Wallace vs Bevo: Play to WIN vs Play to "Play Good Footy"

[mjp]

After watching the Port game (which I didn't mind btw) I have been thinking (too much) about our various coaches and the strategies they employ.

For NFL-ites, I think Bevo is like Chuck Noll who used to coach the Steelers (4x super bowls). He assembled a good team - for sure. But every week they played 'straight up'. They did what they did - and you had to beat them. And for a while there, no-one could. But eventually...

I guess if you wanted a more modern equivalent go with Andy Reid of the Eagles/Chiefs.

Wallace on the other hand was more like a Belichick. Every opponent was a puzzle to be solved. Every week a tweak of this or that, a new tactic, a positional surprise...hence things like the Super Flood and basically every week during the fabulous '97 season when guys regularly played in different spots with different challenges.

What's better? For the short term? For the long term? For good? For bad?

Sometimes lately I watch us play and think "Did we really not know they were going to do 'THAT'?"...I think if I put those feelings in amongst the overall Bevo-ness of the team structure - we play this way, each player clearly understands what they need to do and if we all come prepared, well...look out...then it all makes more sense. Not being inside the club (obviously) I don't know what is and isn't true and I'm sure we 'game plan' but I don't ever get the feeling that he presents the group with a 'on the fringes of crazy' plan to beat 'BRISBANE', sells them on it and they 'GO DO IT' the way that Wallace once seemed too...then again, flags = Bevo 1, Wallace 0.

Am I getting this wrong? Does anyone notice much variance in our plans and tactics from week-to-week? Which game was Bevo's 'superflood'. And which is better?

[Mofra]

I'd say with a high rotation of players in and out of the side, and with a "younger" team, a consistent game plan and style makes things easier to execute.
The flip side is that sometimes we may be considered easy to play against - especially for a team like Richmond that is willing to concede messy clearances and control the ball as they play the game at their speed.

Our willingness to use handballs to try and free a player up for a 'cleaner' kick is a hallmark of our game week in, week out.

I do think Bevo seems a bit stubborn at times, but aren't all good coaches? A coach that wavers in their message would quickly lose the faith of the group.

[WBFC4FFC]

I'd say with a high rotation of players in and out of the side, and with a "younger" team, a consistent game plan and style makes things easier to execute.
The flip side is that sometimes we may be considered easy to play against - especially for a team like Richmond that is willing to concede messy clearances and control the ball as they play the game at their speed.

Our willingness to use handballs to try and free a player up for a 'cleaner' kick is a hallmark of our game week in, week out.

I do think Bevo seems a bit stubborn at times, but aren't all good coaches? A coach that wavers in their message would quickly lose the faith of the group.

Some Coaches are like this. Like ex-Socceroos coach Postecoglou. Has one style and that's it. Plan B is to do Plan A better is their matra.

Having said that, given the AFL is a Draft system (unlike Soccer, where the big clubs buy the players that suit the Coach's style) you have to change your style to your list's strengths and weaknesses.

Overall, you need both in the AFL I believe.

[comrade]

Given we've tread water since 2016, whatever Bevo and his coaching team are doing isn't working.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

It can sometimes be chicken or the egg/who blinks first. Do you back your style in to win and force your opponent to react or do you change your style to try quell the opposition? In NBA you see it all the time. There will be teams that employ small ball and others will try match that to not get beaten for speed. Others will go tall to take advantage of the opponents lack of size. It’s interesting. We saw it against port. They have an extra tall but we chose to keep our lineup smaller and try beat them in the middle. It didn’t work.

I think you need to be a bit flexible and have an honest assessment of where the team sits relative to the competition. Typically the strongest teams with the best players can get away with playing their brand. They’re the hunted. Then there are the hunters who could cause some upsets by playing to the opponents weaknesses.

All in all you need a bit of both. You certainly need an identity/way to play. Having a young/inexperienced team can mean its best to stick to a brand to develop familiarity. But these teams are usually near the bottom of the ladder. Once you establish a way to play I think it’s not too much to ask to tweak some things that are obvious (like tag a damaging player or implement and extra tall) when you’re up and coming. Then when you are the head of the pack, go back to playing your style and force opponents to beat you. Again the latter is usually only the case when you have the best players ie Dusty/Bont/Buddy/Kennedy or an incredibly well drilled TEAM.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

By the way I notice ZERO variance in our game plan. Zero. I’d like to see us adjust even if it’s just minor (though I’d like to see a new game plan in general but that’ll take time).

[mjp]

By the way I notice ZERO variance in our game plan. Zero. I’d like to see us adjust even if it’s just minor (though I’d like to see a new game plan in general but that’ll take time).

SO - would you agree that Wallace was a coach who regularly 'changed gears' to combat an opponent vs Bevo who seems more focussed on just playing 'our best footy' at all times...

[bulldogsthru&thru]

SO - would you agree that Wallace was a coach who regularly 'changed gears' to combat an opponent vs Bevo who seems more focussed on just playing 'our best footy' at all times...

I'll be honest I wasn't old enough during the Wallace years to appreciate or understand the nuances of game plans and coaching. I remember the flooding against essendon but that's about it as far as me being aware of strategies is concerned.

Regarding Bevo, it's an interesting one. I can remember in his first season we were all loving the change he brought. He was a breath of fresh air. He was viewed as the ultimate tactician or strategist. As opposed to the McCartney days of slow, boring, contested-only football, we were playing fast, exciting and high scoring footy. I remember reading articles mentioning that Bevo was playing to our players' strengths rather than trying to turn them all into contested animals like McCartney wanted. 2015, like 2016, was a great year. But fast forward to 2020 and the feeling is more in line with the McCartney days rather than 2015/16. Or maybe it's just me. But Bevo is deemed too one dimensional. Too stubborn to change his ways. Perhaps he isn't the ultimate strategist we all thought he was. Was 2015/16 just the difference between McCartney's way and Bevos way rather than Bevo being a genius? I mean apart from our backline, the rest of the field almost (I did say almost) resembles the McCartney era of bogging the game down with a non-functioning forward line. We see the same old plan week in week out with not much flexibility. And then there's the fact that we seem to recruit the same type of players to play this one style. I don't know. Perhaps there's more going on that I can't see but we don't seem to make too many adjustments week to week or even year to year. I refuse to turn my back on Bevo but how many more years of this can we endure? I'm all for patience but i think we'd all agree that if we changed things up a bit we'd have more patience. Seeing the same coaches and game style with little improvement over the years is becoming frustrating.

[1eyedog]

SO - would you agree that Wallace was a coach who regularly 'changed gears' to combat an opponent vs Bevo who seems more focussed on just playing 'our best footy' at all times...

Absolutely. Plough was a reflexive beast able to adapt to any environment quickly. I'm not saying he wasn't a detailed planner but Bevo just seems to put all his energy in terms of opposition analysis into the lead up to the game, and then he backs himself and his players to get that done on the day.

[Mofra]

SO - would you agree that Wallace was a coach who regularly 'changed gears' to combat an opponent vs Bevo who seems more focussed on just playing 'our best footy' at all times...
They are very different in the lead up to games too.

Bevo is very straight down the line - he tends to do what he says during the week. No ducks and drakes.

Wallace was the opposite. Remember the week before the uber-flood in that Essendon game? It was all about making the game a "high scoring shootout".


It's very easy to dismiss their similarities though as they are less obvious. The biggest one for me is the will to drive cultural change. 1996 when Wallace took over, the "I'll spew up" speech was very important for us. It changed the "good effort" mantra of the club, he wanted us to strive to win at all costs. It marked a shift in internal and external perception.

Bevo knew that in 2016 we weren't just climbing a mountain, we were scaling Everest naked. "Why not us" seemed to tap into a dismissal of past perception as well, shaking off the burden of what we were expected to do. Remember we were absolute rank outsiders to win an elimination final in Perth which no Vic club had done for years IIRC. In past years, just winning that would have been enough - but for the 2016 group, it wasn't.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Can we combine the two?

Honestly, Wallace was a terrific coach who went wayward late but he had a great mind for tactical coaching. It'll never happen but I wouldn't be against somebody like him supporting Bevo.

[Mofra]

Can we combine the two?

Honestly, Wallace was a terrific coach who went wayward late but he had a great mind for tactical coaching. It'll never happen but I wouldn't be against somebody like him supporting Bevo.
Would he listen? That's not a slight on Bevo, but perhaps the consistency of his messaging is seen internally as a strength?

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Would he listen? That's not a slight on Bevo, but perhaps the consistency of his messaging is seen internally as a strength?

That's the concern - that Bevo really only surrounds himself with like minded individuals, or 'yes men'. I do find it interesting what happened with Monty, who is now back at Port.

I said it once before, but Bevo's stubbornness is a huge contributing factor to the 2016 Premiership..... and it's likely to be a contributing factor to his demise as a coach too.

[Mofra]

That's the concern - that Bevo really only surrounds himself with like minded individuals, or 'yes men'. I do find it interesting what happened with Monty, who is now back at Port.

I said it once before, but Bevo's stubbornness is a huge contributing factor to the 2016 Premiership..... and it's likely to be a contributing factor to his demise as a coach too.
Stubbornness... or loyalty?
We're also slow to move on players from our list who are marginal at best (e.g. Prudden, who is a fantastic individual and great for our VFL side but was way too slow to play the roles we asked him to)

[bornadog]

That's the concern - that Bevo really only surrounds himself with like minded individuals, or 'yes men'. I do find it interesting what happened with Monty, who is now back at Port.

I said it once before, but Bevo's stubbornness is a huge contributing factor to the 2016 Premiership..... and it's likely to be a contributing factor to his demise as a coach too.

I know people keep saying this, but how do we know? Who has confirmed this?

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Stubbornness... or loyalty?
We're also slow to move on players from our list who are marginal at best (e.g. Prudden, who is a fantastic individual and great for our VFL side but was way too slow to play the roles we asked him to)

In truth it's a bit of both, or loyalty when you're winning/successful and stubbornness when you're losing/treading water.

Given our path since 2016 I think we can say the element of stubbornness is more prominent.

Ultimately Bevo will live and die by his own sword, which anyone can respect - even if we don't agree with it - but it's a risky approach when you're not a top 4 side consistently winning/challenging.


I know people keep saying this, but how do we know? Who has confirmed this?

The proof is in the pudding in that we've had fewer changes than any other side in the competition over Bevo's tenure as senior coach. The most significant change has been removing Monty as senior assistant, where IIRC there were a few 'splashes' of a falling out. We know Monty was quite a demanding character, and he made his own mistakes at times (comments on Lake spring to mind) but it's clear he had differing views to Bevo.

Probably the other significant change was losing Dalrymple when he was still under contract after he'd proven himself to be - arguably - the best recruiter in the land over their spat v taking Gowers. I know Simon isn't a coach but it's further evidence that Bevo doesn't like to be challenged, and two prominent figures within the club who DID challenge him soon found themselves out the door.

[comrade]

I know people keep saying this, but how do we know? Who has confirmed this?

Base it off results, the lack of change in the coaching box, the strict adherence to one type of game plan and the refusal to make changes/adjust on game day when things aren't going well.

Are this the outcome you'd expect of a coaching team that has different ideas and a leader willing to execute on them?

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

In truth it's a bit of both, or loyalty when you're winning/successful and stubbornness when you're losing/treading water.

Given our path since 2016 I think we can say the element of stubbornness is more prominent.

Ultimately Bevo will live and die by his own sword, which anyone can respect - even if we don't agree with it - but it's a risky approach when you're not a top 4 side consistently winning/challenging.



The proof is in the pudding in that we've had fewer changes than any other side in the competition over Bevo's tenure as senior coach. The most significant change has been removing Monty as senior assistant, where IIRC there were a few 'splashes' of a falling out. We know Monty was quite a demanding character, and he made his own mistakes at times (comments on Lake spring to mind) but it's clear he had differing views to Bevo.

Probably the other significant change was losing Dalrymple when he was still under contract after he'd proven himself to be - arguably - the best recruiter in the land over their spat v taking Gowers. I know Simon isn't a coach but it's further evidence that Bevo doesn't like to be challenged, and two prominent figures within the club who DID challenge him soon found themselves out the door.

That doesn't fit with Bevo's profile at my work, where he was prior to coaching.
He was well known to challenge both up and down the chain of command, and to lead teams who would challenge his views.
He was known as being extremely loyal to his staff, even when they'd made mistakes, but once you'd lost his trust, there was no going back.

[GVGjr]

Base it off results, the lack of change in the coaching box, the strict adherence to one type of game plan and the refusal to make changes/adjust on game day when things aren't going well.

Are this the outcome you'd expect of a coaching team that has different ideas and a leader willing to execute on them?

I'm sure there are other factors with the stability of coaches we have had with Bevo but if our results were better no one could challenge if it was working or not. There will be more switched on footy people than myself who can advise if we are cutting edge with our game day tactics or not but what I think a lot of us have noticed is that the development of players and particularly our skill level isn't where it needs to be. That has to fall on our coaches and development approach
I still recall Bevo was saying when he first arrived that players need to improve their skills and particularly with the opposite foot and I don't think it's anywhere near a strength of our playing group

[comrade]

I'm sure there are other factors with the stability of coaches we have had with Bevo but if our results were better no one could challenge if it was working or not.

Of course, but the results haven't been acceptable since 2016 and there has to be reasons for that.

[bornadog]

the strict adherence to one type of game plan and the refusal to make changes/adjust on game day when things aren't going well.

I think Bevo changes it up during a match. The most recent being Richmond when he made moves and we matched them in the second half with equal scores. There are lots of things that are tweaked during a match.

[bornadog]

That doesn't fit with Bevo's profile at my work, where he was prior to coaching.
He was well known to challenge both up and down the chain of command, and to lead teams who would challenge his views.
He was known as being extremely loyal to his staff, even when they'd made mistakes, but once you'd lost his trust, there was no going back.

To me his coaching at the Bulldogs is exactly like this.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I think Bevo changes it up during a match. The most recent being Richmond when he made moves and we matched them in the second half with equal scores. There are lots of things that are tweaked during a match.

I don't think we can go of the scoreboard in 2nd halfs when you're already 7 goals down. Particulary this season when teams will basically pull the pin with a comfortable lead in order to aid recovery for the short turnarounds between matches. Aside from the classic Bont to the forwardline switch with Gowers I didn't see too much difference in our 2nd half against the tigers.

[bornadog]

I don't think we can go of the scoreboard in 2nd halfs when you're already 7 goals down. Particulary this season when teams will basically pull the pin with a comfortable lead in order to aid recovery for the short turnarounds between matches. Aside from the classic Bont to the forwardline switch with Gowers I didn't see too much difference in our 2nd half against the tigers.

What I saw was we stopped leaking goals and started to win out of the centre. Trengove was rubbish in the ruck and was better on Lynch when he went to FB.

[azabob]

To me his coaching at the Bulldogs is exactly like this.

Like you said earlier we can't confirm if his views are challenged or not.

[comrade]

What I saw was we stopped leaking goals and started to win out of the centre. Trengove was rubbish in the ruck and was better on Lynch when he went to FB.

Let's give Bevo the benefit of the doubt and say he did make some changes that helped us stop the rot.

Why wouldn't he have tried it earlier and not after we were ambushed to the point of being 7 goals down?

[bulldogsthru&thru]

What I saw was we stopped leaking goals and started to win out of the centre. Trengove was rubbish in the ruck and was better on Lynch when he went to FB.

Maybe we did or maybe Richmond let the foot off the gas. I guess we don't really know and it could have been a bit of both. Trengove at FB is exactly where he should have been all night. Why he did ruck work for a large portion of the night is beyond me. We've played 1 ruck all year then Bevo brings in Trengove to presumably matchup on the tiger talls and instead employs him more in the ruck. It's just bizarre.

[bornadog]

Like you said earlier we can't confirm if his views are challenged or not.

Exactly, we can't speculate, but we can guess.

[bornadog]

Let's give Bevo the benefit of the doubt and say he did make some changes that helped us stop the rot.

Why wouldn't he have tried it earlier and not after we were ambushed to the point of being 7 goals down?

How would I know. Maybe he backed his players in at quarter time. If Libba had of kicked the goal early in the 2nd quarter, the difference would have been 12 points, and who knows what would happen. At that point you don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Half time I presume he worked on some tweaks and it paid off to some extent.


Trengove at FB is exactly where he should have been all night. Why he did ruck work for a large portion of the night is beyond me. We've played 1 ruck all year then Bevo brings in Trengove to presumably matchup on the tiger talls and instead employs him more in the ruck. It's just bizarre.

Everyone has been calling for help for English, so an experienced ruck was brought in. It didn't work, so Bevo changed it back to English in the ruck.

Easy to pot the Coach, but in my opinion, and I have said it for awhile, is we don't have the cattle on the ground. We are missing at least one more A grade mid with pace, and some forwards than can kick at least 25 to 30 goals per year.

Put in Hunter, Naughton on Monday, and we would have won that game.

[comrade]

How would I know.

Exactly. So we're left with basing our speculation on the results, which have been unacceptable since 2016.

[Remi Moses]

Gotta say it’s getting harder and harder to read posts and threads on here
It’s getting more and more like FB hysteria by the day
He surrounds himself with yes men to be frank is just a guess

[Remi Moses]

Like you said earlier we can't confirm if his views are challenged or not.

Then it’s rather futile saying the box is full of yes men

[comrade]

Gotta say it’s getting harder and harder to read posts and threads on here
It’s getting more and more like FB hysteria by the day
He surrounds himself with yes men to be frank is just a guess

I'm not sure where you've been, but this isn't a new sentiment.

I guess it's only natural for people to speculate after being served up unacceptable results for 3.5 years, with losses that feel like carbon copies of each other, and no changes to the coaching staff (other than Graeme Lowe leaving after the flag).

On face value, it doesn't seem like a whole bunch of new ideas are being thrown around...but as you've alluded to, neither you nor I know the real truth.

We can only go off results.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I'm not sure where you've been, but this isn't a new sentiment.

I guess it's only natural for people to speculate after being served up unacceptable results for 3.5 years, with losses that feel like carbon copies of each other, and no changes to the coaching staff (other than Graeme Lowe leaving after the flag).

On face value, it doesn't seem like a whole bunch of new ideas are being thrown around...but as you've alluded to, neither you nor I know the real truth.

We can only go off results.

And this is the crux of the issue. A public forum wouldn't be functioning well if it didn't ask such questions. Same issues crop up for 3.5 years under the same, unchanged coaching group. It's either the players or the coaches or both. But we've turfed out some best 22 players yet we're still seeing the same issues. Why haven't we tried some coaching changes?

[comrade]

And this is the crux of the issue. A public forum wouldn't be functioning well if it didn't ask such questions. Same issues crop up for 3.5 years under the same, unchanged coaching group. It's either the players or the coaches or both. But we've turfed out some best 22 players yet we're still seeing the same issues. Why haven't we tried some coaching changes?

Yeah, and I don't think it's helpful (or accurate) to dismiss ideas you don't agree with by calling it hysteria.

[hujsh]

So Bevo found himself a group of assistant coaches (some of which were here before him IIRC) who are all perfectly happy to play yes-man to him and don't have any issue with how that might affect their development as coaches or career path or (presumably) ambition to coach their own AFL team?

This is the conclusion we have reached?


I'm all for new talent and ideas to mix things up but I think the yes man thing is a bit silly and to be frank disrespectful to those who work with Bevo. Unless there's something more to back it up than 'look at the results' or some further nuance to add I don't think it's an idea worth serious consideration.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Yeah I'm certainly not implying the assistants are Yes men. My gripe is that we don't seem to have any new/fresh ideas or points of view coming in that might fix the repetitive issues we have seen. The idea though of the 'Yes men' is probably less exagerated than what some are taking issue with. Bevo is the head honcho and if some assistants don't agree its tough luck like in any other industry. I'm sure some coaches have pointed out areas of improvement and things to try and Bevo does not seem at all the type to shut that collaboration down. But that is where it gets confusing. If it's all collaborative (which it probably is) then why do we continue to see the same mistakes over and over again with no apparent attempt to try something a little differently? As with any company in the real world, a new set of eyes can bring in different perspectives and I think that's what most on here are advocating.

[comrade]

So Bevo found himself a group of assistant coaches (some of which were here before him IIRC) who are all perfectly happy to play yes-man to him and don't have any issue with how that might affect their development as coaches or career path or (presumably) ambition to coach their own AFL team?

This is the conclusion we have reached?


I'm all for new talent and ideas to mix things up but I think the yes man thing is a bit silly and to be frank disrespectful to those who work with Bevo. Unless there's something more to back it up than 'look at the results' or some further nuance to add I don't think it's an idea worth serious consideration.

The idea being discussed is that the performances we've served up over the last 3.5 years may be linked to a lack of fresh ideas within the coaching group, with only one poster using the term 'yes men'.

Putting aside that term, which has obviously offended your sensibilities, is it ok to question the results of the past 3.5 seasons or is Bevo beyond reproach?

[bornadog]

Is it ok to question the results of the past 3.5 seasons or is Bevo beyond reproach?

Of course we have to question our performance.

There are reasons for the past 3 years (wait till the season is over for this year), but I don't believe the reasons are we don't have fresh ideas. Although most of the coaching group is the same, we have dropped a few coaches and brought in a couple more, and they are going to bring some ideas as well.

Following on from 2016, we dropped the mantra of Men of Mayhem, because it is too taxing on players and not sustainable. So we changed the game plan.

2017 - We started the year well after a premiership, winning 5 of the first 7. We then had a combination of huge injuries - at least 10 on the list every week. You may say we should cover them, but the injuries were to senior players and we could only bring in young players. We then fielded a very young team for the remainder of the season. No matter what any one says either on this forum or anywhere, you can only go so far with inexperience. Just take a look at the expansion teams who had the best young talent on their list, yet they couldn't win games in their early years.

On top of that we had the internal disruption with the likes of Stringer who caused a lot of issues internally.

2018 - We lost a lot of senior players at the end of 2017 and again we had injuries to senior players. We just didn't replace the senior blokes that either retired or were injured. We did finish the year strongly with 4 straight wins and with a little luck could have been five when we lost to the Tigers by 3 points.

2019 - we played finals, but had a bad day, and perhaps we picked some players that shouldn't have been there, but overall we are in the comp to play finals and win premierships.

We can all point to Richmond and they have had a pretty good 3 years and still strong this year, but they have had hardly any injuries on their list and are a mature side, so they can bring in the odd new player to mix in with the senior players.

Overall, I am not saying Bevo doesn't make mistakes, all coaches do, but to me we need the right players on the list to take the next step.

In answering the OP, I think Bevo likes to play his own game plan, and let the other teams come for us. He trusts his players to do the job, and doesn't care if they are 18 or 32, as long as they carry out instructions.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Of course we have to question our performance.

There are reasons for the past 3 years (wait till the season is over for this year), but I don't believe the reasons are we don't have fresh ideas. Although most of the coaching group is the same, we have dropped a few coaches and brought in a couple more, and they are going to bring some ideas as well.

Following on from 2016, we dropped the mantra of Men of Mayhem, because it is too taxing on players and not sustainable. So we changed the game plan.

2017 - We started the year well after a premiership, winning 5 of the first 7. We then had a combination of huge injuries - at least 10 on the list every week. You may say we should cover them, but the injuries were to senior players and we could only bring in young players. We then fielded a very young team for the remainder of the season. No matter what any one says either on this forum or anywhere, you can only go so far with inexperience. Just take a look at the expansion teams who had the best young talent on their list, yet they couldn't win games in their early years.

On top of that we had the internal disruption with the likes of Stringer who caused a lot of issues internally.

2018 - We lost a lot of senior players at the end of 2017 and again we had injuries to senior players. We just didn't replace the senior blokes that either retired or were injured. We did finish the year strongly with 4 straight wins and with a little luck could have been five when we lost to the Tigers by 3 points.

2019 - we played finals, but had a bad day, and perhaps we picked some players that shouldn't have been there, but overall we are in the comp to play finals and win premierships.

We can all point to Richmond and they have had a pretty good 3 years and still strong this year, but they have had hardly any injuries on their list and are a mature side, so they can bring in the odd new player to mix in with the senior players.

Overall, I am not saying Bevo doesn't make mistakes, all coaches do, but to me we need the right players on the list to take the next step.

In answering the OP, I think Bevo likes to play his own game plan, and let the other teams come for us. He trusts his players to do the job, and doesn't care if they are 18 or 32, as long as they carry out instructions.

All valid points. 2017 was a horror year on the injury front. By 2018 we had lost quite a bit of experience which shows to this day.

I suppose what frustrates me is related to your comment "we dropped the mantra of Men of Mayhem, because it is too taxing on players and not sustainable." I honestly don't see much difference to what we do now to what that style of play was. We still play an incredibly taxing style of game. We just do a worse job of it compared to 2016. Perhaps the players haven't quite adapted to whatever Bevo wants done differently.

Then "I think Bevo likes to play his own game plan, and let the other teams come for us." I agree with this. But the problem I see is that so many teams seem to have figured out our game plan and set a trap accordingly. We fall for it so many times that I think its time to do something different.

[Remi Moses]

I'm not sure where you've been, but this isn't a new sentiment.

I guess it's only natural for people to speculate after being served up unacceptable results for 3.5 years, with losses that feel like carbon copies of each other, and no changes to the coaching staff (other than Graeme Lowe leaving after the flag).

On face value, it doesn't seem like a whole bunch of new ideas are being thrown around...but as you've alluded to, neither you nor I know the real truth.

We can only go off results.

That’s true , but the accusation is unproven . It’s sort of shit Barrett trots out

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Gotta say it’s getting harder and harder to read posts and threads on here
It’s getting more and more like FB hysteria by the day
He surrounds himself with yes men to be frank is just a guess

Then don't read them?

If you want to surround yourself with fluff, stick to the media content that the club puts out. This is a forum and its entire purpose is centred around discussion and debate, if you don't like differing opinions why are you here?

Take that as you may but I'm tired of reading you continually categorise posters who challenge club leadership as 'FB hysteria'. We get it - you're happy with where things are at and don't question the club and its management.

[hujsh]

The idea being discussed is that the performances we've served up over the last 3.5 years may be linked to a lack of fresh ideas within the coaching group, with only one poster using the term 'yes men'.

Putting aside that term, which has obviously offended your sensibilities, is it ok to question the results of the past 3.5 seasons or is Bevo beyond reproach?

All of 3 posts above mine you seem to be defending the idea that he is actually surrounded by yes men (even bolding the sentence so it's clear). In fact you seem to do so more than once. Breaking that down you're defending the idea that these people only have a job as long as they agree with the head coach and don't raise alternate ideas or suggestions is basically attacking their character or their basic competency which, if there's nothing to back that up, I think is offensive. So imply I'm a snowflake or whatever if you want but I'm just as free to call BS as you are.

However if you're saying that isn't what you meant (after all text based discussions can be a difficult medium to properly convey your intended message) I'll be happy to leave it at that.

On the topic, question Bevo's performance all you want. Question if our coaching staff are stagnant. That's fine. Most of the forum probably agrees with you there. I agree with you there. I even said in my post that I'm in favour of bringing in new coaches with new ideas. That part isn't exactly controversial. I don't think it's necessarily fair to point to the results and say something is inherently wrong with the coaches though. Lots of factors make up the performance of the club and a big one that stood out to me reading Bornadogs list is list management. We've lost a ton of senior players, not been able to replace them all via the draft and trade periods, and have had younger players who might have grown to replace them stagnate.

That said the coaches could also be a factor. It's all guess work from down here.

[Danjul]

Of course we have to question our performance.


Following on from 2016, we dropped the mantra of Men of Mayhem, because it is too taxing on players and not sustainable. So we changed the game plan.

2017 - We started the year well after a premiership, winning 5 of the first 7. We then had a combination of huge injuries - at least 10 on the list every week.

2018 - We lost a lot of senior players at the end of 2017 and again we had injuries to senior players.

2019 - we played finals, but had a bad day, and perhaps we picked some players that shouldn't have been there, but overall we are in the comp to play finals and win premierships.

We can all point to Richmond and they have had a pretty good 3 years and still strong this year, but they have had hardly any injuries



Maybe we should change to Richmond’s style and thus avoid the injuries. I agree they are a big factor in our lack of success but we are still playing the same way that causes them. I think we were close to Richmond’s style when we had our good run in 2019.


perhaps we picked some players that shouldn't have been there seems to be an admission of guilt.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Maybe we should change to Richmond’s style and thus avoid the injuries. I agree they are a big factor in our lack of success but we are still playing the same way that causes them. I think we were close to Richmond’s style when we had our good run in 2019.


perhaps we picked some players that shouldn't have been there seems to be an admission of guilt.

Ugh I sound like a saints fan I keep bringing them up so much but they play a similar brand to Richmond and rarely have injuries. I normally think injuries are purely luck related but you have to admit that since 2016 we’ve copped the raw end of the injury stick. That’s 5 years running.

[Bulldog Joe]

Exactly, we can't speculate, but we can guess.

Actually all we can do is speculate (or guess - is there a difference)

[mjp]

Ummm. Just logged back on.

What happened to my thread???:)

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Ummm. Just logged back on.

What happened to my thread???:)

Yeah about that.....

It was like that when I got here

[bornadog]

Actually all we can do is speculate (or guess - is there a difference)

By speculate I mean - saying it in a way that it is fact. If you are guessing, say it is a guess and not make out it is a fact.

[Axe Man]

Ummm. Just logged back on.

What happened to my thread???:)

https://i.postimg.cc/FHNtJbBm/9baa07730bca7f4c24f822f73db4aa25.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

[bornadog]

https://i.postimg.cc/FHNtJbBm/9baa07730bca7f4c24f822f73db4aa25.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

That's normal on WOOF :D

[hujsh]

No thread is over until Twodogs has told a tangentially related anecdote about a Footscray player I have never heard of.

[mjp]

No thread is over until Twodogs has told a tangentially related anecdote about a Footscray player I have never heard of.

Well, once upon a long time ago, the best ever threads started with something like this:

"Scooter600x - Check your DM's"
"SportySpice - Check your DM's"
"Pendelton - Check your DM's"
"CyberDoggie - Check your DM's"

I could go on...

I posted last Tuesday or Wednesday. There wasn't much of a response. I logged on today and saw 3x pages of responses and thought "Cool - I wonder what everyone has had to say". I guess the answer is "a lot" - I'm just happy that my unrelated thread starter was the trigger for a tangential conversation about leadership styles, assistant coaches and the pros and cons of Brett Montgomery!

:-)

[hujsh]

Well, once upon a long time ago, the best ever threads started with something like this:

"Scooter600x - Check your DM's"
"SportySpice - Check your DM's"
"Pendelton - Check your DM's"
"CyberDoggie - Check your DM's"

I could go on...

I posted last Tuesday or Wednesday. There wasn't much of a response. I logged on today and saw 3x pages of responses and thought "Cool - I wonder what everyone has had to say". I guess the answer is "a lot" - I'm just happy that my unrelated thread starter was the trigger for a tangential conversation about leadership styles, assistant coaches and the pros and cons of Brett Montgomery!

:-)

The great unsolved mystery of our time

[jeemak]

I don't understand how Brett Montgomery going for a job as a senior coach, leaving the club as a result of it, and not getting it has turned into a Bevo can't deal with dissenting voices.

Nor do I get how the selection of Gowers on the rookie list could completely derail a list management structure, because Bevo had his way. I mean didn't the same thing happen when Bmac selected a first rounder over Dalrymple's first selection who poetically has turned into a complete aerial maniac for us?

If the latter was enough for Dalrymple to leave then there's more to it, or nothing to it and he just had a better offer elsewhere.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I don't understand how Brett Montgomery going for a job as a senior coach, leaving the club as a result of it, and not getting it has turned into a Bevo can't deal with dissenting voices.

Nor do I get how the selection of Gowers on the rookie list could completely derail a list management structure, because Bevo had his way. I mean didn't the same thing happen when Bmac selected a first rounder over Dalrymple's first selection who poetically has turned into a complete aerial maniac for us?

If the latter was enough for Dalrymple to leave then there's more to it, or nothing to it and he just had a better offer elsewhere.

The Dalrymple one had the added complications with Jason McCartney. Both ended up leaving.

[GVGjr]

I don't understand how Brett Montgomery going for a job as a senior coach, leaving the club as a result of it, and not getting it has turned into a Bevo can't deal with dissenting voices.

Nor do I get how the selection of Gowers on the rookie list could completely derail a list management structure, because Bevo had his way. I mean didn't the same thing happen when Bmac selected a first rounder over Dalrymple's first selection who poetically has turned into a complete aerial maniac for us?

If the latter was enough for Dalrymple to leave then there's more to it, or nothing to it and he just had a better offer elsewhere.

Montgomery leaving us has nothing to do with Bevo.
I think there is a conclusion that his harder style might have even compliment Bevo softer style

Dalrymple left because he apparently received a great offer from Sydney and I agree if his heart wasn't with us it's time to move

[bornadog]

Montgomery leaving us has nothing to do with Bevo.
I think there is a conclusion that his harder style might have even compliment Bevo softer style

Dalrymple left because he apparently received a great offer from Sydney and I agree if his heart wasn't with us it's time to move

Wasn't Dalrymple also clashing with Jason McCartney and they couldn't work together?

[GVGjr]

Wasn't Dalrymple also clashing with Jason McCartney and they couldn't work together?

That's was the word but from memory Dalrymple left us after McCartney departed