 points.

Geelong were bloody lucky tonight, give us something close to a full strength team and give them a less than full strength team and let's see who is better.

Respectfully to the leaders absent from our side, in no way are they comparable to the Geelong players you've mentioned.

What we saw last night was a highlight in the clear class divide between our side and the best sides.

It doesn't mean it's all doom and gloom, it just means we've still a ways to go.

[chef]

Respectfully to the leaders absent from our side, in no way are they comparable to the Geelong players you've mentioned.

JJ, Wood and Dahlhaus are comparable. Would walk into any side in the comp. These 3 leave a huge hole in our side and were sadly missed last night.

[EasternWest]

JJ, Wood and Dahlhaus are comparable. Would walk into any side in the comp. These 3 leave a huge hole in our side and were sadly missed last night.

They're fine players and I love what they do for our club, but if I could trade them for Selwood, Dangerfield and Hawkins I'd have done it yesterday. To suggest otherwise is a fallacy.

[Mantis]

They're fine players and I love what they do for our club, but if I could trade them for Selwood, Dangerfield and Hawkins I'd have done it yesterday. To suggest otherwise is a fallacy.

Yep. Dangerfield is the best player in the comp, Selwood is probably top 10.

Our guys (Wood, Dahl and JJ) are probably in the top 30-60.. Same as Hawkins.

[chef]

They're fine players and I love what they do for our club, but if I could trade them for Selwood, Dangerfield and Hawkins I'd have done it yesterday. To suggest otherwise is a fallacy.


If we were talking about just Selwood and Danger i would agree. I thought we were talking about the group that is mentioned.

[SonofScray]

The list of names are comparable in terms of their importance to their respective sides. We haven't got those blokes and subsequently have had to make significant shifts in how we play. I feel like we were down to Plan C last night. They were running on top of the ground last night against a team who has very manfully, and successfully managed a significant amount of adversity. Reverse the roles and I feel like the result gets reversed too.

[Twodogs]

JJ, Wood and Dahlhaus are comparable. Would walk into any side in the comp. These 3 leave a huge hole in our side and were sadly missed last night.


They're fine players and I love what they do for our club, but if I could trade them for Selwood, Dangerfield and Hawkins I'd have done it yesterday. To suggest otherwise is a fallacy.


Yep. Dangerfield is the best player in the comp, Selwood is probably top 10.

Our guys (Wood, Dahl and JJ) are probably in the top 30-60.. Same as Hawkins.


If we were talking about just Selwood and Danger i would agree. I thought we were talking about the group that is mentioned.


It just goes to further my point that if those guys were out of the Geelong team we'd beat then!



The list of names are comparable in terms of their importance to their respective sides. We haven't got those blokes and subsequently have had to make significant shifts in how we play. I feel like we were down to Plan C last night. They were running on top of the ground last night against a team who has very manfully, and successfully managed a significant amount of adversity. Reverse the roles and I feel like the result gets reversed too.


Yeah. Were Geelong missing anyone significant last night that are due back this year? We were missing a third of our side and one of the good thirds at that.

[EasternWest]

If we were talking about just Selwood and Danger i would agree. I thought we were talking about the group that is mentioned.

We are talking about the group that's mentioned and you know it. Don't be disingenuous.

The five players mentioned for us are critical to our side and I am not refuting that point. If they play we of course do better.

To omit Hawkins, Henderson and Menzel from your comment is silly. What players of ours that play in those respective position would you prefer?

We need to separate emotion from reality and I reiterate - I love our players but I reiterate that I would trade all 6 of our players mentioned here (with the exception of Boyd) for their five.

I'm sick of losing.

[Ozza]

Seeing as Danger and Selwood are probably the two best players in the competition, it's pretty hard to compare those guys with our outs.

[chef]

We are talking about the group that's mentioned and you know it. Don't be disingenuous.

The five players mentioned for us are critical to our side and I am not refuting that point. If they play we of course do better.

To omit Hawkins, Henderson and Menzel from your comment is silly. What players of ours that play in those respective position would you prefer?

We need to separate emotion from reality and I reiterate - I love our players but I reiterate that I would trade all 6 of our players mentioned here (with the exception of Boyd) for their five.

I'm sick of losing.

Sorry mate, I wasn't trying to be disingenous or silly. My original comment was that Dahlhaus, JJ and Wood are comparable to any of those(I know Selwood and and Danger are better players but our 3 are pretty critical to our structure too). Stevens is a grunt, Smith an unknown, McLean a kid and Boyd...who knows how he's going to end up. So as a collective Geelongs group is better rounded group and not really comparable.

I would have went with Wood, JJ, Murphy, Crameri and Dahlhaus as my 5 important players missing though.

[EasternWest]

Sorry mate, I wasn't trying to be disingenous or silly. My original comment was that Dahlhaus, JJ and Wood are comparable to any of those(I know Selwood and and Danger are better players but our 3 are pretty critical to our structure too). Stevens is a grunt, Smith an unknown, McLean a kid and Boyd...who knows how he's going to end up. So as a collective Geelongs group is better rounded group and not really comparable.

I would have went with Wood, JJ, Murphy, Crameri and Dahlhaus as my 5 important players missing though.

Oh no prob. I wasn't suggesting you were being silly, I know you're a genuine guy.

I get where you're coming from more now. Would still do the trade ;).

[stefoid]

I think geelong played it brilliantly against us - first of all they beat us at our strength - winning the stoppage ball, which put our defence under pressure. Many sides have talked it up pre-game, but the cats actually did it.

2ndly they gave our defenders no easy outs, by manning up our wide players, they forced us down the line or made us work very hard for the switch, or dared us to try a corridor transition.

Dal helps out in the middle with stoppages and pressure - a lot! JJ will help with our corridor transition - a lot!

They would have helped. No doubt the coaching staff will be working over time to remedy what Geelong did to us. We have two weeks to work on it, and then test what we've learned against Sydney.

[Twodogs]

Sorry mate, I wasn't trying to be disingenous or silly. My original comment was that Dahlhaus, JJ and Wood are comparable to any of those(I know Selwood and and Danger are better players but our 3 are pretty critical to our structure too). Stevens is a grunt, Smith an unknown, McLean a kid and Boyd...who knows how he's going to end up. So as a collective Geelongs group is better rounded group and not really comparable.

I would have went with Wood, JJ, Murphy, Crameri and Dahlhaus as my 5 important players missing though.

I would have went with those guys because they suited my argument a lot better but I wanted players who would be back this year.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

There's a few reasons why we were incredibly poor v Geelong:

1 - Injuries to key players. You can cover them to an extent, but against Geelong we quite simply needed them.

2 - We looked a little mentally off and I'd put that down to some fatigue. Very young side with 7 or so of our best out, coming off two intense games v WCE and Port.

3 - They out coached us in a few areas. They were prepared to give us that first handball out of the congestion but worked hard to close up our options from there. We like to flick it around to the point of insanity and they made us pay. It was smart play - not too dissimilar to what they used to do to Hawthorn when the two sides were at their best and the Hawks just couldn't shake them. Geelong are very good at closing up the corridor and making you chip it sideways/backwards. We didn't have the dare, skill or energy to really challenge them in other ways so we played into their hands.

I thought the way we shaped up defensively was very poor too, allowing them to chip it out from FB (particularly after kick ins) before they then ran and drove it through the middle of the ground.

Providing we can put a side close to our best 22 on the park we'll obviously run them a lot closer. I do have some concerns with our coaching v Geelong because last year we bombed the ball long to their tall defenders too. We'll see what happens - still extremely disappointed in our insipid performance, but they got us at the perfect time and they're probably the best side in the competition.

[Mantis]

There's a few reasons why we were incredibly poor v Geelong:

1 - Injuries to key players. You can cover them to an extent, but against Geelong we quite simply needed them.

2 - We looked a little mentally off and I'd put that down to some fatigue. Very young side with 7 or so of our best out, coming off two intense games v WCE and Port.

I made the point in another thread that it was our 2nd least experienced team we fielded for the year, average of 70 games per player and 11 players under 50 games.. When looking at when we played our best footy we were fielding teams that had played between 78-85.. Geelong were just over 120 per player... The difference was telling.


3 - They out coached us in a few areas. They were prepared to give us that first handball out of the congestion but worked hard to close up our options from there. We like to flick it around to the point of insanity and they made us pay. It was smart play - not too dissimilar to what they used to do to Hawthorn when the two sides were at their best and the Hawks just couldn't shake them. Geelong are very good at closing up the corridor and making you chip it sideways/backwards. We didn't have the dare, skill or energy to really challenge them in other ways so we played into their hands.

I think those 2 go hand in hand.. We looked tired and tired players are more prone to skill errors.


I thought the way we shaped up defensively was very poor too, allowing them to chip it out from FB (particularly after kick ins) before they then ran and drove it through the middle of the ground.

It was extremely poor.. We just gave them too much easy ball across the back half and were playing catch-up from then on.. We just had too many players who didn't or couldn't work hard enough to find a man in transition.. The number of times the likes of Wallis, Bontempelli & Picken were dawdling through the middle of the ground was endless.


Providing we can put a side close to our best 22 on the park we'll obviously run them a lot closer. I do have some concerns with our coaching v Geelong because last year we bombed the ball long to their tall defenders too. We'll see what happens - still extremely disappointed in our insipid performance, but they got us at the perfect time and they're probably the best side in the competition.

Assuming we can field close to our best teams it will be real interesting to see how we perform against Geel & Norf in rounds 19 & 20 as these are the 2 teams we have had real trouble against from an offensive stand-point so far.. We should be pretty much at full strength by then (assuming no more injuries) and our returning players should have a number of games under their belts so we should be in a position to give a good account of ourselves.. We will learn a lot about the progress we are making in these games.

[Ghost Dog]

Were we psyched out by the hype over Selwfield? They seemed to force a lot of errors.

[Twodogs]

It was extremely poor.. We just gave them too much easy ball across the back half and were playing catch-up from then on.. We just had too many players who didn't or couldn't work hard enough to find a man in transition.. The number of times the likes of Wallis, Bontempelli & Picken were dawdling through the middle of the ground was endless
.

Drove me mad the number of our guys I saw walking to their spots even when the ball was in play and only 25 metres away. Watching opponents run past.

[Sedat]

They were prepared to give us that first handball out of the congestion but worked hard to close up our options from there.
Didn't watch the Geelong game but this is exactly what the Hawks did to us in the first qtr and a half of R3 - they allowed us possession but forced us wide and made sure there were heavy numbers to chop off the corridor kick. Norf did this to us as well. By the sounds we gave Harry Taylor and Corey Enright marking practice with dumb long kicks into a vacant forward 50 - again very similar to the Norf game. Personnel will help (Boyd and Dahl this year and Crameri next year) but we do need to keep our shape better so that our forward line contains an element of danger that prevents the opposition defenders from sagging off their opponent and chopping off the long kick. Short kicks to the lead-up player should always be honoured and we also need to separate our forwards so that the opposition defenders are held accountable to a man.

[bornadog]

By the sounds we gave Harry Taylor and Corey Enright marking practice with dumb long kicks into a vacant forward 50 - again very similar to the Norf game.

We only did this on the odd occassion. We had a lot of set shots at goal and just continually missed from inside 50. Even Dickson barely made the distance when his ball just floated.

Our game plan is to win the contested ball and play a high possession game. We won the contested possessions, but Geelong were quick to shut us down, win the ball through tackling, and then hold on to it with good field kicking and not allowing us to get the ball. Selwood and Danger had lots of cont. poss. and the next best for Geelong was way down the list. Our cont poss were spread, and unfortunately, unlike the Port game Dahl (18) not there and Wallis was well beaten. (previous week 18, Geelong game 6)

The Hawks and North game, I felt we wasted a lot of our possessions and also kicking into the forward line. The Geelong game, we were never really in it. The only time was when we got within 28 points, and when Liam kicked the goal that wasn't a goal, we could have had a sniff. We looked like boys against men, and guess what we were, with 11 players under 50 games. and 50 games on average difference between the two teams.

[Mantis]

We only did this on the odd occassion. We had a lot of set shots at goal and just continually missed from inside 50. Even Dickson barely made the distance when his ball just floated.



I didn't think we had that many at all, especially early on.. At half time when the score was 1.9 to 10.3 we had taken 1 mark inside 50, Geelong had taken 15.. We got more opportunities in the 2nd half, but nearly all of the misses in the first half were from general play.

[bornadog]

I didn't think we had that many at all, especially early on.. At half time when the score was 1.9 to 10.3 we had taken 1 mark inside 50, Geelong had taken 15.. We got more opportunities in the 2nd half, but nearly all of the misses in the first half were from general play.

I was talking overall game. I can't remember how many in the first half, but I remember a lot of misses from Dickson, Hunter, Stringer. There was only one rushed point out of 13 behinds.

[Mantis]

I was talking overall game. I can't remember how many in the first half, but I remember a lot of misses from Dickson, Hunter, Stringer. There was only one rushed point out of 13 behinds.

Whilst I have tried to wipe the memory of this game from upstairs I would think that the only real kickable ones were from Hunter & Picken.. Dickson struggles from 50m and Stringer was right on his limit kicking from about 55m.

We just couldn't get the ball into our hands in dangerous spots.

[bornadog]

Whilst I have tried to wipe the memory of this game from upstairs I would think that the only real kickable ones were from Hunter & Picken.. Dickson struggles from 50m and Stringer was right on his limit kicking from about 55m.

We just couldn't get the ball into our hands in dangerous spots.

Hunter 2, Picken 1, Dickson 1, Biggs 1, Stringer had a set shot within 50 - there are 6 goals to start with. Plus another 6 shots which I can't remember whether there were any set shots.

In any case, as I said I never felt we were in this one at all. Worst game at Etihad under Beveridge.

[always right]

Geelong loses Dangerfield, Selwood and Menzel.....and they are considerably weaker but their game plan does not change.

We lose JJ, Wood and Dahlhaus and not only are we much weaker but our game plan changes dramatically.

I'm happy to meet the cats again when we both have a full team. Attacking defenders, foot speed, line breakers and quicker forward entries. Bring it on.