Development of Players - Questions

[bulldogtragic]

I'm hoping for a straight down the line discussion on development. It's not a positive or negative framework, but is the current individual development plans working?

That's to say, I'm starting to get concerned about a few things:

- Boyd wasn't given long enough as a forward to me. Certainly a lot less time than others in the comp to grow into the role. Since rucking, his very good goal kicking has slipped and injuries are up.

- Schache. See above. He can kick 3 goals in probably the best 14 minutes of football that this club hs ever played but gets no credits in the bank to play through poor games. Others do.

- McLean. His move into the midfield last year was one of the best stories of the year. Now he's rotating around high half forward, occasionally higher, and not impacting games like he did last year. I'm not sure why.

- Dunkley. His form at the end of last year as an inside midfielder was another great story. As was the flow on form Bontempelli had. Now he's spending a lot of time forward, like early last year, and missing simple set shots. Why are we regressing him? And now we are back to rucking him.

- Cordy. He's been slowly developing into a very good defender, but he's not a week in, week out, gorilla tamer. If he continues to get beaten I fear for his confidence since Roberts is on the list 'in name only'. What are we doing?

- English. Solo ruckman. There's no Trengove, despite form, to wear the rucks down to help out Tim. Is this the best development for him?

- Lewis Young. Has very good raw talent. Basically spent the year in the VFL, I thought he was OK, but was dropped.

- Williams. I don't really know what the plan is with him.

- Webb. Started his career with a bang with that left leg cannon rebounding off half back. Then he's shoved into the VFL to be an inside mid. Then when he demands promotion, he was playing a lot of forward flank at AFEL level. I'm confused what's going on, and I'd guess he's confused too.

- Bontempelli. Playing great footy, but how does he go from a near dead certainty shooting for goal, to 1.9 plus complete misses. With so much apparent effort to increase goal kicking skills cross the board, how is Bonts going under 10% accuracy.

- Wood. He climbed the mountain in 2016 as captain on GF day. But has seemingly fallen down the mountain in painful fashion since.

- This one is more of a question. Naughton. He's played 7 games as a forward for 8 goals, 6 behinds. He's a beast of a contested mark. But can we pick an end of the ground to put him, and we've been crying out for a KPD who can intercept mark. Yet he's left forward. The scores from turnovers need him and his skill set. I still think he's shown more as a KPD.


Generally, the skill level hasn't developed or improved. Obviously 18th for goal accuracy speaks for itself.

With so many full time professional coaches and more resources than ever before... Why?

[Mofra]

Dunkley is the biggest head scratcher for mine. His numbers towards the back half of the year were elite, he partners well with Bont, they travelled and trained together in the off season and we're playing him in the exact manner which led to his form slump at the start of last year.

I'm not sure it's a development issue, more a utilisation issue.

[angelopetraglia]

I'm not sure it's a development issue, more a utilisation issue.

Well said. So many our player development issues come down to this point. So many examples. The question is why?

[chef]

Because Bevo is hell bent on every player being able to play more than one position.

[Mofra]

Because Bevo is hell bent on every player being able to play more than one position.
I think he's abandoned the Wood-forward experiment.

Even Suckling was trialled as a defensive forward during JLT 2 (not great results).

[bornadog]

- Boyd wasn't given long enough as a forward to me. Certainly a lot less time than others in the comp to grow into the role. Since rucking, his very good goal kicking has slipped and injuries are up.

Don't agree - he was thrown more ruck time due to others being injured. I didn't have any issues with him being the second ruck for small stints, but with Roughead and Campbell not up to scratch plus with injuries, we didn't have anyone else.

- Schache. See above. He can kick 3 goals in probably the best 14 minutes of football that this club hs ever played but gets no credits in the bank to play through poor games. Others do.

He has predominantly been a forward - not sure the issue here? 7 diposals, no goals v GC and 4 disp against Pies - hardly good form.

- McLean. His move into the midfield last year was one of the best stories of the year. Now he's rotating around high half forward, occasionally higher, and not impacting games like he did last year. I'm not sure why.
- Dunkley. His form at the end of last year as an inside midfielder was another great story. As was the flow on form Bontempelli had. Now he's spending a lot of time forward, like early last year, and missing simple set shots. Why are we regressing him? And now we are back to rucking him.

The coach is trying to find players to kick goals, Mclean started off as a forward/mid. Maybe it hasn't worked, but we need to try everything to kick goals, because the other blokes aren't - even Wood up fwd. ;)

Also, with Libba back in the team, and Wallis playing each week, we have to work out their best positions.

- Cordy. He's been slowly developing into a very good defender, but he's not a week in, week out, gorilla tamer. If he continues to get beaten I fear for his confidence since Roberts is on the list 'in name only'. What are we doing?

He does need help, he is not a KPP, but, if Lewie Young doesn't do what the coaches ask, what do you do, play him anyhow? Roberts, well he is just slow.

- English. Solo ruckman. There's no Trengove, despite form, to wear the rucks down to help out Tim. Is this the best development for him? Yes he is developing along beautifully

- Lewis Young. Has very good raw talent. Basically spent the year in the VFL, I thought he was OK, but was dropped.

Needs to do more, love him to develop into a good backman. Remember he is still 20 years old and may take a little longer.

- Williams. I don't really know what the plan is with him. Needs to pull his finger around and stop the off field antics

- Webb. Started his career with a bang with that left leg cannon rebounding off half back. Then he's shoved into the VFL to be an inside mid. Then when he demands promotion, he was playing a lot of forward flank at AFEL level. I'm confused what's going on, and I'd guess he's confused too.

His early days at HBF, were just passable. He has been in and out of the team because when he comes in not up to AFL standard

- Bontempelli. Playing great footy, but how does he go from a near dead certainty shooting for goal, to 1.9 plus complete misses. With so much apparent effort to increase goal kicking skills cross the board, how is Bonts going under 10% accuracy.

The Bont is a star - yes he needs to kick goals this season, but over his career has a good record. Hardly a development issue.

- Wood. He climbed the mountain in 2016 as captain on GF day. But has seemingly fallen down the mountain in painful fashion since. Is this a development issue? After 2016, he has an ankle reconstruction polus a major hamstring tear. Hasn't been as good since.

An alternate view

I think we have a great crop of young players and the more experience we get in them the better we will be.

[Scorlibo]

Williams has been a big disappointment early this season. A lot of us were expecting him to take the next step this year and he seems to have all the tools but has squandered his opportunities.

I also understand the McLean forward idea. Clearly the coaches have identified our lack of personnel in the forward fifty and McLean is one of the few players we have who can kick goals. In his first season he came on the scene looking like he might be a Jamie Elliott type. Maybe if he's given more time there we will see some scoreboard impact.

I'd really like to see Greene string some senior games together later this year when returned from injury, he looks to be a natural leading forward who can spread defences.

[bornadog]

Williams has been a big disappointment early this season. A lot of us were expecting him to take the next step this year and he seems to have all the tools but has squandered his opportunities.

I also understand the McLean forward idea. Clearly the coaches have identified our lack of personnel in the forward fifty and McLean is one of the few players we have who can kick goals. In his first season he came on the scene looking like he might be a Jamie Elliott type. Maybe if he's given more time there we will see some scoreboard impact.

I'd really like to see Greene string some senior games together later this year when returned from injury, he looks to be a natural leading forward who can spread defences.

Hopefully Dale finds some form as well, as I think Dickson may be cooked.

[Sedat]

Wallis has been the big problem for Dunkley and McLean. Why has Wallis been moved back into the midfield when he was so effective inside F50 both as a goalkicker and a pressure forward? We lack both elements in our F50 now, and Wallis hasn't added much to the midfield mix.

[Hotdog60]

The Bont is a star - yes he needs to kick goals this season, but over his career has a good record. Hardly a development issue.


The Bont is a star but his career average is hinging on 50/50. I would like to see this more 70/30 because of who he is.

[bornadog]

The Bont is a star but his career average is hinging on 50/50. I would like to see this more 70/30 because of who he is.

He doesn't need to be a goal kicker, as long as he can get the ball inside 50 to someone that can. eg; Cripps has only kicked 30 goals in 80 plus games. I don't like Bont in the forward line, I want him in the midfield.

[Eastdog]

Hopefully Dale finds some form as well, as I think Dickson may be cooked.

Was great in 2017 but yeah have missed his influence. Need to get that 2017 form back.

[Hotdog60]

He doesn't need to be a goal kicker, as long as he can get the ball inside 50 to someone that can. eg; Cripps has only kicked 30 goals in 80 plus games. I don't like Bont in the forward line, I want him in the midfield.

No he doesn't but Bevo does play him forward a fair bit. All I would like is when he does shoot it's a better outcome.
I would rather more mid time as well.

[DOG GOD]

In my opinion the return of Libba certainly hasn’t help the chances of dunks and McLean playing the midefield time they had last year, and Wallis spending more time mid than fwd.

[bornadog]

Putting aside goal kicking for a minute, one of the things Bevo has done is try and bring in players that are good kicks of the footy.

It started with outside recruits like Suckling, Duryea, and Lloyd, plus drafting the likes of Richards, Naughton, Smith, English over the last two years.

We just need these guys and the rest of the team to kick straight at goals.

[Bullies]

We continue to play guys who don't deserve a game and don't play guys who do. I might be missing something but I don't see what Gowers brings. Dickson is cooked and was done last year. Hayes is another Honeychurch and a good VFL player but he is not the answer. Would rather see Bailey Dale and Lapinski be given the same long term opportunities in the forward line Gowers and Dickson get.

[boydogs]

With so many full time professional coaches and more resources than ever before... Why?

Coaches looking to make changes to justify their existence. Much like the AFL & rule changes

[Mofra]

The Bont is a star but his career average is hinging on 50/50. I would like to see this more 70/30 because of who he is.
70% goal kicking accuracy puts him among the most accurate goal kickers in the history of AFL football.

[Hotdog60]

70% goal kicking accuracy puts him among the most accurate goal kickers in the history of AFL football.

But he's not a forward and he won't have 10 shots on goal but if he has 5 shots I would hope he would nail 3 of them.

[1eyedog]

What the hell is with Bailey Dale? His earlier form was sensational and I understand he's battled injuries but he's been injury free for a while now and can't recapture the form that saw him an automatic selection over a number of weeks.

[bornadog]

What the hell is with Bailey Dale? His earlier form was sensational and I understand he's battled injuries but he's been injury free for a while now and can't recapture the form that saw him an automatic selection over a number of weeks.


Has only played two games since coming back from injury. Hopefully he gets back to some form.

[Go_Dogs]

Wallis has been the big problem for Dunkley and McLean. Why has Wallis been moved back into the midfield when he was so effective inside F50 both as a goalkicker and a pressure forward? We lack both elements in our F50 now, and Wallis hasn't added much to the midfield mix.

Wallis is one of our best few runners so that's why he gets the minutes.

I'd prefer him forward where he's more effective but if we really need his motor I can see why we are playing him there.

[Mofra]

Wallis is one of our best few runners so that's why he gets the minutes.

I'd prefer him forward where he's more effective but if we really need his motor I can see why we are playing him there.
Modern football is different though - with rotations it's often the leading/high forwards that have the highest no of kms covered in a game. Last year Cordy in his brief foray as a forward covered something like 17kms, mids cover 14-15kms (although arguably at higher intensity).

Regardless of tank Wally last year was a very effective forward or an average mid, Dunkley the opposite. Given his pre-season we're hardly losing the ability to cover ground by putting Dunkley in the middle. If we're desperate for height in the forwardline (Dunks is not much shorter than Chris Grant) we should play a legitimate tall there.

[Mofra]

Wallis is one of our best few runners so that's why he gets the minutes.

I'd prefer him forward where he's more effective but if we really need his motor I can see why we are playing him there.
Modern football is different though - with rotations it's often the leading/high forwards that have the highest no of kms covered in a game. Last year Cordy in his brief foray as a forward covered something like 17kms, mids cover 14-15kms (although arguably at higher intensity).

Regardless of tank Wally last year was a very effective forward or an average mid, Dunkley the opposite. Given his pre-season we're hardly losing the ability to cover ground by putting Dunkley in the middle. If we're desperate for height in the forwardline (Dunks is not much shorter than Chris Grant) we should play a legitimate tall there.

[Go_Dogs]

Modern football is different though - with rotations it's often the leading/high forwards that have the highest no of kms covered in a game. Last year Cordy in his brief foray as a forward covered something like 17kms, mids cover 14-15kms (although arguably at higher intensity).

Regardless of tank Wally last year was a very effective forward or an average mid, Dunkley the opposite. Given his pre-season we're hardly losing the ability to cover ground by putting Dunkley in the middle. If we're desperate for height in the forwardline (Dunks is not much shorter than Chris Grant) we should play a legitimate tall there.

Most weeks it seems to be the mids/running backs who have the highest numbers, although I don't follow it religiously and note Brown led the way in last nights match (probably off the back his defensive efforts being baked). My point was this is why I believe we are playing him there - like you, I'm not sure it's the best role.

Fitness/run is clearly a concern if we are playing midfielders forward in week 5 because they're gassed.

[Rocket Science]

Most weeks it seems to be the mids/running backs who have the highest numbers, although I don't follow it religiously and note Brown led the way in last nights match (probably off the back his defensive efforts being baked). My point was this is why I believe we are playing him there - like you, I'm not sure it's the best role.

Fitness/run is clearly a concern if we are playing midfielders forward in week 5 because they're gassed.

Scuse me I think the coach prefers the term "cooked" thank you.

Chasing tail half the day because you keep turning it over will do that to a team.

[bulldogtragic]

Bump

So add to the list:

Leaves Naughton cold at full forward no matter what
Suckling who was one of our best HBFs last year, is forward, just staring at the ball on the ground for his 30 seconds
Bailey Williams is now a (very, very poor) forward, or was today
Roarke is I'm not sure what role
Hunter takes the centre bounces
McLean is playing VFL because he's not playing a clear role with any clarity
Schache was nearly murdered by Grundy while Trengove stood on Cox. Maybe Trengove ruck, Schache pinch hit on Cox?
Bailey Dale will never be seen again, in any role or position. The same place Webb is.
Dunkley was just saved in the nick of time in playing his best position
Lewis Young, does that ruck, ruck/forward, defender/ruck still play for our VFL side?


I freely admit I don't understand player development. But we have a few success stories in moving players out of successful starts to their career into a new role. But we have a bigger list of players who have gone backwards. I don't get it.

Also, if you select 8-9 half back flankers in the 22, just in math alone, you have to play 2-3 in positions which is not their best spot. Like when we are fit and you select too many mid sized slower midfielders and dump the spares at half forward. I don't imagine that helps too much. Again, never having selected teams I'm no expert.

[Sedat]

Bump

So add to the list:

Leaves Naughton cold at full forward no matter what
Suckling who was one of our best HBFs last year, is forward, just staring at the ball on the ground for his 30 seconds
Bailey Williams is now a (very, very poor) forward, or was today
Roarke is I'm not sure what role
Hunter takes the centre bounces
McLean is playing VFL because he's not playing a clear role with any clarity
Schache was nearly murdered by Grundy while Trengove stood on Cox. Maybe Trengove ruck, Schache pinch hit on Cox?
Bailey Dale will never be seen again, in any role or position. The same place Webb is.
Dunkley was just saved in the nick of time in playing his best position
Lewis Young, does that ruck, ruck/forward, defender/ruck still play for our VFL side?


I freely admit I don't understand player development. But we have a few success stories in moving players out of successful starts to their career into a new role. But we have a bigger list of players who have gone backwards. I don't get it.

Also, if you select 8-9 half back flankers in the 22, just in math alone, you have to play 2-3 in positions which is not their best spot. Like when we are fit and you select too many mid sized slower midfielders and dump the spares at half forward. I don't imagine that helps too much. Again, never having selected teams I'm no expert.
^^^^^^^
Misunderstood genius. Just lacking execution.

[AshMac]

....we have a few success stories in moving players out of successful starts to their career into a new role. But we have a bigger list of players who have gone backwards. I don't get it.

Couldn’t agree with this more. When it works it is a revelation and has spectacular results. Matty boyd to a back flanker role is the perfect example - but when it doesn’t work it is damaging to team performance and player confidence. I’m all for experimenting, give players a chance to succeed elsewhere on the ground - but we need to have a hard line for when it hasn’t worked and either switch that players role or the player themselves.

[dog town]

Bump

So add to the list:

Leaves Naughton cold at full forward no matter what
Suckling who was one of our best HBFs last year, is forward, just staring at the ball on the ground for his 30 seconds
Bailey Williams is now a (very, very poor) forward, or was today
Roarke is I'm not sure what role
Hunter takes the centre bounces
McLean is playing VFL because he's not playing a clear role with any clarity
Schache was nearly murdered by Grundy while Trengove stood on Cox. Maybe Trengove ruck, Schache pinch hit on Cox?
Bailey Dale will never be seen again, in any role or position. The same place Webb is.
Dunkley was just saved in the nick of time in playing his best position
Lewis Young, does that ruck, ruck/forward, defender/ruck still play for our VFL side?


I freely admit I don't understand player development. But we have a few success stories in moving players out of successful starts to their career into a new role. But we have a bigger list of players who have gone backwards. I don't get it.

Also, if you select 8-9 half back flankers in the 22, just in math alone, you have to play 2-3 in positions which is not their best spot. Like when we are fit and you select too many mid sized slower midfielders and dump the spares at half forward. I don't imagine that helps too much. Again, never having selected teams I'm no expert. While the position you are played can impact your development I see this as minor in terms of actual player development. Most of our development should be coming from the way we review performances with each player and teach them different aspects of the game during the week.

I certainly don't agree with all of our positional moves but you need to view them more broadly IMO. To be honest at times our supporters seem as though they will not be satisfied with any position a player plays in. Most of the positional complaints I read relate to players being played out of position but there is no justification for who moves out of those positions.

Everyone knows that Dunkley and McLean play their best football in the midfield but you can only fit so many players in that rotation. Unless you have coached you don't realise that these are decisions you make on a weekly basis when weighing up where to play people. Take the case of McLean, Bevo is on record as saying we need more leg speed in the forward half. We have a plethora of mids but McLean was probably the most likely to be able to help that scenario. Do you drop Libba, Wallis or McLean or try to make one of them into something you don't already have? It hasn't worked but that's the scenario coaches are often faced with. It is the same with many of the examples often raised.

We have probably got the balance of our list wrong to start with if we want to really pick something out. The Schache situation is interesting, I would actually say that is fantastic coaching by us to be able to get that performance out of him on the weekend. I hear people complain about our team defence starting to decline but in the same breath call for Schache to be played regardless of his performance. This guy was an absolute spectator without the ball for the two weeks before he was dropped. He went down to VFL level and didn't do any better but his performances slowly improved and he was able to show on the weekend that he can do the things we need. As for him rucking unfortunately if we play two tall forwards then one of them has to spend time in the ruck.

FWIW on the weekend just after half time I called for Naughton to go back, Trengove into the ruck and English to be used as the target when required. You could feel the game turning and if we wanted to arrest it that was the best option. Naughton wasn't getting it anyway so we were not losing anything. I dare say Bevo is weighing up the value of persisting with English over getting the win.

The coaches make mistakes and we are making plenty but we are a developing team and have guys that are still learning their positions or are simply not up to it. They are not above criticism I just feel our supporters do it blindly too often without examining the reasons for certain changes. Certainly not singling you out BT just replying as you have taken the time to write about it.

[AshMac]

While the position you are played can impact your development I see this as minor in terms of actual player development. Most of our development should be coming from the way we review performances with each player and teach them different aspects of the game during the week.

I certainly don't agree with all of our positional moves but you need to view them more broadly IMO. To be honest at times our supporters seem as though they will not be satisfied with any position a player plays in. Most of the positional complaints I read relate to players being played out of position but there is no justification for who moves out of those positions.

Everyone knows that Dunkley and McLean play their best football in the midfield but you can only fit so many players in that rotation. Unless you have coached you don't realise that these are decisions you make on a weekly basis when weighing up where to play people. Take the case of McLean, Bevo is on record as saying we need more leg speed in the forward half. We have a plethora of mids but McLean was probably the most likely to be able to help that scenario. Do you drop Libba, Wallis or McLean or try to make one of them into something you don't already have? It hasn't worked but that's the scenario coaches are often faced with. It is the same with many of the examples often raised.

We have probably got the balance of our list wrong to start with if we want to really pick something out. The Schache situation is interesting, I would actually say that is fantastic coaching by us to be able to get that performance out of him on the weekend. I hear people complain about our team defence starting to decline but in the same breath call for Schache to be played regardless of his performance. This guy was an absolute spectator without the ball for the two weeks before he was dropped. He went down to VFL level and didn't do any better but his performances slowly improved and he was able to show on the weekend that he can do the things we need. As for him rucking unfortunately if we play two tall forwards then one of them has to spend time in the ruck.

FWIW on the weekend just after half time I called for Naughton to go back, Trengove into the ruck and English to be used as the target when required. You could feel the game turning and if we wanted to arrest it that was the best option. Naughton wasn't getting it anyway so we were not losing anything. I dare say Bevo is weighing up the value of persisting with English over getting the win.

The coaches make mistakes and we are making plenty but we are a developing team and have guys that are still learning their positions or are simply not up to it. They are not above criticism I just feel our supporters do it blindly too often without examining the reasons for certain changes. Certainly not singling you out BT just replying as you have taken the time to write about it.

Lots of good points here, but i disagree the position you play on game day is less important than how you train and learn during the week in terms of developing confidence and ability to perform a role on the field.

[Danjul]

......I dare say Bevo is weighing up the value of persisting with English over getting the win.


Isn’t this the whole point of games?

[FrediKanoute]

Isn’t this the whole point of games?

Yes and no. Yes a win should nearly always be a priority, especially if you are finals bound, but we aren't, so sometimes taking a longer view and getting games and experience into players is a better strategy. Of course this all falls apart if English decides to go home to WA......

[Danjul]

Yes and no. Yes a win should nearly always be a priority, especially if you are finals bound, but we aren't, so sometimes taking a longer view and getting games and experience into players is a better strategy. Of course this all falls apart if English decides to go home to WA......

My understanding of the team’s performances is if 4 of our narrow losses (say - GC, Freo, North and one of the Collingwood games) had better game day strategy they would have been wins. Then we would be finals bound. Nothing to do with the list of players. English and the others would have still played the same number of games but in a slightly different way.

Maybe now we can afford to have other priorities than winning.

[bornadog]

My understanding of the team’s performances is if 4 of our narrow losses (say - GC, Freo, North and one of the Collingwood games) had better game day strategy they would have been wins. Then we would be finals bound. Nothing to do with the list of players. English and the others would have still played the same number of games but in a slightly different way.

Maybe now we can afford to have other priorities than winning.

GC Freo and Collingwood, we missed easy goals, nothing to do with coaching. North, well they were on top of us all day, new coach, yes we hit the front, but they smashed our midfield.

[Twodogs]

GC Freo and Collingwood, we missed easy goals, nothing to do with coaching. North, well they were on top of us all day, new coach, yes we hit the front, but they smashed our midfield.

But the fact we can't kick straight (and haven't for some years now) is a coaching issue isn't it?

[dog town]

Isn’t this the whole point of games? Of course but there is no other way to get games in. Our team defence would improve significantly if we didn’t play young, developing tall forwards but then everyone would be complaining that we can’t develop our own key forwards.

I did say it’s not what I would have done with English but that’s the call Bevo had to make.

[dog town]

Lots of good points here, but i disagree the position you play on game day is less important than how you train and learn during the week in terms of developing confidence and ability to perform a role on the field. The true development of our players dropped away since Chris Maple changed roles. There is a reason clubs put so much time and money into this area. The picking up of skills within skills for lack of a better term can only be done by review and practice.

Game day is critical for putting it into practice but most of them can be done from any position. Given there is only 22 spots players need to be professional enough to do this.

[Bumper Bulldogs]

Is it development or behaviour? We keep hearing player X wants to leave, player X has off field issues, player X has the sooks about his posistion/role. This all since the GF. We had a tight group and a positive coach.

Now we’ve traded guns, slid down the chain, negative coach, unhappy players and became totally irrelevant

Outside looking in I would say we have a huge leadership issue outside the football department

Sydney, Geelong and Hawthorn would not be in this position

[AshMac]

The true development of our players dropped away since Chris Maple changed roles. There is a reason clubs put so much time and money into this area. The picking up of skills within skills for lack of a better term can only be done by review and practice.

Game day is critical for putting it into practice but most of them can be done from any position. Given there is only 22 spots players need to be professional enough to do this.

the impact a player has on a game due to how effective they are in their position has so much more to do with the skill efficiency - how easily it’s picked up off the ground, handball accuracy, split second decision making etc. I’m not sure you can train for in match situations and the increased intensity and pressure on everything.

Both important of course, I just can’t see how one is more important than the other.

[bornadog]

Now we’ve traded guns, slid down the chain, negative coach, unhappy players and became totally irrelevant

I haven't seen a negative coach, and not sure how you can say unhappy players?

[ledge]

Nice article on a Lipinski playing VFL in the midfield to learn, it’s done him the world of good.
If anyone can find it , I saw it on FB but can’t find it now.
Went something along the lines of Bevo and him having a chat about not being an outside mid and if he wants to play AFL he needs to be an inside one, so he went back to VFL and played inside mid, now he has really come of age.
To be honest I’ve always seen him as being an exceptional player.

[MrMahatma]

I looooove the current “develop English as a ruck by playing ruck, and Naugton as a forward by playing forward, and Shache by playing forward” idea.

Not sure why people think we should develop English as a forward and Trengrove as a ruck....

No issues with moving smalls around a bit, but the talls need to learn their role in the right spot (in my opinion)

[whythelongface]

Now we’ve traded guns, slid down the chain, negative coach, unhappy players and became totally irrelevant

Outside looking in I would say we have a huge leadership issue outside the football department

Sydney, Geelong and Hawthorn would not be in this position

Where does this information come from? Negative coach in what way? Unhappy players- we have players that have recently signed long term contracts. I would suggest the majority of the team is happy. Of course there are some outliers, in regards to players who aren't satisfied with the amount of time spent in firsts, but one could say that about all teams. There will always be players who believe that opportunities lie elsewhere.

Not sure what you mean by 'Sydney, Geelong and Hawthorn would not be in that position'. In terms of leadership, ladder position, player dissatisfaction?? All clubs have issues and i don't believe that there is anything different with our club than for example Sydney and Hawthorn (at present).

[bornadog]

Where does this information come from? Negative coach in what way? Unhappy players- we have players that have recently signed long term contracts. I would suggest the majority of the team is happy. Of course there are some outliers, in regards to players who aren't satisfied with the amount of time spent in firsts, but one could say that about all teams. There will always be players who believe that opportunities lie elsewhere.

Not sure what you mean by 'Sydney, Geelong and Hawthorn would not be in that position'. In terms of leadership, ladder position, player dissatisfaction?? All clubs have issues and i don't believe that there is anything different with our club than for example Sydney and Hawthorn (at present).

Spot on.

[Danjul]

I looooove the current “develop English as a ruck by playing ruck, and Naugton as a forward by playing forward, and Shache by playing forward” idea.

Not sure why people think we should develop English as a forward and Trengrove as a ruck....

No issues with moving smalls around a bit, but the talls need to learn their role in the right spot (in my opinion)

Nobody is saying English shouldn’t do ruckwork. What people are responding to is the obvious decision that English will shoulder all the ruck responsibility in all circumstances even when it will cost a significant amount of team success.

He is certainly capable of doing most of the ruck work in some games. He will still improve his skills and be an asset by only doing some of it in others.

The problem is not English. He is clearly one of the club’s best draft choices in decades. Everyone admires his efforts.

The problem is what the club is doing with and to him.

He is young and should be treated as a developing asset. And having him treated the way he was on Sunday does neither him or the supporters any good. And if he breaks down with an avoidable injury who benefits.

This predicament is a reflection of poor planning going back beyond the start of this season.

[Mofra]

Nobody is saying English shouldn’t do ruckwork. What people are responding to is the obvious decision that English will shoulder all the ruck responsibility in all circumstances even when it will cost a significant amount of team success.

He is certainly capable of doing most of the ruck work in some games. He will still improve his skills and be an asset by only doing some of it in others.

The problem is not English. He is clearly one of the club’s best draft choices in decades. Everyone admires his efforts.

The problem is what the club is doing with and to him.

He is young and should be treated as a developing asset. And having him treated the way he was on Sunday does neither him or the supporters any good. And if he breaks down with an avoidable injury who benefits.

This predicament is a reflection of poor planning going back beyond the start of this season.
The race was open as of JLT2 between Trengove and English.

Trengove was better at the coalface, English was better around the ground. I actually think English in recent weeks has shown he can be a threat up forward and wouldn't have minded both being played as ruck/forwards but it didn't work during JLT 1 so we shelved the idea.

[Danjul]

The race was open as of JLT2 between Trengove and English.

Trengove was better at the coalface, English was better around the ground. I actually think English in recent weeks has shown he can be a threat up forward and wouldn't have minded both being played as ruck/forwards but it didn't work during JLT 1 so we shelved the idea.

The problem really is that we have two problems.

1. Ruck theory and management.

2. Key position theory and management.

They have been confused and clashing for a long time.

To this club’s detriment.

[bornadog]

The problem really is that we have two problems.

1. Ruck theory and management.

2. Key position theory and management.

They have been confused and clashing for a long time.

To this club’s detriment.

I don't agree at all.

Bevo has a type of ruckman in mind that he wants, and I think it is the Grundy type, that is why we are persisting with English.
We haven't had anyone like that for a long time. Boyd was ok to chop out in the ruck, Roughead was useless around the ground.

KPP - well all our KPPs are 21 and under and need time to develop. Can we be a little forgiving here and develop them in the positions the club wants them to play, instead of the constant bagging?

[jeemak]

Where does this information come from? Negative coach in what way? Unhappy players- we have players that have recently signed long term contracts. I would suggest the majority of the team is happy. Of course there are some outliers, in regards to players who aren't satisfied with the amount of time spent in firsts, but one could say that about all teams. There will always be players who believe that opportunities lie elsewhere.

Not sure what you mean by 'Sydney, Geelong and Hawthorn would not be in that position'. In terms of leadership, ladder position, player dissatisfaction?? All clubs have issues and i don't believe that there is anything different with our club than for example Sydney and Hawthorn (at present).

Sydney are on the same amount of wins as us, and are enjoying the rebuilding narrative. They just traded out Dan Hannebury and there's talk of Papley wanting to return to Victoria mid-contract.

Hawthorn's coach is possibly on the move, and the captain has been rubbed out for pinching and stomping. Their list has serious questions marks over it and it's felt they traded out too much leadership too early.

[Danjul]

I don't agree at all.

Bevo has a type of ruckman in mind that he wants, and I think it is the Grundy type, that is why we are persisting with English.
We haven't had anyone like that for a long time. Boyd was ok to chop out in the ruck, Roughead was useless around the ground.

KPP - well all our KPPs are 21 and under and need time to develop. Can we be a little forgiving here and develop them in the positions the club wants them to play, instead of the constant bagging?

Yes and no.

I agree with your general description but not your last sentence.

The club has had years to avoid the situation we are in. Was there really any need to find the team devoid of key components and having to wait a little longer for moderate success.

Everything was foreseeable. The club has kept ruckmen and key position players on the books, not played them, got rid of them and not replaced them with serviceable options who could shoulder some of the load while the new generation develops.

Develop they will. But the club has been using the same excuse, young players developing, for too long to cover too many sins.

So no, there should be no forgiving.

(Now we are getting the new excuse that Sydney is down the ladder with us because they are rebuilding too. So things are progressing normally. They enjoyed success for 10 years first.)

[GVGjr]

Yes and no.

I agree with your general description but not your last sentence.

The club has had years to avoid the situation we are in. Was there really any need to find the team devoid of key components and having to wait a little longer for moderate success.

Everything was foreseeable. The club has kept ruckmen and key position players on the books, not played them, got rid of them and not replaced them with serviceable options who could shoulder some of the load while the new generation develops.

Develop they will. But the club has been using the same excuse, young players developing, for too long to cover too many sins.

So no, there should be no forgiving.

(Now we are getting the new excuse that Sydney is down the ladder with us because they are rebuilding too. So things are progressing normally. They enjoyed success for 10 years first.)

It's the most convenient of excuses but inexcusable that we didn't factor it in. A number of us here on the forum raised it at the end of last season and yet we traded for mid sized players in Lloyd and Duryea.

I think it's a weak excuse when as a club we just haven't done enough. We knew Boyd had MH issues and a back injury that cruelly curtained his 2018 season. We also knew Morris had troubles getting through 2017 and 2018 seasons with injuries playing around half the season in both years. It's a bit rich to claim injuries have been a big factor in our underperforming season when as you say it's was foreseeable.

[bornadog]

Yes and no.

I agree with your general description but not your last sentence.

I was talking about right now and the position we are in.

The KPPs are young and need time to mature. We all know they don't hit peak till at least 25.

Talking about the past has been done to death, and I don't wish to participate in drafting and recruiting ifs and buts. If others want to fine.

Happy to discvuss the future ifs and buts for the types of players we should be looking for.

[G-Mo77]

Yes and no.

I agree with your general description but not your last sentence.

The club has had years to avoid the situation we are in. Was there really any need to find the team devoid of key components and having to wait a little longer for moderate success.

Everything was foreseeable. The club has kept ruckmen and key position players on the books, not played them, got rid of them and not replaced them with serviceable options who could shoulder some of the load while the new generation develops.

Develop they will. But the club has been using the same excuse, young players developing, for too long to cover too many sins.

So no, there should be no forgiving.

(Now we are getting the new excuse that Sydney is down the ladder with us because they are rebuilding too. So things are progressing normally. They enjoyed success for 10 years first.)

There needs to be an applaud emoticon. Excellent post and summed up my thoughts on list management perfectly. I can never put it in to words because it just infuriates me what we have done or not done.

[whythelongface]

It's the most convenient of excuses but inexcusable that we didn't factor it in. A number of us here on the forum raised it at the end of last season and yet we traded for mid sized players in Lloyd and Duryea.

I think it's a weak excuse when as a club we just haven't done enough. We knew Boyd had MH issues and a back injury that cruelly curtained his 2018 season. We also knew Morris had troubles getting through 2017 and 2018 seasons with injuries playing around half the season in both years. It's a bit rich to claim injuries have been a big factor in our underperforming season when as you say it's was foreseeable.

We also need to consider that we have made plays for some KPP and for whatever reason they did not come off eg. Hurley, Lever, May to name a few. It seems that we were not a destination club for these players. Whilst our stocks are down I do think that we are currently best off developing our young talls and maybe looking at some fringe talls from other clubs to fill a need over the 12 to 24 months as well as looking at drafting another KPP. Hopefully in the meantime Lewis Young develops into a consistent KPP.

[bornadog]

It's the most convenient of excuses but inexcusable that we didn't factor it in.

KPPs don't grow on trees. No use drafting another tall at the end of 2018, and trading for one is almost impossible.


We also need to consider that we have made plays for some KPP and for whatever reason they did not come off eg. Hurley, Lever, May to name a few. It seems that we were not a destination club for these players. Whilst our stocks are down I do think that we are currently best off developing our young talls and maybe looking at some fringe talls from other clubs to fill a need over the 12 to 24 months as well as looking at drafting another KPP. Hopefully in the meantime Lewis Young develops into a consistent KPP.

We certainly tried.

[GVGjr]

We also need to consider that we have made plays for some KPP and for whatever reason they did not come off eg. Hurley, Lever, May to name a few. It seems that we were not a destination club for these players. Whilst our stocks are down I do think that we are currently best off developing our young talls and maybe looking at some fringe talls from other clubs to fill a need over the 12 to 24 months as well as looking at drafting another KPP. Hopefully in the meantime Lewis Young develops into a consistent KPP.

It's an interesting point but does it support the clubs approach?
Yes we chased Hurley as hard as we could but upon his decision to stay at the Bombers, we then traded away Hamling (for decent reasons) and did nothing to address it in 2016. How can that be explained? You chase a quality KP defender then let one go that had a terrific finals series and yet don't really get active in locating replacements. Eventually we added Trengove to the mix but originally he was supposed to be more of a forward. We then let Adams go and didn't replace him maybe because we saw the quality in Naughton but he's now a forward largely because we didn't factor in or correctly diagnose the challenges Boyd was facing
Losing Roughead, who ironically was also used as a defender in 2018 because of injuries, also thinned the KP stocks a bit further but the question I ask is if we needed to use him as a defender for a few games in 2018 and we traded away Adams why did we think we were OK for KP depth in the backline for 2019? Now some on here have placed Roberts in departure lounge and Morris is a likely option as well.

It's all good and well to blame injuries but to me it's becoming a cycle of excuses and a great mechanism to explain why we haven't quite measured up. I get the feeling we will be happy to do it again next season as well.

I think I'm as passionate at building the list through the draft as anyone on here but we do need to balance thing with trades and they don't always have to be high profile ones. Trengove, Crozier, Schache, Lloyd and Duryea are all quality additions but we were light on for KP players and also players with senior footy experience and we need to be doing more.

If we need to develop Lewis Young then he needs some exposure to the seniors, this applies to a number of players that made progress in 2018 and have not been sighted in 2019.

[GVGjr]

KPPs don't grow on trees. No use drafting another tall at the end of 2018, and trading for one is almost impossible.




Is it supported by facts BAD?

Fremantle got two of them, Melbourne got two of them, Gold Coast got one, Port got one, West Coast replaced one ruck man with another, Tigers got a high profile one, Saints grabbed a couple after a number of injuries, Pies, Brisbane and North added KP players from us and Carlton got one so they're are around. I'd argue that most of those clubs had a bit more KP depth than what we had before they traded for KP players.

[SonofScray]

It's an interesting point but does it support the clubs approach?
Yes we chased Hurley as hard as we could but upon his decision to stay at the Bombers, we then traded away Hamling (for decent reasons) and did nothing to address it in 2016. How can that be explained? You chase a quality KP defender then let one go that had a terrific finals series and yet don't really get active in locating replacements. Eventually we added Trengove to the mix but originally he was supposed to be more of a forward. We then let Adams go and didn't replace him maybe because we saw the quality in Naughton but he's now a forward largely because we didn't factor in or correctly diagnose the challenges Boyd was facing
Losing Roughead, who ironically was also used as a defender in 2018 because of injuries, also thinned the KP stocks a bit further but the question I ask is if we needed to use him as a defender for a few games in 2018 and we traded away Adams why did we think we were OK for KP depth in the backline for 2019? Now some on here have placed Roberts in departure lounge and Morris is a likely option as well.

It's all good and well to blame injuries but to me it's becoming a cycle of excuses and a great mechanism to explain why we haven't quite measured up. I get the feeling we will be happy to do it again next season as well.

I think I'm as passionate at building the list through the draft as anyone on here but we do need to balance thing with trades and they don't always have to be high profile ones. Trengove, Crozier, Schache, Lloyd and Duryea are all quality additions but we were light on for KP players and also players with senior footy experience and we need to be doing more.

If we need to develop Lewis Young then he needs some exposure to the seniors, this applies to a number of players that made progress in 2018 and have not been sighted in 2019.
It's a good read of things for mine.

On the last point, Lewis should be playing in the ones now. All young KPD get torched early, we can't protect him from that. Has to cut his teeth in the role we need from him.

[Danjul]

We also need to consider that we have made plays for some KPP and for whatever reason they did not come off eg. Hurley, Lever, May to name a few. It seems that we were not a destination club for these players. Whilst our stocks are down I do think that we are currently best off developing our young talls and maybe looking at some fringe talls from other clubs to fill a need over the 12 to 24 months as well as looking at drafting another KPP. Hopefully in the meantime Lewis Young develops into a consistent KPP.

I think there is a lot of sense in what you say.

our probable finish to the season could give some excellent opportunities at draft time. All the excellent players we cannot attract were in the draft at some stage. And we should be able to give the next lot time to develop properly.

I hope there are people giving that a lot of thought already.

[bornadog]

Is it supported by facts BAD?

Ok, I should have said quality KPPs.

[GVGjr]

Ok, I should have said quality KPPs.

And I'm saying its OK to add role or needs based players rather saying they're arent there. If you don't replace a ruckman for example and you then cop an injury you shouldn't then blame injuries as the problem. We've deliberately run tbe risk of going light on for KP depth and we are being tested but the issue isnt an injury list its more about how we structured thd playing list

[AshMac]

Nice article on a Lipinski playing VFL in the midfield to learn, it’s done him the world of good.
If anyone can find it , I saw it on FB but can’t find it now.
Went something along the lines of Bevo and him having a chat about not being an outside mid and if he wants to play AFL he needs to be an inside one, so he went back to VFL and played inside mid, now he has really come of age.
To be honest I’ve always seen him as being an exceptional player.

Article on Lippa:

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/why-going-backwards-has-helped-young-western-bulldogs-midfielder-pat-lipinski-leap-forwards/news-story/981527f7b20b85fe002abf63868d7ce6

Pretty thin overall but leans towards the importance of playing games in a role to properly develop in that position.

[bornadog]

And I'm saying its OK to add role or needs based players rather saying they're arent there. If you don't replace a ruckman for example and you then cop an injury you shouldn't then blame injuries as the problem. We've deliberately run tbe risk of going light on for KP depth and we are being tested but the issue isnt an injury list its more about how we structured thd playing list

I still stand by what I said at the start of the season. 4 Rucks on the list was enough. Circumstances have now reduced that to 3, plus one of those is stuck at fullback. Perhaps we should have had one more as Sweet is also developing.

Overall we are ok for KPPs - Naughton, Schache, Young, added Gardner and Cordy plays that role. What my point was is they are all young and we need to be a bit patient as we know they will not mature till mid 20s. So recruitment and planning is not the issue.

[Danjul]

I still stand by what I said at the start of the season. 4 Rucks on the list was enough. Circumstances have now reduced that to 3, plus one of those is stuck at fullback. Perhaps we should have had one more as Sweet is also developing.

Overall we are ok for KPPs - Naughton, Schache, Young, added Gardner and Cordy plays that role. What my point was is they are all young and we need to be a bit patient as we know they will not mature till mid 20s. So recruitment and planning is not the issue.

Cannot agree.

Trengove is not a ruckman. He is just a good footballer who has held usually his own when called on.

That leaves 3 ruckmen. Never saw Boyd as a ruckman. He always struggled in that role but tried his best. And was he really going to get many games. Tended to play only half of a season.

That leaves English as our senior genuine ruckman (20 games??) and Sweet (0 games).

none of these four have ever had 30+ hitouts in a game and we rarely see hitouts to advantage. Yet we see opposing ruckmen get 50 hitouts and more.

Cordy might have been a KPP 25 years ago but he simply doesn’t have the build for it now. The fact that he has been used as fullback and CHB simply emphasises the depth of our predicament.

Gardner was not on the list and his selection was really an indication of panic.

That leaves 3 babies who, at the start of the season, had next to no experience between them. As you say, they will take years.

These are not criticisms, just facts.

[GVGjr]

I still stand by what I said at the start of the season. 4 Rucks on the list was enough. Circumstances have now reduced that to 3, plus one of those is stuck at fullback. Perhaps we should have had one more as Sweet is also developing.

Overall we are ok for KPPs - Naughton, Schache, Young, added Gardner and Cordy plays that role. What my point was is they are all young and we need to be a bit patient as we know they will not mature till mid 20s. So recruitment and planning is not the issue.

We didn't have 4 ruckman though

There were huge doubts on Boyd being fit before the season started and we ignored that, that makes it 3. Sweet was an average SANFL ruckman in 2018 but with potential and was always going to be a mile off and that is why he was added to rookie list not the senior list so we are now down to 2 and maybe a bit if you think he can play but I don't think he is ready. English had issues with durability last year and Trengove is a jack of all trades player. Clearly we took a risk and gambled that English didn't need much support and that hasn't quite worked out.

To me it's not like we had 4 or even 3 genuine ruckman fighting for a couple of spots from round one.

It is how you want to see it though but the sum of numbers in your calculation is highly flawed in mine.

[Danjul]

We didn't have 4 ruckman though

There were huge doubts on Boyd being fit before the season started and we ignored that, that makes it 3. Sweet was an average SANFL ruckman in 2018 but with potential and was always going to be a mile off and that is why he was added to rookie list not the senior list so we are now down to 2 and maybe a bit if you think he can play but I don't think he is ready. English had issues with durability last year and Trengove is a jack of all trades player. Clearly we took a risk and gambled that English didn't need much support and that hasn't quite worked out.

To me it's not like we had 4 or even 3 genuine ruckman fighting for a couple of spots from round one.

It is how you want to see it though but the sum of numbers in your calculation is highly flawed in mine.

For an indication of how important the ruck is look at last weekend:

Grundy, Lycett, Martin, Gawn, best on ground. (There were only 6 games)
Marshall, 4th
Hickey, Bellchambers, in top ten.

AFL website.

[bornadog]

For an indication of how important the ruck is look at last weekend:

Grundy, Lycett, Martin, Gawn, best on ground. (There were only 6 games)
Marshall, 4th
Hickey, Bellchambers, in top ten.

AFL website.

All mature ruckman.

[Danjul]

All mature ruckman.

Us in 5 years.

What do I do in winter until then?

[bornadog]

Us in 5 years.

What do I do in winter until then?

Keep supporting the dogs and go to every game.

[GVGjr]

All mature ruckman.

It's interesting the way we both look at things, in one breath you say quality KP players don't grow on trees but in another you say we had 4 ruckman yet one of the had huge doubts on his fitness of one of them, which ultimately lead to a premature retirement, and the other was unproven state league player who is a fair way off the mark. My view is we had two ruckman with the potential for support from another then praying for a miraculous cure with the 4th. That's a gamble in my estimation especially when our main man needs support. Looking for support even for the short term would have been a sensible thing in my opinion

You've also added Cordy in your KP players list above but I'm sure you've also said he shouldn't be pitted against KP forwards. He might be down on form in the last couple of weeks but I think he's had a strong enough season as a KP defender.

Anyway, I'm never going to be able to put anything forward on the subject of list management or player development that goes against the clubs approach that you will agree with and I can accept that.

[Danjul]

You've also added Cordy in your KP players list above but I'm sure you've also said he shouldn't be pitted against KP forwards. He might be down on form in the last couple of weeks but I think he's had a strong enough season as a KP defender.


I see this as a popular refrain here, but I cannot understand it. He is enthusiastic and cast in a David and Goliath role but the truth is he has not been successful. Like much of the improvisation that’s replaced simple common sense this failure has been hidden behind the cult of personality pervading the club.

I have watched his performances closely in a desperate attempt to bond with the majority, but the evidence is overwhelming.

From the first game when he was selected as fullback on Franklin to last week at CHB on Cox he has been given impossible tasks. In my opinion his ability has been compromised and in just the last 6 matches he has given up about 25 goals. To give him a different role would be to admit failure, so following the lessons of history it has been decided to make him the stuff of legend and hope no body notices.

[bornadog]

It's interesting the way we both look at things, in one breath you say quality KP players don't grow on trees but in another you say we had 4 ruckman .

Ok, I will explain better. I should have said I count ruckman and KPP separately.

Agree the club took a gamble with Boyd.


You've also added Cordy in your KP players list above but I'm sure you've also said he shouldn't be pitted against KP forwards. He might be down on form in the last couple of weeks but I think he's had a strong enough season as a KP defender.

I said he plays that role, but I don't think that well.


Anyway, I'm never going to be able to put anything forward on the subject of list management or player development that goes against the clubs approach that you will agree with and I can accept that.

You have me wrong there. I am just realistic that ruckman and A grade KPPs are hard to get. We don't need a lumbering ruckman, otherwise you keep Cambell, and as for KPP's - no point in drafting one in 2018 as you would have added another baby to the allready list of young guys. To trade for a really good KPP, well maybe there just wasn't one we could get. We probably tried for Steven May, but he wasnt interested.

[jeemak]

Sydney are on the same amount of wins as us, and are enjoying the rebuilding narrative. They just traded out Dan Hannebury and there's talk of Papley wanting to return to Victoria mid-contract.

Hawthorn's coach is possibly on the move, and the captain has been rubbed out for pinching and stomping. Their list has serious questions marks over it and it's felt they traded out too much leadership too early.


Yes and no.

I agree with your general description but not your last sentence.

The club has had years to avoid the situation we are in. Was there really any need to find the team devoid of key components and having to wait a little longer for moderate success.

Everything was foreseeable. The club has kept ruckmen and key position players on the books, not played them, got rid of them and not replaced them with serviceable options who could shoulder some of the load while the new generation develops.

Develop they will. But the club has been using the same excuse, young players developing, for too long to cover too many sins.

So no, there should be no forgiving.

(Now we are getting the new excuse that Sydney is down the ladder with us because they are rebuilding too. So things are progressing normally. They enjoyed success for 10 years first.)

Actually no, not making excuses. Bumper suggested the malaise that is happening with us wouldn't happen with some clubs that are seen as the benchmark, and I was simply pointing out that they also have some issues.

But I'll bite anyway.

Sure Sydney have been successful in the last ten years, winning one flag and playing in another two grand finals. But we've won our last flag more recently than they have but it seems that their slide is seen as palatable and understandable even though they were within four goals of winning another flag at the time we won ours. They were the "best team" in the comp, clearly (don't get me started on how much we were underrated winning 15 games in 2016 with a banged up list most of the year), in 2016 but have fallen off the cliff just like we have. So my question is, why is their rebuild acceptable and ours isn't? Why are we failures and why do the rules have to be different for each of our clubs?

We invested in Adams and Collins and it's hurt us as much as Morris going down has. Young hasn't come on to the extent we'd like, but he's probably going to be OK. I get why people believe a contingency for T. Boyd should have been sought but there's only so many list spots to go around, and let's face it, he was our perfect second ruck/forward and they don't grow on trees and are not easily replaced.

The thing that gets my goat a little is we assume the professionals aren't as smart as we are. Sure, I get that questioning them is the right thing to do, but we ask why we can't find a Witts or whoever else, but without understanding what's actually on the table for the player, what we can afford as a club, and opportunities for said player within our club's pecking order how would we know? And when all of that is stacked up we just assume we've done badly and didn't try. It's actually insulting to those who work in the caper, and some folks should imagine how it would feel if the performance within their own jobs was so easily scrutinised or discarded.

Football discussion is definitely the best example of how the lay person doesn't understand how negotiations work, and how future planning can and can't affect short, medium and long term results. It's mostly based on hindsight, BT is smart and works his arse off to keep this forum ticking over but even he would admit that it's almost impossible to predict what should versus will happen over time, and what shouldn't have happened outside of the obvious.

Because we all love football we like to pretend that information asymmetry doesn't exist (and unfortunately the fat heads within the media make it out as if it doesn't), but it does - and if we were talking about banking we'd probably accept it. Simplify all you like.

[Danjul]

Actually no, not making excuses. Bumper suggested the malaise that is happening with us wouldn't happen with some clubs that are seen as the benchmark, and I was simply pointing out that they also have some issues.

But I'll bite anyway.

Sure Sydney have been successful in the last ten years, winning one flag and playing in another two grand finals. But we've won our last flag more recently than they have but it seems that their slide is seen as palatable and understandable even though they were within four goals of winning another flag at the time we won ours. They were the "best team" in the comp, clearly (don't get me started on how much we were underrated winning 15 games in 2016 with a banged up list most of the year), in 2016 but have fallen off the cliff just like we have.

So my question is, why is their rebuild acceptable and ours isn't? Why are we failures and why do the rules have to be different for each of our clubs?


Rebuilding is not only acceptable but necessary because of the way the system works.

What people struggle with is why Sydney gets 10 years of success out of a build and the Dogs get ......

[GVGjr]

Rebuilding is not only acceptable but necessary because of the way the system works.

What people struggle with is why Sydney gets 10 years of success out of a build and the Dogs get ......

In my opinion the essence of the issue is that we didn't handle success well and I think the footy department, players and coaches etc, were all guilty of taking their eye off the ball. Once a level of complacency gets into the work place it's a bitch of a thing to recover from and getting the hunger back into the playing list is the key challenge going forward. I'm as frustrated as anyone with the level of our on field performances but we just have to accept now that we are reshaping things hopefully for a rebound in 2020.

[Bulldog4life]

Actually no, not making excuses. Bumper suggested the malaise that is happening with us wouldn't happen with some clubs that are seen as the benchmark, and I was simply pointing out that they also have some issues.

But I'll bite anyway.

Sure Sydney have been successful in the last ten years, winning one flag and playing in another two grand finals. But we've won our last flag more recently than they have but it seems that their slide is seen as palatable and understandable even though they were within four goals of winning another flag at the time we won ours. They were the "best team" in the comp, clearly (don't get me started on how much we were underrated winning 15 games in 2016 with a banged up list most of the year), in 2016 but have fallen off the cliff just like we have. So my question is, why is their rebuild acceptable and ours isn't? Why are we failures and why do the rules have to be different for each of our clubs?

We invested in Adams and Collins and it's hurt us as much as Morris going down has. Young hasn't come on to the extent we'd like, but he's probably going to be OK. I get why people believe a contingency for T. Boyd should have been sought but there's only so many list spots to go around, and let's face it, he was our perfect second ruck/forward and they don't grow on trees and are not easily replaced.

The thing that gets my goat a little is we assume the professionals aren't as smart as we are. Sure, I get that questioning them is the right thing to do, but we ask why we can't find a Witts or whoever else, but without understanding what's actually on the table for the player, what we can afford as a club, and opportunities for said player within our club's pecking order how would we know? And when all of that is stacked up we just assume we've done badly and didn't try. It's actually insulting to those who work in the caper, and some folks should imagine how it would feel if the performance within their own jobs was so easily scrutinised or discarded.

Football discussion is definitely the best example of how the lay person doesn't understand how negotiations work, and how future planning can and can't affect short, medium and long term results. It's mostly based on hindsight, BT is smart and works his arse off to keep this forum ticking over but even he would admit that it's almost impossible to predict what should versus will happen over time, and what shouldn't have happened outside of the obvious.

Because we all love football we like to pretend that information asymmetry doesn't exist (and unfortunately the fat heads within the media make it out as if it doesn't), but it does - and if we were talking about banking we'd probably accept it. Simplify all you like.

Great post Jee.

[LostDoggy]

Actually no, not making excuses. Bumper suggested the malaise that is happening with us wouldn't happen with some clubs that are seen as the benchmark, and I was simply pointing out that they also have some issues.

But I'll bite anyway.

Sure Sydney have been successful in the last ten years, winning one flag and playing in another two grand finals. But we've won our last flag more recently than they have but it seems that their slide is seen as palatable and understandable even though they were within four goals of winning another flag at the time we won ours. They were the "best team" in the comp, clearly (don't get me started on how much we were underrated winning 15 games in 2016 with a banged up list most of the year), in 2016 but have fallen off the cliff just like we have. So my question is, why is their rebuild acceptable and ours isn't? Why are we failures and why do the rules have to be different for each of our clubs?

We invested in Adams and Collins and it's hurt us as much as Morris going down has. Young hasn't come on to the extent we'd like, but he's probably going to be OK. I get why people believe a contingency for T. Boyd should have been sought but there's only so many list spots to go around, and let's face it, he was our perfect second ruck/forward and they don't grow on trees and are not easily replaced.

The thing that gets my goat a little is we assume the professionals aren't as smart as we are. Sure, I get that questioning them is the right thing to do, but we ask why we can't find a Witts or whoever else, but without understanding what's actually on the table for the player, what we can afford as a club, and opportunities for said player within our club's pecking order how would we know? And when all of that is stacked up we just assume we've done badly and didn't try. It's actually insulting to those who work in the caper, and some folks should imagine how it would feel if the performance within their own jobs was so easily scrutinised or discarded.

Football discussion is definitely the best example of how the lay person doesn't understand how negotiations work, and how future planning can and can't affect short, medium and long term results. It's mostly based on hindsight, BT is smart and works his arse off to keep this forum ticking over but even he would admit that it's almost impossible to predict what should versus will happen over time, and what shouldn't have happened outside of the obvious.

Because we all love football we like to pretend that information asymmetry doesn't exist (and unfortunately the fat heads within the media make it out as if it doesn't), but it does - and if we were talking about banking we'd probably accept it. Simplify all you like.

Not sure anyone thinks they know better than the pros. But let's be real 99 percent of coaches screw up often enough to end up sacked.

Our list weaknesses have been so apparent that Terry Wallace the list manager nails our weaknesses every year.

It isn't rocket science. Yeah you need some luck but I reckon any absorbed footy fan could build a decent list.

[bornadog]

Not sure anyone thinks they know better than the pros. But let's be real 99 percent of coaches scre up often enough to end up sacked.

Our list weaknesses have been so apparent that Terry Wallace the list manager nails out weaknesses every year.

Wallet the wannabe

[ledge]

Sydney are accepted as a rebuild as they have been up a long time, we were expected to start our ten year success in 2016.
Sydney’s team were aging ours was young, that’s why they accept them rebuilding and not us, I tend to agree with what the media say in that department.
We all expected us to be a powerhouse and Sydney to drop.

[jeemak]

Not sure anyone thinks they know better than the pros. But let's be real 99 percent of coaches screw up often enough to end up sacked.

Our list weaknesses have been so apparent that Terry Wallace the list manager nails our weaknesses every year.

It isn't rocket science. Yeah you need some luck but I reckon any absorbed footy fan could build a decent list.

But that's kind of the point, either the professionals we employ at the club have been asleep at the wheel (wholly or at times) or it's harder than it looks to build, develop and keep a completely balanced list together. Or it's a combination of the two which is entirely possible.

I believe it's either one of the last two scenarios, and just because weaknesses are apparent to all and sundry it doesn't mean fixing them is a walk in the park. Perhaps when asked the likes of Wallace and anyone else in the media will talk of throwing money around to secure a player here or a player there, but that's just unaccountable cheap seat commentary from the galleries at the end of the day. Identifying players you want and need is the easy bit, actually securing them is the hard bit and none of the pundits have to worry about that.

[jeemak]

Sydney are accepted as a rebuild as they have been up a long time, we were expected to start our ten year success in 2016.
Sydney’s team were aging ours was young, that’s why they accept them rebuilding and not us, I tend to agree with what the media say in that department.
We all expected us to be a powerhouse and Sydney to drop.

We had some ageing players that have retired and some injuries to players who were difficult to replace. Sure you can get coverage on the list for the likes of a C. Smith, Picken, T. Boyd or Morris, but actually getting replacement players to play like them isn't easy because they're really really good at what they do when they are doing it well.

Things turn really quickly in this competition, perhaps we were all a bit deluded after we won the flag about how good we could have been long term. Just as the professionals can get things wrong when projecting future performances of a list, so can fans and media alike.

[bornadog]

We had some ageing players that have retired and some injuries to players who were difficult to replace. Sure you can get coverage on the list for the likes of a C. Smith, Picken, T. Boyd or Morris, but actually getting replacement players to play like them isn't easy because they're really really good at what they do when they are doing it well.

Things turn really quickly in this competition, perhaps we were all a bit deluded after we won the flag about how good we could have been long term. Just as the professionals can get things wrong when projecting future performances of a list, so can fans and media alike.

Especially Fans

[Danjul]

Especially Fans

one thing some commenters here overlook is the fact that .....

........fans who have been to hundreds of Dogs games probably have some idea of what they are talking about when they describe what they are seeing.

For example, people here predicted that English would struggle against Goldstein. He did. We lost.

They also predicted the same against Grundy (twice). Yes, we lost (twice).

Why aren’t the Dogs a certainty to make the finals this year?

Because we might not be getting the best results from the players we have.

[bornadog]

Because we might not be getting the best results from the players we have.

Or - the players aren't up to it at this stage of their development.

[hujsh]

one thing some commenters here overlook is the fact that .....

........fans who have been to hundreds of Dogs games probably have some idea of what they are talking about when they describe what they are seeing.

For example, people here predicted that English would struggle against Goldstein. He did. We lost.

They also predicted the same against Grundy (twice). Yes, we lost (twice).

Why aren’t the Dogs a certainty to make the finals this year?

Because we might not be getting the best results from the players we have.

You could also say the same against Lycett and we won. Really while Trengove is our main key back there's just no other option for the ruck. We seem determined to stick with Naughton as a forward as much as possible and Young clearly doesn't get rated as the main main down back. Is it a failure of list management? I believe so. Is there much we can do about it at this point? Seems not.

[Danjul]

You could also say the same against Lycett and we won. Really while Trengove is our main key back there's just no other option for the ruck. We seem determined to stick with Naughton as a forward as much as possible and Young clearly doesn't get rated as the main main down back. Is it a failure of list management? I believe so. Is there much we can do about it at this point? Seems not.

The Bulldog midfielders are among the best in the competition.

But they are used to salvage games instead of destroying the opposition.

Where would we expect to be if someone like Grundy was feeding them every game ? Now we are not in that fortunate position yet , but that Doesn’t mean we cannot do better now.

My reason for mentioning predictions is that despite it being a foreseeable risk there never seems to be a plan B for when English is being overwhelmed. We just go with whatever is happening and wear the consequences.

An important question is *How do we minimise the damage and maximise English’s contribution with the current list ?*

That cannot get a satisfactory answer if the damage is not acknowledged.