The Aaron Naughton Conundrum

[GVGjr]

Good article from the Mongel Punt

The Aaron Naughton Conundrum (https://themongrelpunt.com/afl-season-2022/2022/06/09/the-alex-docherty-column-the-aaron-naughton-conundrum/?fbclid=IwAR3XnfGAty83QbwkbQ-QumieI2yPtt7bqxsGpGhlw_Ub3cijFdy25ZXx66w)

With every week the Western Bulldogs lose a game, I’m hearing the same constant question;

“Why doesn’t Bevo move Aaron Naughton back in defence?”

Every time I hear that question, it gets more and more irritating. Are we watching the same team out there?

We all know that the Western Bulldogs drafted him as a key defender way back in the 2017 AFL Draft and it’s a fact that in his first year at the club, he finished fourth in the club’s best and fairest playing predominantly in the back line – it felt like a natural fit.

Since then, as a part of Luke Beveridge’s crusade to stick players out of position, hoping that there is some kind of positive change to the side, Naughton up forward has been something that has genuinely been one of the better positional changes since being appointed as head coach.

Remember when he thought playing Easton Wood as a forward was going to work? Ha, yeah those were some hairy days.

But, to move him back in defence after putting the last few years into working him as the next generational key forward would only further compound the woes that are currently surrounding the Bulldogs right now.

They’re sitting at 6-6 after 12 games and are in real jeopardy of missing finals altogether after making the Grand Final last year from fifth. In truth, they had been one of the best sides for most of that year, losing those last three games really hurt their standing a bit.

There’s a lot going wrong with the Dogs’ defence at the moment but moving Naughton back won’t solve any problem whatsoever. Yes, he’s got the hands that mean he can pluck a lot of good intercept marks, but considering what’s going on up forward this year, it’s robbing the forwards to pay the defence.

Jamarra Ugle-Hagan hasn’t kicked on just yet, although six goals in the VFL the other week suggests that he’ll find his way back eventually. Josh Bruce is expected to come back to the VFL after the bye weekend this week, and Josh Schache? Forget about him.

Read More (https://themongrelpunt.com/afl-season-2022/2022/06/09/the-alex-docherty-column-the-aaron-naughton-conundrum/?fbclid=IwAR3XnfGAty83QbwkbQ-QumieI2yPtt7bqxsGpGhlw_Ub3cijFdy25ZXx66w)

[bornadog]

Naughton is going to be a great FF and has already shown to be a tough opponent. 48 goals last year and top 2 contested mark. In 12 games has already kicked 30 goals, and is 6th highest Cont. mark, and 4th best tackler inside 50 in the AFL.

These guys don't grow on trees, so you don't move them.

[Vred]

It's not an argument.
He stays forward, we throw everything + kitchen sink at fixing our defensive list issues during this off season, Naughton up forward is impossible to replace.

[Danjul]

I don’t see how Naughton is relevant to the Dog’s current problem.

Geelong couldn’t score for over an hour and I spent a lot of the game confidently expecting a win. What prevented the win?

Not having a second big forward who could contribute a goal and draw the extra opponents away from Naughton. Someone Geelong could not take the risk of ignoring. Not having a genuine second ruckman who could stop a couple of Geelong’s clearances.

Geelong were surprisingly bad. They had 2 ruckmen wearing English down and 2 big backmen restricting Naughton. And not much else. Who didn’t foresee that?

Put that down to (******* warning!!!!****** some people might need to look away) dumb selection decisions.

[azabob]

Are finals and grand finals won with a top rated defense or a top rated forward line?

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Are finals and grand finals won with a top rated defense or a top rated forward line?

Leading question!

I think Naughton should stay forward for now, but it's an interesting discussion in the sense that WOULD he be a top 5 player in the comp as a CHB? Possibly. Hard to know.

Is he a top 20 player in the comp as a key forward currently? I don't think so, but he must be close.

If JUH and Darcy develop into quality key forwards, it would be an interesting dilemma.

[GVGjr]

Leading question!

I think Naughton should stay forward for now, but it's an interesting discussion in the sense that WOULD he be a top 5 player in the comp as a CHB? Possibly. Hard to know.

Is he a top 20 player in the comp as a key forward currently? I don't think so, but he must be close.

If JUH and Darcy develop into quality key forwards, it would be an interesting dilemma.

He is capable of kicking 50 goals per year which doesn't sound much but in most years there is just 5 or 6 forwards that reach that mark. Does that make him a top 5 to 7 forward? If he converted his goals a bit better there wouldn't be a lot of argument that he's a top 4 type key forward.

It's a bit harder to measure defenders but I have little doubt he would be a top 5 CHB.

Will he save more games as a defender or win us more games as a forward? I'd keep him up forward unless JUH comes along a lot quicker than I think he will.

[MrMahatma]

Are finals and grand finals won with a top rated defense or a top rated forward line?

Are good forwards or good defenders harder to find?

[Scorlibo]

Feels so weird to be constantly seeing discussion this year on woof lamenting our forward craft and lack of quality in that part of the ground, then tuning into First Crack to hear David 'I've got all the good ideas' King suggest that all of our issues are behind the ball and we need to move the only functional component of our forward line to defence :confused:

News flash Kingy, you're looking at the wrong end of the ground. We're playing three key defenders in the AFL side and only one genuine key forward. It'd be more appropriate to suggest O'Brien or Keath switching forward.

Anyway, obviously totally agree with the article - shifting Naughton is at the very bottom of my tweaks list.

[Danjul]

He is capable of kicking 50 goals per year which doesn't sound much but in most years there is just 5 or 6 forwards that reach that mark. Does that make him a top 5 to 7 forward? If he converted his goals a bit better there wouldn't be a lot of argument that he's a top 4 type key forward.

It's a bit harder to measure defenders but I have little doubt he would be a top 5 CHB.

Will he save more games as a defender or win us more games as a forward? I'd keep him up forward unless JUH comes along a lot quicker than I think he will.
Geelong scored 12 goals in perfect conditions and with two 30+ goals forwards. Our backmen did well with some bad mistakes.

The game was lost at the other end because our 30+ goals forward was horribly outnumbered and had to expend all his energy at ground level. Why was this. Because our focus is smaller players to lock the ball in. When a forward tackles it is simply proving we didn’t get a clean possession and trying to salvage something from the mistake ( by someone).

A significant reason for the mistakes coming in was the midfielders had no space to work in. All their energy went into salvage mode handballing around. Bont, Smith, Macrae and Treloar were all way down on kicks. When they kick we win.

We lost that and other games because someone somewhere is fixated on a 5% return attribute instead of a 20% attribute. Put height, spread, experience and good kicks into the forward line and the Dogs are nowhere near 6:6.

Unfortunately I think this discussion is a distraction from the real problem.

[Danjul]

Just as a follow up to my previous comment.

In round 9 Bont, Dunkley, Macrae, Smith and Treloar kicked the ball 96 times.

Against Geelong only 48.

There is the problem.

Give that group 10 more kicks each and Geelong would be reeling.

Solution? That’s going to come from investigating the actual problem.

[Mantis]

Just as a follow up to my previous comment.

In round 9 Bont, Dunkley, Macrae, Smith and Treloar kicked the ball 96 times.

Against Geelong only 48.

There is the problem.

Give that group 10 more kicks each and Geelong would be reeling.

Solution? That’s going to come from investigating the actual problem.

So how do we go about getting those players 10 more kicks each? (Which is never going to happen btw)

It's ok to raise the issue, but you need to offer a solution too.

[Danjul]

So how do we go about getting those players 10 more kicks each? (Which is never going to happen btw)

It's ok to raise the issue, but you need to offer a solution too.
We went into the Geelong game with two weaknesses. And Geelong knew it would happen because we are famous for doing it.

1. Naughton would be alone so Geelong selected a backline to exploit that. Result: champion kicks 1 goal and ball consistently rebounds out of attacking area.

2. A weakness in the ruck contests so Geelong use two reasonably good ruckmen at all times. Result: midfielders are forced to defend and cannot attack. 48 kicks between them. A fact, not an opinion.

If we select that way again we are in for a repeat.At this stage it’s an opinion but I expect to see it happen.

Our most important and valuable asset is a midfield group who can set up wins. And forwards who can convert the midfield power into goals.

So the solution you seek is…..

….stop stuffing up these 2 critical selection criteria. Start (after all these losses) to treat the ruck seriously. No criticism of Khamis is implied.

Look at the Hawks and Essendon games that cost us the double chance. In one of them the 5 midfielders combined for 49 kicks. Result: disaster. When they got back to 70+ we started winning again.

[BornInDroopSt'54]

Not a conundrum.
Naughton is our forward.

[Mantis]

We went into the Geelong game with two weaknesses. And Geelong knew it would happen because we are famous for doing it.

1. Naughton would be alone so Geelong selected a backline to exploit that. Result: champion kicks 1 goal and ball consistently rebounds out of attacking area.

2. A weakness in the ruck contests so Geelong use two reasonably good ruckmen at all times. Result: midfielders are forced to defend and cannot attack. 48 kicks between them. A fact, not an opinion.

If we select that way again we are in for a repeat.At this stage it’s an opinion but I expect to see it happen.

Our most important and valuable asset is a midfield group who can set up wins. And forwards who can convert the midfield power into goals.

So the solution you seek is…..

….stop stuffing up these 2 critical selection criteria. Start (after all these losses) to treat the ruck seriously. No criticism of Khamis is implied.

Look at the Hawks and Essendon games that cost us the double chance. In one of them the 5 midfielders combined for 49 kicks. Result: disaster. When they got back to 70+ we started winning again.

So many words, but no clear takeaways.

We have lots of ‘handball first’ mids so there kick numbers will always be low unless there’s no pressure being applied which wasn’t the case with the Geelong game… but it was the case against Coll when we played the game on our terms.