Most promising bunch of kids since...

[MrMahatma]

Inspired by "the positive thread" I've been looking on the bright side. Put what they've actually done partly to one side for a minute, have we ever had a more promising bunch of youngsters?

In no particular order:
Ward
Jones
Roughead
Wallis
Libba
Cordy
Wood
Howard
Markovic
Grant

Seems some genuine young talent on the books these days.

I guess there was possibly more superstar talent when we had Cooney & Griffen as true pups, but the crop above seem as good a "group" as I can recall.

[BulldogBelle]

Hopefully in the next 2-5 years we will have a raft of other young talent entering the club

Mark Hunter son
Simon Beasleys son
Libba's 2nd son
Peter Fosters son
Ayce Cordy's brother

Shame we didnt have another earlier draft pick to snap up Billy Smedts or his old man didnt play >100 games

Comparing the names MrMahatma mentioned, how does everyone feel we fit amoungst other clubs with regards to our <20 year old talent???

Gold Coast and Melbourne have both certainly benefited from low draft picks in the last 2 years.

[Bumper Bulldogs]

I think we have done well and thank god for the father and son rule, we have had good kids with poor draft options, time will tell if this crop is what we all hope, but it's been better than having to punt on kids we don't know.

After the attached I hope we have little Smiths, Jonno's, West's, Garlics & Romero's coming on.

[BulldogBelle]

This article

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/picks-of-the-litter/story-fn53khop-1226046424487

What a future Western Bulldogs father-son team may look like
FB: Riley Morris (Dale), Cohen Lake (Brian), Mitchell Croft (Matthew)
HB: Lachlan Hunter (Mark), Luke Kennedy (Rick), Jayden Foster (Peter)
C: Ricky Hawkins (Doug), Mitch Wallis (Steve), Jacob Smith (Rohan)
HF: Jarvis Murphy (Bob), Oliver Grant (Chris), Josh Wallis (Steve)
FF: Tom Garlick (Simon), Will Beasley (Simon), Jack Johnson (C) (Brad)
R: Ayce Cordy (Brian), Tom Liberatore (Tony), Jaxon Cooney (Adam)
I/C: Sam Darcy (Luke), Kyan Eagleton (Nathan), Zaine Cordy (Brian), Harry Cameron (Leon)
EMG: Tyler Cross (Daniel), Cooper West (Scott), Rhylee West (Scott)

[Mantis]

Shame we didnt have another earlier draft pick to snap up Billy Smedts or his old man didnt play >100 games

The 2 Reid boys would look pretty good on our list too.



Comparing the names MrMahatma mentioned, how does everyone feel we fit amoungst other clubs with regards to our <20 year old talent???

Gold Coast and Melbourne have both certainly benefited from low draft picks in the last 2 years.

All supporters rate their kids highly.

We have quite a few players on MM'S list who will play 200 games for the club... the quality of those games is what counts.

[bornadog]

Inspired by "the positive thread" I've been looking on the bright side. Put what they've actually done partly to one side for a minute, have we ever had a more promising bunch of youngsters?

In no particular order:
Ward
Jones
Roughead
Wallis
Libba
Cordy
Wood
Howard
Markovic
Grant

Seems some genuine young talent on the books these days.

I guess there was possibly more superstar talent when we had Cooney & Griffen as true pups, but the crop above seem as good a "group" as I can recall.

Not rated by many, but Stack has potential, Hill is still young.

Haven't played yet but looks like they may be ok, Dahilhaus, Tutt, Schofield. Potential big men, Mulligan, Prato and Panos.

DJ and Vez are also only 22

[Scorlibo]

We have done well to procure such talent without leaving the top of the ladder.

In five years time, we can be reasonably confident of the players listed below succeeding as viable members of a successful best 22:

B - Wood - FB - Picken
HB - HB - Williams - HB
C - Ward - Liberatore - Griffen
HF - Sherman - Jones - Wallis
F - J.Hill - Grant - FP
Foll - Minson - Cooney - Higgins
I - Roughead - Addison - I - I

The remaining positions should eventually be filled by these remaining players:

Barlow, Cordy, Dahlhaus, Djerrkura, T.Hill, Hooper, Howard, Johannissen, Markovic, Moles, Mulligan, Panos, Prato, Reid, Schofield, Skinner, Stack, Tutt, Vezspremi

And until they do, players such as Morris, Murphy, Boyd and Cross are showing no signs of slowing down, and can fill some gaps.

FB - [Morris, Lake], Markovic, Mulligan. We look weak here. I don't have much faith in either of Markovic or Mulligan as premiership full backs.

HB - [Murphy, Boyd, Gilbee, Hargrave, Giansiracusa], Barlow, Djerrkura, Howard, Johannissen, Reid, Schofield, Stack, Tutt, Vezspremi. There are plenty of options here, the front runners moving forward will be Howard, Schofield and Stack one would think.

FP - [Murphy, Gilbee, Giansiracusa], Cordy, Djerrkura, Hooper, Moles, Panos, Schofield, Skinner, Stack, Vezspremi. Quite a few options, would fancy a Vezspremi type if he comes along, otherwise Cordy could provide a third tall option if he improves to become AFL standard.

There is plenty to look forward to, I am very confident in this group having great success over the next five years and beyond, but we must continue to play the core group of players listed in the 22 above.

[Mofra]

Gold Coast and Melbourne have both certainly benefited from low draft picks in the last 2 years.
Take out Scully from Melbourne (a likely prospect) and we have them. They have a yopung, well drilled back 6 which will make them competitive.

[Desipura]

Not rated by many, but Stack has potential, Hill is still young.

Haven't played yet but looks like they may be ok, Dahilhaus, Tutt, Schofield. Potential big men, Mulligan, Prato and Panos.

DJ and Vez are also only 22

I'm sure you are related to Stack. If he plays 50 games, I will buy a jumper with his signature

[LostDoggy]

I'm sure you are related to Stack. If he plays 50 games, I will buy a jumper with his signature

Quoted so it isn't lost :)

I am with bornadog, Stack has potential.

[bornadog]

I'm sure you are related to Stack. If he plays 50 games, I will buy a jumper with his signature

Man someone has to stick up for him. I will book mark this post.

I do criticize him as well. I think his decision making is not the best which can cause him to hurry kicks or give off a bad handball. I will cut him some slack as he is like a first year player at this stage, with less than 20 games under his belt.

[chef]

Quoted so it isn't lost :)

I am with bornadog, Stack has potential.

Me too, he has a future in our team.

[LostDoggy]

Me too, he has a future in our team.
Me three I think has something to offer

[Go_Dogs]

Me too, he has a future in our team.

I agree, think he can make it. It's a bit of a shame some players just seem to cop it, because he's a young bloke with little league experience, who looks like he's worked very hard on his fitness and body shape, obviously found it a big adjustment moving to Melbourne, etc etc. He deserves a chance to continue to develop, and as supporters we should get behind the younger/inexperienced players and focus on what they can do, not what they can't.




Back on the OP, I tend to agree with the assessment. Despite our current plight, and our loss of experience this year (basically been without Lake, Cooney, Hall plus Johnson, Aker etc who have been our better/most important players over some of our previous campaigns.

We're experiencing a bit of hurt at the moment with a lot of inexperienced players who can't yet sustain consistent output, but we've got a lot of kids who look very good coming through.

Out of those in the OP, Ward and Libba look like they can become A grade mids, Grant/Jones/Roughy and now Cordy have all shown some signs and if they all make it our rucks/tall forwards look taken care of for the next 10 years, and Wood and Howard are hopefully our next generation half back flankers.

We still have a few areas that need quality reinforcement for the future, but we certainly have some good talent with strong chances of making it as long term options.

[LostDoggy]

Wow are we really going that bad to give Stack a wrap? He wouldnt get a game with Richmond for god sakes! Take a deep breath guys it isnt that bad.

[soupman]

Wow are we really going that bad to give Stack a wrap? He wouldnt get a game with Richmond for god sakes! Take a deep breath guys it isnt that bad.

Mitch Farmer gets a game for Richmond. You might want to reassess the bolded.

[Greystache]

Man someone has to stick up for him. I will book mark this post.

I do criticize him as well. I think his decision making is not the best which can cause him to hurry kicks or give off a bad handball. I will cut him some slack as he is like a first year player at this stage, with less than 20 games under his belt.

There's a reason why he's played less than 20 games, and that's because of his poor decision making and ball handling under pressure. Lindsay Thomas was drafted a few places after Stack in the same draft and he's played 80+ games. Stack has been lucky to be given so much time to develop. Not saying he can't become an average AFL footballer, but he's been a very slow developer.

[bornadog]

There's a reason why he's played less than 20 games, and that's because of his poor decision making and ball handling under pressure. Lindsay Thomas was drafted a few places after Stack in the same draft and he's played 80+ games. Stack has been lucky to be given so much time to develop. Not saying he can't become an average AFL footballer, but he's been a very slow developer.

To be fair on the number of games, his first few seasons he had long injury periods.

[LostDoggy]

I like our kids and think there is a lot of potential but we have to remember, it's potential. Talk to a supporter of any club and they will say they have great kids playing in the reserves.

People have been on Howard's case for quite some time, he plays one game and does well and now he is going to be a 200 game player.

I just hope all of our players live up to there potential.

[MrMahatma]

I like our kids and think there is a lot of potential but we have to remember, it's potential. Talk to a supporter of any club and they will say they have great kids playing in the reserves.

People have been on Howard's case for quite some time, he plays one game and does well and now he is going to be a 200 game player.

I just hope all of our players live up to there potential.
That's the question I'm posing though. Have we ever had a bunch with more potential?

[the banker]

Can't see a chris judd. Buddy Franklin.
Lenny Hayes steve Johnson amongst them. I would give 6 good ordinary for 2 game changers.

[Scorlibo]

Can't see a chris judd. Buddy Franklin.
Lenny Hayes steve Johnson amongst them. I would give 6 good ordinary for 2 game changers.

The game changers are in Cooney, Griffen, Higgins and Ward. And possibly Grant, if he realises how good he could be.

[LostDoggy]

The game changers are in Cooney, Griffen, Higgins and Ward. And possibly Grant, if he realises how good he could be.

Lake has been our no.1 game-changer for the past few seasons, and Hall was definitely a game-changer for us last year. Aker and Brad were the only two other consistently elite ones in the last few seasons. Coons and Griff have influenced games (and Coons has actually won a couple off his own boot), but they don't make the truly telling contribution in close ones as often as they probably should (and I know Griff was magnificent in last year's finals series). Murph is probably the only other one on our list in this class.

If we're going to put Higgins and Grant in there (both who have never actually personally influenced the outcome of a game and certainly don't look anywhere near doing it now), The Bald Eagle was actually one of our most consistent game-breakers, especially against the lower sides in the league (which I think we are realising is more difficult than it looks).

The thing is, and this is where 'the bankers' point is going I think, is that all the names above are either veteran status or retired. None of the up and comers are actually game-changers in that elite class, Ward's one great game notwithstanding.

[Scorlibo]

Lake has been our no.1 game-changer for the past few seasons, and Hall was definitely a game-changer for us last year. Aker and Brad were the only two other consistently elite ones in the last few seasons. Coons and Griff have influenced games (and Coons has actually won a couple off his own boot), but they don't make the truly telling contribution in close ones as often as they probably should (and I know Griff was magnificent in last year's finals series). Murph is probably the only other one on our list in this class.

If we're going to put Higgins and Grant in there (both who have never actually personally influenced the outcome of a game and certainly don't look anywhere near doing it now), The Bald Eagle was actually one of our most consistent game-breakers, especially against the lower sides in the league (which I think we are realising is more difficult than it looks).

The thing is, and this is where 'the bankers' point is going I think, is that all the names above are either veteran status or retired. None of the up and comers are actually game-changers in that elite class, Ward's one great game notwithstanding.

Which of Ward's games are you talking about? His preliminary final last year was as good a performance as I've seen from a Bulldog in a final, if he doesn't classify as a game breaker off that game, or off his game against the Tigers, I'm not sure what more he has to do to earn this classification.

I agree that Grant is pure speculation, but we know that he has an enormous amount of improvement left in him and he could be anything.

Higgins I think we can be fairly sure will eventually reach this level, however many injuries later. He shows great composure and even intensity under pressure which is really what defines these players.

Like you have said, Cooney is a proven game winner, and you might be right about him not standing up as much as he should in tight ones, although he seems to rarely have the opportunity, having been quite seriously injured the last few finals series.

Griffen I think busts his gut more notably than any other player in tight situations or crunch games, and I have to disagree in saying that he definitely does stand up in the tight games.

[Maddog37]

Of all our kids I think Jones, Rough, Wallis and Ward are potentially A graders with the ability to really impact the outcome of a game. I have no basis other than gut feel.

Wood also has something a little special about him but not sure he is a back pocket/Harbrow type.

[immortalmike]

Can't see a chris judd. Buddy Franklin.
Lenny Hayes steve Johnson amongst them. I would give 6 good ordinary for 2 game changers.

Maybe we should, you know, give them a chance to have a career (or at least play 20 games) before we decide they aren't as good as the players you mentioned.
I know I'm being unreasonable but could you just humour me for a bit...:rolleyes:

[Ozza]

Which of Ward's games are you talking about? His preliminary final last year was as good a performance as I've seen from a Bulldog in a final, if he doesn't classify as a game breaker off that game, or off his game against the Tigers, I'm not sure what more he has to do to earn this classification.


Thats a huge call. Ryan Griffen has had about six finals that have been better than Ward's prelim.

[LostDoggy]

Which of Ward's games are you talking about? His preliminary final last year was as good a performance as I've seen from a Bulldog in a final, if he doesn't classify as a game breaker off that game, or off his game against the Tigers, I'm not sure what more he has to do to earn this classification.


Thats a huge call. Ryan Griffen has had about six finals that have been better than Ward's prelim.

Yep, and you know, to qualify as a genuine match winner, one has to actually, you know, win the game.

And Higgins is currently the most overrated player on our list -- I don't think a player can actually be called a game-changer until they actually, you know, change a game. Old-fashioned in this age of hyperbole, I know, but after his first three games, we all thought Everitt was going to be something special too.

Cooney changed the course of a game in his first season (I don't remember which one, but he had 6 clearances in a row in the last quarter to break the game open). Griff has done so as well early in his season coming off half-back, and of course his finals performances are the closest thing we have to modern day legend. Ward directly influenced the result of the Richmond game. Hill really influenced a couple of games early in his career with well-timed goals and interceptions.

None of the other kids on our list (and Coons and Griff can't really be considered kids anymore) have influenced any results, so yes, we are over-rating some of them at this point, and hoping that some of them turn out to be match-winners is just that at this point. I'm all for optimism, but stating as 'fact' that some of these guys are 'going to be match-winners' is a step too far for me.

ps. And saying Grant could be 'anything' is just pie in the sky stuff. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard that a young player 'could be anything' only for them to drop out of sight. Even at a young age, you should be able to see a work ethic and consistency of application that really defines consistent match-breakers. A lairy-fairy type will rarely turn out to be a solid elite player later in his career... see Motlop etc., who at this point Grant is closer to emulating than, say, Steve Johnson or Paul Chapman, who both always had the workrate even when it wasn't quite clicking earlier in their careers. Until Grant actually shows some discipline and a better work ethic, he's just another Josh Hill at this point, only a worse kick for goal.

[Mofra]

Cooney changed the course of a game in his first season (I don't remember which one, but he had 6 clearances in a row in the last quarter to break the game open).
Brisbane. I remember Cooney was dragged and copped a bake before going back on, then Minson started dominating in the ruck and was putting down Cooney's throat who was untouchable for about 20 minutes.
Robbins also took a one-handed screamer.

[Scorlibo]

Brisbane. I remember Cooney was dragged and copped a bake before going back on, then Minson started dominating in the ruck and was putting down Cooney's throat who was untouchable for about 20 minutes.
Robbins also took a one-handed screamer.

What a great game. Although it must be said this was in 2005, in Cooney's second season.

EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W30wSZiGBEA

[Bulldog Joe]

Brisbane. I remember Cooney was dragged and copped a bake before going back on, then Minson started dominating in the ruck and was putting down Cooney's throat who was untouchable for about 20 minutes.
Robbins also took a one-handed screamer.

Could be argued that Minson was the game breaker in that one.

[Stefcep]

about 7 years ago I thought we had potential to win two flags by now. Fat lotta good that potential did.

[Dazza]

To me with the rose coloured glasses off for a minute. It looks like we will have a reasonable side lacking polish and pace. It seems to be a good base for a side but lacking genuine star ability. Kind of like North Melbourne at the moment.

What we'll need is some quick players that can use the ball well. We've got the inside mids covered and hopefully the talls come on to be good. We'll need some KPD's.

I'd like to retain Josh Hill on the list. If he matures as a player he'll be pretty good.

[LostDoggy]

I like our kids and think there is a lot of potential but we have to remember, it's potential. Talk to a supporter of any club and they will say they have great kids playing in the reserves.

People have been on Howard's case for quite some time, he plays one game and does well and now he is going to be a 200 game player.

I just hope all of our players live up to there potential.

You can't criticise him for only playing one game well — he's only played one game ever! Wait a few games before bursting the bubble.

In response to “we don't have any game breakers”, I'd rather develop a strong foundation of good players, and wait and see on the game breakers. Recruitment, trading and players taking a step up can deliver that magic player or two that take you the next step. It's not as if we're not going to trade or recruit for the next few years.

And on that basis, yeah, we have a fantastic young list and much to look forward to. Which is why Rocket deserves an extension. 2 years is fair I reckon.

[kruder]

The last time I believed was when Higgins took apart Milburn in the first qrt of the prelim final.Now that was an exciting quarter of football!!!

He came off a limted prep that year due to an ankle but he had confidence, a swagger that most bulldogs didnt seem to have.

Sadly it seems to have well and truly dissapeared.

[Drunken Bum]

The last time I believed was when Higgins took apart Milburn in the first qrt of the prelim final.Now that was an exciting quarter of football!!!

He came off a limted prep that year due to an ankle but he had confidence, a swagger that most bulldogs didnt seem to have.

Sadly it seems to have well and truly dissapeared.

Wasn't really a case of Higgins taking him to the cleaners if my memory serves me correct, was more Milburn showing him no respect and playing off him and our midfielders taking advantage of that for once.
It also would have worked a lot better if Shaun had of kicked straight, did he only kick one when he could have had 3-4 on the board and really opened the game up?
I'm assuming it is because of the press or whatever the hell it is called these days but thats one thing we dont seem to do nowdays, pick out a free target when hall or whoever has 3 blokes sitting off him :/

[1eyedog]

1) Think Jones will one day be close to the best contested mark in the competition. He has fantastic 'one grab' hands even if he gets himself frequently out of position.

2) Richmond will rue Callan Ward for the next 10 years. We need to throw the kitchen sink at this guy when we renegotiate his contract.

3) If he gets continuity Easton Wood will be Ryan Griffen on steriods in 3-5 years.

[LostDoggy]

pick out a free target when hall or whoever has 3 blokes sitting off him :/

I keep seeing this comment on the board. I concede that we shouldn't be too Hall-centric, but can we put the matter to rest once and for all -- there are NO free targets even when Hall has 2/3 blokes on him. Those guys sitting off him are extra men behind the ball guarding space.

The only 'free' players in that situation are usually our backmen (as the opposition may be playing one player light in their forwardline to get a spare player or two back), or maybe a midfield player whose opponent has dropped off to get extra numbers into their backline (usually a designated opponent of one of our poorer kicks, which is why Crossy always looks 'free').

This is why we kick the ball backwards or sideways sometimes. Fans hate to see this, but it's really one (kick it into an outnumbered forwardline) or the other (patiently kick it around to the spare men around the ground and look for an opening).

ps. This is also the theory behind the 'playing on at all costs' style when counter-attacking, to prevent teams getting numbers back and so allow one-on-one contests in our forwardline -- us and Geelong were the ones using this the most over the past 4 years (with numerous lower-table imitators). Hawthorn's zone, then the 'forward press' of St. Kilda, then Collingwood, was developed really as a defensive response to this, to stop teams being able to go coast-to-coast and expose backlines to one-on-one contests with super-skilled forwards. The 'forward press' has the added benefit of being an offensive weapon as well.

[Stefcep]

@lantern

Well thats well and good but even with all these new tactical changes, its still 18 on 18. If there are three blokes on Hall then we have TWO blokes free.

If two of their forwards or mids are playing in the backline, then thats where two of our mids or defenders need to be as well.

If the coaching staff can't work that out and make it count then we deserve all we get.

[LostDoggy]

If two of their forwards or mids are playing in the backline, then thats where two of our mids or defenders need to be as well.

If the coaching staff can't work that out and make it count then we deserve all we get.

Are you saying that if they play an 8 or 9 man backline we should play an 8 or 9 man forwardline? Not even the manic forward press requires that many bodies in there, relying more on layering the support structure directly behind the tall forwards. Actually, I have seen our free defenders push right up, but we are then vulnerable on the turnover. Crossy could certainly push right up when his opponent drops deep off him to get another tackling machine in the forward 50 -- the danger is that he is usually slower than his opponent so he WILL get burnt on the turnover if his opponent gets a start on him.

In any case, once you get past 13/14 players in the forward 50, up to the 16-18 mark, it becomes a pretty crowded space to pick out a pass in any case and a PRIME opportunity for a turnover.

Also, we may intentionally WANT an extra man or two in our backline as well -- you know, in the last few years, Lake going third man up and taking miracle marks in the backline isn't just because he's a magic-man, it's because we engineer the match-ups and numbers so he gets to play in the hole as much as possible. It's like we want everything -- free men in our backline, extra numbers in the middle, one-on-ones up forward, free players in the forward 50, without understanding the associated trade-offs... all teams are trying to engineer overloads everywhere, but there is only so much magic available. (Well, maybe the magic is high-altitude Arizona training to get your players fit enough to run through six positions in two minutes).

And to say that the coaching staff can't work it out -- it's amazing how we have so little regard for Rocket's tactical nous on this board. I'm no Rocket defender, but this is a guy with a VERY detailed understanding of football strategy (although he does seem to be struggling to communicate some of the nuances of it to some of his players as he experiments with a variety of potential solutions to the press this year). Of course, I'm not saying there can't be a discussion of his tactics, but I would suggest that the majority of the board have never been in actual serious tactical discussions with elite level strategy experts, so a tone of humility and respect may be called for.

[Mofra]

Are you saying that if they play an 8 or 9 man backline we should play an 8 or 9 man forwardline?
We did play an 8 man forwardline at one point in the last quarter - Eade obviously made the call that we couldn't have the Hawks with free players behind the ball.

Our HF line/high forward set up looks shaky at the moment and any numerical disadvatage will see us olbiterated

[Charlie the Wonder Dog]

Thanks Lantern, really enjoyed reading your post - it was the full house, informative, well reasoned, and made me laugh (last sentence) ;)

[Murphy'sLore]

I have a bit of a crush on Lantern. :o

[1eyedog]

Are you saying that if they play an 8 or 9 man backline we should play an 8 or 9 man forwardline? Not even the manic forward press requires that many bodies in there, relying more on layering the support structure directly behind the tall forwards. Actually, I have seen our free defenders push right up, but we are then vulnerable on the turnover. Crossy could certainly push right up when his opponent drops deep off him to get another tackling machine in the forward 50 -- the danger is that he is usually slower than his opponent so he WILL get burnt on the turnover if his opponent gets a start on him.

In any case, once you get past 13/14 players in the forward 50, up to the 16-18 mark, it becomes a pretty crowded space to pick out a pass in any case and a PRIME opportunity for a turnover.

Also, we may intentionally WANT an extra man or two in our backline as well -- you know, in the last few years, Lake going third man up and taking miracle marks in the backline isn't just because he's a magic-man, it's because we engineer the match-ups and numbers so he gets to play in the hole as much as possible. It's like we want everything -- free men in our backline, extra numbers in the middle, one-on-ones up forward, free players in the forward 50, without understanding the associated trade-offs... all teams are trying to engineer overloads everywhere, but there is only so much magic available. (Well, maybe the magic is high-altitude Arizona training to get your players fit enough to run through six positions in two minutes).

And to say that the coaching staff can't work it out -- it's amazing how we have so little regard for Rocket's tactical nous on this board. I'm no Rocket defender, but this is a guy with a VERY detailed understanding of football strategy (although he does seem to be struggling to communicate some of the nuances of it to some of his players as he experiments with a variety of potential solutions to the press this year). Of course, I'm not saying there can't be a discussion of his tactics, but I would suggest that the majority of the board have never been in actual serious tactical discussions with elite level strategy experts, so a tone of humility and respect may be called for.

Great post but leave the elite description to only the best military generals.

[Stefcep]

Are you saying that if they play an 8 or 9 man backline we should play an 8 or 9 man forwardline? Not even the manic forward press requires that many bodies in there, relying more on layering the support structure directly behind the tall forwards. Actually, I have seen our free defenders push right up, but we are then vulnerable on the turnover. Crossy could certainly push right up when his opponent drops deep off him to get another tackling machine in the forward 50 -- the danger is that he is usually slower than his opponent so he WILL get burnt on the turnover if his opponent gets a start on him.

In any case, once you get past 13/14 players in the forward 50, up to the 16-18 mark, it becomes a pretty crowded space to pick out a pass in any case and a PRIME opportunity for a turnover.

Also, we may intentionally WANT an extra man or two in our backline as well -- you know, in the last few years, Lake going third man up and taking miracle marks in the backline isn't just because he's a magic-man, it's because we engineer the match-ups and numbers so he gets to play in the hole as much as possible. It's like we want everything -- free men in our backline, extra numbers in the middle, one-on-ones up forward, free players in the forward 50, without understanding the associated trade-offs... all teams are trying to engineer overloads everywhere, but there is only so much magic available. (Well, maybe the magic is high-altitude Arizona training to get your players fit enough to run through six positions in two minutes).

And to say that the coaching staff can't work it out -- it's amazing how we have so little regard for Rocket's tactical nous on this board. I'm no Rocket defender, but this is a guy with a VERY detailed understanding of football strategy (although he does seem to be struggling to communicate some of the nuances of it to some of his players as he experiments with a variety of potential solutions to the press this year). Of course, I'm not saying there can't be a discussion of his tactics, but I would suggest that the majority of the board have never been in actual serious tactical discussions with elite level strategy experts, so a tone of humility and respect may be called for.

Good reply.

Except we are 3 and 6 and got belted by 123 points 2 weeks ago. Whatever the reasons, our method is not working.

And if as you say the opposition is sending midfielders and defenders in to their defence, then we DO have free players that need to take the risk, take the ball and take a man on. You need players that gut run from defense/midfield to the forward line to do this ofcourse and, Yes its a risk that we lose the ball and get killed on the counter, but thats the nature of the game being played.

The other option is to move the ball out of defense much more quickly so that the opposition forward/midfielders don't have time to set up in defense. Do we do that? Or do we take an eternity with the points kick-ins?


Doing the same thing every week and expecting a different outcome is insane.

[Ghost Dog]

Are you saying that if they play an 8 or 9 man backline we should play an 8 or 9 man forwardline? Not even the manic forward press requires that many bodies in there, relying more on layering the support structure directly behind the tall forwards. Actually, I have seen our free defenders push right up, but we are then vulnerable on the turnover. Crossy could certainly push right up when his opponent drops deep off him to get another tackling machine in the forward 50 -- the danger is that he is usually slower than his opponent so he WILL get burnt on the turnover if his opponent gets a start on him.

In any case, once you get past 13/14 players in the forward 50, up to the 16-18 mark, it becomes a pretty crowded space to pick out a pass in any case and a PRIME opportunity for a turnover.

Also, we may intentionally WANT an extra man or two in our backline as well -- you know, in the last few years, Lake going third man up and taking miracle marks in the backline isn't just because he's a magic-man, it's because we engineer the match-ups and numbers so he gets to play in the hole as much as possible. It's like we want everything -- free men in our backline, extra numbers in the middle, one-on-ones up forward, free players in the forward 50, without understanding the associated trade-offs... all teams are trying to engineer overloads everywhere, but there is only so much magic available. (Well, maybe the magic is high-altitude Arizona training to get your players fit enough to run through six positions in two minutes).

And to say that the coaching staff can't work it out -- it's amazing how we have so little regard for Rocket's tactical nous on this board. I'm no Rocket defender, but this is a guy with a VERY detailed understanding of football strategy (although he does seem to be struggling to communicate some of the nuances of it to some of his players as he experiments with a variety of potential solutions to the press this year). Of course, I'm not saying there can't be a discussion of his tactics, but I would suggest that the majority of the board have never been in actual serious tactical discussions with elite level strategy experts, so a tone of humility and respect may be called for.

Ok, that's fine. I accept that Rocket is a good coach.
But please explain, and I'm watching the replay again on AFL.com now, why, last week then, did we not
switch to a man on man structure, and allow Hawthorn to play kick to kick and control the game?
for a layman like myself, it's hard to fathom.
I truly belive we are just as good as the Hawks.
Jordan Lewis / Guerra for gods sake, running around racking up possessions.
Our kicking accuracy was shite, yes, and our regular performers, cross, higgins, had quiet ones.
But mostly, we were tactically outdone.
I just don't accept that they are that much better.

and stefcep, I agree. re your point on kick ins. Watch Geelong get it out quicksmart. Turnovers in our back half were awful last week.

[LostDoggy]

Heya Stefcep.


Good reply.

Except we are 3 and 6 and got belted by 123 points 2 weeks ago. Whatever the reasons, our method is not working..

I've posted elsewhere regarding the 123 point belting -- losing by that many points to a team we beat by 10 goals last year is not a tactical or skill issue.


And if as you say the opposition is sending midfielders and defenders in to their defence, then we DO have free players that need to take the risk, take the ball and take a man on. You need players that gut run from defense/midfield to the forward line to do this ofcourse and, Yes its a risk that we lose the ball and get killed on the counter, but thats the nature of the game being played. .

I think we ARE taking that risk, probably too much of a risk if anything -- we are one of the highest turnover teams in the league. From what I've seen this year we should be LESS risky -- I don't think our list is skillful enough to play a high-risk style, but then again, that's probably short-term thinking on my part.


The other option is to move the ball out of defense much more quickly so that the opposition forward/midfielders don't have time to set up in defense. Do we do that? Or do we take an eternity with the points kick-ins?.

We do take an eternity with our kick-ins, which is strange as we used to be one of the fastest kick-in sides in the league and would go coast-to-coast (I already mentioned this a couple of posts ago).. this is definitely something we can do better, but perhaps we just don't trust ourselves to hit a target from a kick-in, have been turning it over too often, or Rocket is just trying something different with the long kick-in to the boundary (the other way to create an 'overload' is through a height mismatch) -- I haven't watched much footy this year, but from what I have seen, Rocket is clearly trying a few things out that I think has confused a few of our players from week to week. I remember 2005 (?) being like that, where he would tinker and tinker, and we would get things marginally right one week, then get belted the next, up and down and up and down, until he found something that clicked 6 games from the end of the season and we were the hottest form side going around and just missed the finals, but was well set up tactically for the next five years.

I remember then also thinking that I wish he played a lower-risk style to limit the beltings, but he kept at it (I remember his quote being 'I want the players to grow into their roles and not protect them') and they did come along quite a bit, eventually.


Doing the same thing every week and expecting a different outcome is insane.

You can hardly say that we've been doing the same things and expecting a different outcome -- maybe it was true the last few years (thus 'only' making PFs), but if anything I think part of the reason the team looks a bit disjointed at the moment is that we're trying a lot of things, and also have a different mix of personnel from the last few years -- Rocket may be doing a few things wrong here and there, but 'doing the same thing' isn't it; the guy is tinkering as much as ever, but because he hasn't whole-heartedly adopted the press he's getting hammered in some quarters; I really get the feeling he's trying to find the post-press tactic, whether he succeeds with the cattle he has is a whole other story.

(Maybe there ISN'T really a post-press strategy and we've entered the 'evolution' stage of tactics rather than the rather abrupt 'revolutions' of the last few years -- in some sports the press is already the high-point of defensive/offensive evolution and the team that does it the best tends to dominate, with the only other reasonable strategy being staying compact, keeping possession, and hitting on the break around or over the press -- I think Hawthorn is trying this.)

In any case, my original post was simply about the oft-repeated but mistakenly tactically simplistic conventional wisdom that 'if Barry has three guys on him there must be a couple of free players in the forward 50'.

[LostDoggy]

and stefcep, I agree. re your point on kick ins. Watch Geelong get it out quicksmart. Turnovers in our back half were awful last week.

Geelong don't play man-on-man, and they certainly manufacture a free player in their backline as much as possible. I don't understand the criticism -- do we want the Collingwood press and slow, patient build-up from the backline, or do we want Geelong's quick ball movement through the zone (ie. a better version of what we've been trying to be the last few years)? They are not the same thing; it's just that we're doing neither well at the moment, not that one is better than the other. (I know Geelong has a perfunctory sort of press at the moment, but it looks to me that it's really more their great one-on-one midfield and half-back line cutting out the 'exit' ball that makes it work, not any great defensive efforts from their forwards, which seem to be doing more a 'funnelling' function than a tackling one.) I think the punters just get too caught up in seeing something work for some teams and wondering why we don't do it -- if we listened to everybody we would be a coast-to-coast team that keeps possession better than anyone and presses but also has loose men behind the ball etc. etc. etc. What I admire about Hawthorn and St.Kilda and Collingwood in these past few years (tactically at least) is that they try and create their own identity and force teams to adapt to them, not the other way around. Maybe finding the next thing is beyond Rocket, but I admire the attempt to at least try a few things out rather than slavishly copy the latest fad.

Look, I'm not here to defend Rocket -- we've been a bit confused tactically (I've already mentioned tinkering), probably have the mix wrong at the moment in terms of how we want to balance offence and defence, and the players skill and motivation levels aren't looking good, but I guess I'm just a bit over the simplistic potting of our 'tactics' by just saying things like 'go man on man' or 'kick to the free player' and wanted to bring some semblance of sophistication to the discussion. If it was that easy any of us could do the job.

[BornInDroopSt'54]

I have a bit of a crush on Lantern. :o

Lntern atm is the Bulldogs voice I most respect. No mozz involved.

[Ghost Dog]

Geelong don't play man-on-man, and they certainly manufacture a free player in their backline as much as possible. I don't understand the criticism -- do we want the Collingwood press and slow, patient build-up from the backline, or do we want Geelong's quick ball movement through the zone (ie. a better version of what we've been trying to be the last few years)? They are not the same thing; it's just that we're doing neither well at the moment, not that one is better than the other. (I know Geelong has a perfunctory sort of press at the moment, but it looks to me that it's really more their great one-on-one midfield and half-back line cutting out the 'exit' ball that makes it work, not any great defensive efforts from their forwards, which seem to be doing more a 'funnelling' function than a tackling one.) I think the punters just get too caught up in seeing something work for some teams and wondering why we don't do it -- if we listened to everybody we would be a coast-to-coast team that keeps possession better than anyone and presses but also has loose men behind the ball etc. etc. etc. What I admire about Hawthorn and St.Kilda and Collingwood in these past few years (tactically at least) is that they try and create their own identity and force teams to adapt to them, not the other way around. Maybe finding the next thing is beyond Rocket, but I admire the attempt to at least try a few things out rather than slavishly copy the latest fad.

Look, I'm not here to defend Rocket -- we've been a bit confused tactically (I've already mentioned tinkering), probably have the mix wrong at the moment in terms of how we want to balance offence and defence, and the players skill and motivation levels aren't looking good, but I guess I'm just a bit over the simplistic potting of our 'tactics' by just saying things like 'go man on man' or 'kick to the free player' and wanted to bring some semblance of sophistication to the discussion. If it was that easy any of us could do the job.

Well, a bit off the OP and apologies, but I just don't get it. It's not 'potting' but more or less, trying to understand.

2 minutes to go in a game, any game, where the opposition is ahead.
The leading team chips the ball around and plays keepings off to run down the clock.
Players man up - it's the only way to get the ball. the trailing team must man up and force a turnover or a long kick.

How is that situation any different to multiple times V Hawthorn?
We looked inflexible, unable to change to their game. Is it not possible for a coach to get the runner on and change the set up on the fly? Why persist and allow the opposition to control the ball, ( especially in 3rd quarter when we started to come back )?
confused:confused:

[Lurgan]

I haven't posted for ages, but I just wanted to compliment Lantern on the way he's written about the game. We all know (or ought to know) that teams are analysing and strategising to an extent that would be ridiculous - except that it works. Collingwood and Geelong do it the best at the moment.

And yet you can watch footy shows and listen to footy radio and it's as if there's a conspiracy not to discuss what's really going on. Sure, you get a few mentions of 'the press', 'the zone' and so on, but most of the time the commentary is lazy and complacent and there's no actual analysis. For example, I saw on Channel 7 a few Fridays ago Tom Harley and Richo, in suits, trying to show why it's a good idea to mark in front of the body rather than on the chest. Funny enough, yes, but hardly the cutting edge of footy analysis.

But then I heard one of the line coaches at Williamstown using the term 'our 14 man zone' at quarter time in a match, and the players knew exactly what he was on about.

So thanks, Lantern for calmly pointing out that the old cliches are just that, and footy is a sophisticated environment these days. Which isn't, of course, to say that 'going in hard', 'wanting the ball more' and so on don't mean anything; they do. But it all unfolds in a different context these days.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Well, a bit off the OP and apologies, but I just don't get it. It's not 'potting' but more or less, trying to understand.

2 minutes to go in a game, any game, where the opposition is ahead.
The leading team chips the ball around and plays keepings off to run down the clock.
Players man up - it's the only way to get the ball. the trailing team must man up and force a turnover or a long kick.

How is that situation any different to multiple times V Hawthorn?
We looked inflexible, unable to change to their game. Is it not possible for a coach to get the runner on and change the set up on the fly? Why persist and allow the opposition to control the ball, ( especially in 3rd quarter when we started to come back )?
confused:confused:

While watching Hawthorn kick the ball backwards and forwards to each other in the back half was frustrating, it didn't actually get them anywhere. That was our best period of the game and we managed to kick a few in a row.

Guerra was very good last week, no doubt, but most of those 18 marks meant nothing.

The funny thing is that over the last few years Lake, Hargrave and Morris have been experts in the same thing and have been potted for racking up pointless stats.

[jeemak]

I haven't posted for ages, but I just wanted to compliment Lantern on the way he's written about the game. We all know (or ought to know) that teams are analysing and strategising to an extent that would be ridiculous - except that it works. Collingwood and Geelong do it the best at the moment.

And yet you can watch footy shows and listen to footy radio and it's as if there's a conspiracy not to discuss what's really going on. Sure, you get a few mentions of 'the press', 'the zone' and so on, but most of the time the commentary is lazy and complacent and there's no actual analysis. For example, I saw on Channel 7 a few Fridays ago Tom Harley and Richo, in suits, trying to show why it's a good idea to mark in front of the body rather than on the chest. Funny enough, yes, but hardly the cutting edge of footy analysis.

But then I heard one of the line coaches at Williamstown using the term 'our 14 man zone' at quarter time in a match, and the players knew exactly what he was on about.

So thanks, Lantern for calmly pointing out that the old cliches are just that, and footy is a sophisticated environment these days. Which isn't, of course, to say that 'going in hard', 'wanting the ball more' and so on don't mean anything; they do. But it all unfolds in a different context these days.

Excellent.

One of my pet hates about football media these days is the simplistic analysis. There is definitely a place in the schedule for some reporting that is tactics based and presented by people that are not afraid of copping the wrath of a senior coach that considers the commentary out of line.

The generic nature of football media is making me want to turn off. Thank Jeebus for the internet and sites and posters like we have here.

[jeemak]

Geelong don't play man-on-man, and they certainly manufacture a free player in their backline as much as possible. I don't understand the criticism -- do we want the Collingwood press and slow, patient build-up from the backline, or do we want Geelong's quick ball movement through the zone (ie. a better version of what we've been trying to be the last few years)? They are not the same thing; it's just that we're doing neither well at the moment, not that one is better than the other. (I know Geelong has a perfunctory sort of press at the moment, but it looks to me that it's really more their great one-on-one midfield and half-back line cutting out the 'exit' ball that makes it work, not any great defensive efforts from their forwards, which seem to be doing more a 'funnelling' function than a tackling one.) I think the punters just get too caught up in seeing something work for some teams and wondering why we don't do it -- if we listened to everybody we would be a coast-to-coast team that keeps possession better than anyone and presses but also has loose men behind the ball etc. etc. etc. What I admire about Hawthorn and St.Kilda and Collingwood in these past few years (tactically at least) is that they try and create their own identity and force teams to adapt to them, not the other way around. Maybe finding the next thing is beyond Rocket, but I admire the attempt to at least try a few things out rather than slavishly copy the latest fad.

Look, I'm not here to defend Rocket -- we've been a bit confused tactically (I've already mentioned tinkering), probably have the mix wrong at the moment in terms of how we want to balance offence and defence, and the players skill and motivation levels aren't looking good, but I guess I'm just a bit over the simplistic potting of our 'tactics' by just saying things like 'go man on man' or 'kick to the free player' and wanted to bring some semblance of sophistication to the discussion. If it was that easy any of us could do the job.

We were ahead of the curve tactically between 2006-2009 (Hawthorn owned 2008) but unfortunately we didn't have the bodies to execute to the highest level. The skill was there.

The team while having some serious issues in terms of commitment to some of the key fundamentals of the modern game looks to be an example of an inexperienced side copping information overload. That says to me either Rocket has lost the plot and is filling their heads with jibberish and unhelpful sprays, or he's gone into a teaching mode again. He managed to turn an unbalanced list with a couple of guns and two or three high draft picks (don't forget the injuries we copped in 2005-2007 as well) into a consecutive top four side in just a few years by implementing a modern game plan to suit the strengths of the list.

Eade's major issue now is whether he takes a punt on the skill level improving through list regeneration, confidence and understanding of his game plan, or adapting the game plan to hide the defficiencies (like pace and foot skill) our team posesses. The former could put us in the position to challenge again sooner rather than later, the latter will render us irrelevant for a number of years.

Eade needs to be bold with his recruiting requests, go for his dream line up and game plan for the next tilt at challenging. If he coaches conservatively and for survival he's screwed.

[LostDoggy]

Excellent.

One of my pet hates about football media these days is the simplistic analysis. There is definitely a place in the schedule for some reporting that is tactics based and presented by people that are not afraid of copping the wrath of a senior coach that considers the commentary out of line.

The generic nature of football media is making me want to turn off. Thank Jeebus for the internet and sites and posters like we have here.

First of all, thanks to everyone who posted such lovely sentiments.

On to your post jeemak, I was just listening to a podcast off SEN discussing the teamsheets for this weekend, and Mark Robinson actually said, and I quote, "I hate the word structure", when talking about what a team needed to do to win. How can a supposed football journalist/expert/analyst openly admit to hating the tactical side of the game and still maintain any credibility? There seems to be such a reactionary stance by most members of the media against any sort of complexity.

I also happen to be currently reading an excellent, extensive interview with a great tactician in another sport (one who has helped create an incredible winning team), and some of his quotes seem very relevant here. For example, he says of the media:

"... journalism analyses everything via success -- and as a result, journalism always wins. The analysis, the reports, are carried out via success so they are always right. No one is looking at the process except through the prism of the result. That's hugely opportunist. And wrong... the thing is, despues del visto todo el mundo es listo: everyone's a genius after the event. I call them 'prophets of the past'. And yet they are wrong to even evaluate the process solely in light of how it came out in the end and, on top of that, to keep imposing demands."

About analytical reductionism:

"... People need to communicate, so there is a reduction of concepts, a simplification -- I understand that. The thing is, you have to be able to reduce without impoverishing. And that goes for everything. You can't take things out of their context because they are no longer the same thing, even if you then plan to piece things back together again. You can't take an arm off Rafa Nadal and train it separately. If you did, when you put it back in it may create an imbalance, a rejection from the organism... Cause and effect do not, in themselves, exist. It cannot be isolated like that; people shirk theories of complexity but they are true, it's how the universe works. How do you know that the cause was not an effect of something from before, and that the effect is not going to cause something else, in the context of countless other variables? I think the problem is that people always want to separate things. It's as if, if we do not separate them out we are not able to see them."

[Jasper]

I think we ARE taking that risk, probably too much of a risk if anything -- we are one of the highest turnover teams in the league. From what I've seen this year we should be LESS risky -- I don't think our list is skillful enough to play a high-risk style, but then again, that's probably short-term thinking on my part.


Your summary of the tactics is solid. I guess my frustration stems from the factors that are causing our failure to cope with tactics such as the press. Regardless of whether Rocket has a plan and one would assume he does, the key issues seem to be:

1 - In reference to the above quote re our players' skill, our younger players have not developed as well as we hoped, whether that is a failure of recruitment or development is hard to say - only a change of coach would rule in or out development, or the player changes environments (like Everitt which at this stage looks to be a failure in recruitment)
2 - Players skill level has at best stayed the same but appears to have worsened - again a development issue
3 - We have too many old (in football terms) players and like it or not old players get injured more often and take longer too recover from games and injury. I was happy to give Eade credit for the trading done (or not done) in earlier years. We haven't made the hard calls in recent years when retaining players, I believe Eade must be held accountable for this as you would think he has the final say on who is retained on our list and who is traded.
4 - Getting whipped by last years wooden spooner, speaks of motivation, again Eade's area

I have a full time job out of footy, I don't claim to have the knowledge to question Eade's tactical nous. I do however have eyes and can see our performance.

I also believe that some of the above problems should have been foreseen and addressed. They haven't and I believe Eade, as the main football person at our club responsible for improving and motivating our players, has failed.

[Ghost Dog]

While watching Hawthorn kick the ball backwards and forwards to each other in the back half was frustrating, it didn't actually get them anywhere. That was our best period of the game and we managed to kick a few in a row.

Guerra was very good last week, no doubt, but most of those 18 marks meant nothing.

The funny thing is that over the last few years Lake, Hargrave and Morris have been experts in the same thing and have been potted for racking up pointless stats.

Have to disagree Sockeye.
while it didn't get them anywhere, it didn't get us anywhere either.
Essentially, they held up the game to stop our momentum and took advantage of their scoreboard situation.
Was like watching a game of keepings off. When you're that deep in time, and that far behind, can't understand why the coach would not change the set up.
Anyone?

[Sockeye Salmon]

Eade needs to be bold with his recruiting requests, go for his dream line up and game plan for the next tilt at challenging. If he coaches conservatively and for survival he's screwed.

Eade today plays his 6th debutant for the year and all up 13 blokes who started the year with less than 15 games to their name have played seniors. That's more than any of North, Port or Brisbane.


One thing Eade cannot be accused of is being in survival mode.





"... journalism analyses everything via success -- and as a result, journalism always wins. The analysis, the reports, are carried out via success so they are always right. No one is looking at the process except through the prism of the result. That's hugely opportunist. And wrong... the thing is, despues del visto todo el mundo es listo: everyone's a genius after the event. I call them 'prophets of the past'. And yet they are wrong to even evaluate the process solely in light of how it came out in the end and, on top of that, to keep imposing demands."



Welcome to WOOF

Win = all superstars
Lose = all hopeless

[1eyedog]

Excellent.

One of my pet hates about football media these days is the simplistic analysis. There is definitely a place in the schedule for some reporting that is tactics based and presented by people that are not afraid of copping the wrath of a senior coach that considers the commentary out of line.

The generic nature of football media is making me want to turn off. Thank Jeebus for the internet and sites and posters like we have here.

I agree but hard stats and data ain't everyone's cup of tea and we must remember that there is a much larger audience outside the learned Woofers who simply don't understand (cognitively) or care (figuratively) about anything other than the immediate contest and the end result.

[ledge]

There is also a case of not making things too complicated.
I am a believer in trying to simplify things, all AFL players would have a football brain of some sort doesnt mean they have a clue on other parts of the system
We all know of champion players with the brain of a pea on anything else.
Dont make it too complicated and try and simplify your game plan as much as possible.

I am waiting for the next successful coach who says "see those posts? get the ball between them more than your opponents"
To quote a champion coach "dont think DOO"

A balance is needed and I believe there is too much thinking going on nowadays with statistics etc.

What happened to picking players on football abillity not finding some one who has never played and trying to change them into something they arent?
A bit like women who marry a man then whinge about he wont change, (not having a go at the opposite sex its just what you hear over the years) pick someone who you are in love with not who you think you can change.

[Ghost Dog]

There is also a case of not making things too complicated.
I am a believer in trying to simplify things, all AFL players would have a football brain of some sort doesnt mean they have a clue on other parts of the system
We all know of champion players with the brain of a pea on anything else.
Dont make it too complicated and try and simplify your game plan as much as possible.

I am waiting for the next successful coach who says "see those posts? get the ball between them more than your opponents"
To quote a champion coach "dont think DOO"

A balance is needed and I believe there is too much thinking going on nowadays with statistics etc.

What happened to picking players on football abillity not finding some one who has never played and trying to change them into something they arent?
A bit like women who marry a man then whinge about he wont change, (not having a go at the opposite sex its just what you hear over the years) pick someone who you are in love with not who you think you can change.


Shaun Higgins says hello, with Drey Everitt sending regards from Sydney.

[ledge]

Shaun Higgins says hello, with Drey Everitt sending regards from Sydney.

Clubs spend 2 to 3 years wage on basketballers, cricketers, elite runners trying to make them footballers,with no guarantee, why waste that time and money?
Pick up a footballer who is 2 or 3 years ahead of them anyway.

[LostDoggy]

Clubs spend 2 to 3 years wage on basketballers, cricketers, elite runners trying to make them footballers,with no guarantee, why waste that time and money?
Pick up a footballer who is 2 or 3 years ahead of them anyway.

I tend to agree with this.

Coincidentally enough, the very same interview I mentioned earlier also backs up your viewpoint here:

"How can you gain strength for football outside of football? If you run you're going to get healthier because, f***, it's healthy to run. But that doesn't mean you're going to be a better footballer if you approach it out of context. It helps, by making you healthier, and if it helps you psychologically, great. Maybe if you feel better, stronger, faster you relate better to others on the pitch. Football is assocative, combinative. but just running does not necessarily make you better."

Then when asked that surely a fast player is useful in a way that he would't be if he wasn't fast:

"If he knows how to use it. And what is speed in football? We could be here for hours answering that. The concept of speed people have in football is actually a concept from individual sports -- he runs fast, so Usain Bolt would be a footballing phenomenon? No, alone, he is nothing. We all need everyone. The Bolt analogy isn't stupid, because speed alone, expressed as the rapidity with which a person moves from one place to another, is worthless, it does not exist -- there are so many tactical parameters, concepts of the game, and all of it is conditioned by an awareness of the qualities you have, the interaction of the players, the opponent..."

Of course, the 'football' he is talking about is soccer (and the team he is talking about is Barcelona, which relies a lot more on speed of thought and interplay than physical prowess), and our native game (AFL) is a bit different in that we have a much bigger ground to cover and height can be quite advantageous in certain situations. Yet, I posit that 22 footballers who know how to play the game and can solve situations in-game, will probably beat 22 of the best atheletes most days of the week ie. 22 James Hirds or Greg Williamses will beat 22 Kurt Tippetts. (of course, then you have the freak atheletes who are also great footballers...)

[ledge]

I tend to agree with this.

Coincidentally enough, the very same interview I mentioned earlier also backs up your viewpoint here:

"How can you gain strength for football outside of football? If you run you're going to get healthier because, f***, it's healthy to run. But that doesn't mean you're going to be a better footballer if you approach it out of context. It helps, by making you healthier, and if it helps you psychologically, great. Maybe if you feel better, stronger, faster you relate better to others on the pitch. Football is assocative, combinative. but just running does not necessarily make you better."

Then when asked that surely a fast player is useful in a way that he would't be if he wasn't fast:

"If he knows how to use it. And what is speed in football? We could be here for hours answering that. The concept of speed people have in football is actually a concept from individual sports -- he runs fast, so Usain Bolt would be a footballing phenomenon? No, alone, he is nothing. We all need everyone. The Bolt analogy isn't stupid, because speed alone, expressed as the rapidity with which a person moves from one place to another, is worthless, it does not exist -- there are so many tactical parameters, concepts of the game, and all of it is conditioned by an awareness of the qualities you have, the interaction of the players, the opponent..."

Of course, the 'football' he is talking about is soccer (and the team he is talking about is Barcelona, which relies a lot more on speed of thought and interplay than physical prowess), and our native game (AFL) is a bit different in that we have a much bigger ground to cover and height can be quite advantageous in certain situations. Yet, I posit that 22 footballers who know how to play the game and can solve situations in-game, will probably beat 22 of the best atheletes most days of the week ie. 22 James Hirds or Greg Williamses will beat 22 Kurt Tippetts. (of course, then you have the freak atheletes who are also great footballers...)

A good example,
Jordan McMahon was an elite runner and would be considered a success in changing but really he was just an average footballer whos disposal and football brain wasnt there at all.

[LostDoggy]

Your summary of the tactics is solid. I guess my frustration stems from the factors that are causing our failure to cope with tactics such as the press. Regardless of whether Rocket has a plan and one would assume he does, the key issues seem to be:

...

I also believe that some of the above problems should have been foreseen and addressed. They haven't and I believe Eade, as the main football person at our club responsible for improving and motivating our players, has failed.

Hi Kelvinator --

I agree with the overall gist of your points. I think I've echoed them elsewhere, and even earlier in this thread I pointed out that we were probably over-optimistic in rating our kids.

I have no problem at all discussing the rest of the failures of the football club in an intelligent manner (as you are doing), but I suppose what I was trying to show in my tactical analysis was the opposite of what some have assumed (that I was saying that football was all about tactics).

What I was actually trying to say is that the factors that go into the performance of a team are various and complex, with tactics only a small part of it (albeit a relatively complex part), and was just speaking out against the type of thinking that says that our problems can be fixed by a wave of a wand, or that there is some sort of tactical magic bullet. Rocket is one of the most tactically aware figures in the football industry -- that's not where our, or his, problems currently lie. If we want to discuss his success or failure, we have to do it holistically (as you are doing).

I'm sorry I'm quoting the interview again, but it just seems relevant to our discussion at hand:

"... the objective is the journey, the process. The work matters. In a race you can be first, miles and miles ahead of everyone, and then fall over metres from the line. Are you going to write that race off? You ran brilliantly. And it's far more complex than saying win, good; don't win, bad. The smallest variation can change everything, it's chaos theory. You can't know every detail or have a definitive answer."

"What enriches you is the game, not the result. The result is a piece of data. The birth rate goes up -- is that enriching? No. But the process that led to that? Now that's enriching. Fulfilment comes from the process. You debate the game not the results. Results are not debatable, they are. Do you buy a paper on Monday morning and the only thing in it is a list after list of results? Do you go into a stadium only in the last minute of a game and look at the scoreboard and leave?"

[Mofra]

Clubs spend 2 to 3 years wage on basketballers, cricketers, elite runners trying to make them footballers,with no guarantee, why waste that time and money?
Pick up a footballer who is 2 or 3 years ahead of them anyway.
Alot of the top footballers played multiple sports as youngsters - different sports can help with aspects of the game, eg. Scott West credits basketball in helping him sharpen his reflexes for his inside work. Ditto Pendlebury.

Guy O'Keefe was footballer first, athlete second. I'd rather judge a kid on what they can/may bring to the side rather than merely look at their sporting background.

[ledge]

Alot of the top footballers played multiple sports as youngsters - different sports can help with aspects of the game, eg. Scott West credits basketball in helping him sharpen his reflexes for his inside work. Ditto Pendlebury.

Guy O'Keefe was footballer first, athlete second. I'd rather judge a kid on what they can/may bring to the side rather than merely look at their sporting background.

I agree but my point was grabbing an athlete because he is an athlete and never touched a football before.

[Jasper]

Hi Kelvinator --
What I was actually trying to say is that the factors that go into the performance of a team are various and complex, with tactics only a small part of it (albeit a relatively complex part), and was just speaking out against the type of thinking that says that our problems can be fixed by a wave of a wand, or that there is some sort of tactical magic bullet. Rocket is one of the most tactically aware figures in the football industry -- that's not where our, or his, problems currently lie. If we want to discuss his success or failure, we have to do it holistically (as you are doing).
...
"What enriches you is the game, not the result. The result is a piece of data. The birth rate goes up -- is that enriching? No. But the process that led to that? Now that's enriching. Fulfilment comes from the process. You debate the game not the results. Results are not debatable, they are. Do you buy a paper on Monday morning and the only thing in it is a list after list of results? Do you go into a stadium only in the last minute of a game and look at the scoreboard and leave?"

I question the philosophy behind the last quote as it seems to suggest that results don't matter as much as how you go about things. I can't accept this and more importantly, unless you are in a sheltered environment (like Kinda where you get praised for wiping your nose), life doesn't work that way. Life is tough, life is not fair - such is life.

A couple of points. I see what you are getting at, in that a decision to criticise or remove Eade could be simplistic (as is the defence of Eade at times which often amounts to...'you aren't inside the club you can't know what is happening').

Last year Geelong and the Dogs were both absolutely smashed by the Pies in finals. Both clubs had aging lists. The respective clubs' response was interesting.

Ablett resigned and they got two first round picks which they kept and did not trade. Thompson resigned and they signed Scott. Scott modestly states he has tweaked Geelong, but lets face it, the have increased their kick to handball ratio, and altered where they play through (ie boundary instead of corridor), and they have adopted the press when defending.

What have we done? Harbrow resigned and we traded the pick for a suspect player. We signed a suspect player from Geelong on a 3 year deal. We traded one suspect young player for another. Eade was retained. And at present, despite what Eade maybe attempting to do, we have not pressed, and have not adapted to the modern game.

Result - Geelong are unbeaten. Dogs are a train wreck.

As a supporter, I hope this changes today. And 'hope' is why life's good.:)

[LostDoggy]

I agree but my point was grabbing an athlete because he is an athlete and never touched a football before.

And I would back 22 G'OKs against 22 Israel Folou's any day of the week. :)

[LostDoggy]

@Kelvinator - all good points. There is obviously a balance between results and process, although one can argue we screwed up the post-season process compared to Geelong, ergo we are suffering the result. An alternative and more generous reading of the situation may be that we had a higher turnover of the list than Geelong and currently have a far longer injury list (though some would say this is part of screwing up the post-season) -- for argument's sake, other than Gablett, how would Geelong go if you take out Scarlett, Chapman, Steve Johnson, Cam Mooney and Travis Varcoe? (the closest equivalents off the top of my head to Cooney, Lake, Johnno, Aker, Hall and Eagleton).. I think there WAS a season not too long ago where they did suffer quite a few injuries and missed the eight altogether despite having what everyone thought was a great list (and so it proved later) and Thompson barely survived the sack -- and we therefore may require a slightly longer regeneration process to go through before seeing results down the track. I am not greatly optimistic, but in either case, in light of our recent record it probably requires a deferment of judgment until at least the end of the season rather than snap decisions.

[ledge]

@Kelvinator - all good points. There is obviously a balance between results and process, although one can argue we screwed up the post-season process compared to Geelong, ergo we are suffering the result. An alternative and more generous reading of the situation may be that we had a higher turnover of the list than Geelong and currently have a far longer injury list (though some would say this is part of screwing up the post-season) -- for argument's sake, other than Gablett, how would Geelong go if you take out Scarlett, Chapman, Steve Johnson, Cam Mooney and Travis Varcoe? (the closest equivalents off the top of my head to Cooney, Lake, Johnno, Aker, Hall and Eagleton).. I think there WAS a season not too long ago where they did suffer quite a few injuries and missed the eight altogether despite having what everyone thought was a great list (and so it proved later) and Thompson barely survived the sack -- and we therefore may require a slightly longer regeneration process to go through before seeing results down the track. I am not greatly optimistic, but in either case, in light of our recent record it probably requires a deferment of judgment until at least the end of the season rather than snap decisions.

Some decisions need to be snap as in bite the bullet, question is, is this one of them?

[Bulldog Joe]

Last year Geelong and the Dogs were both absolutely smashed by the Pies in finals. Both clubs had aging lists. The respective clubs' response was interesting.

.........

Result - Geelong are unbeaten. Dogs are a train wreck.



I believe there is more to it than you suggest.

Cats have a much healthier list, while the Dogs have effectively playing catch up with key players underdone.

We have effectively lost our best defender (Lake), our best forward (Hall) and our best midfielder (Cooney).

Additionally Hudson has gone from being basically close to AA standard to unable to retain his place.

I doubt any side would have coped with this and just look at how St Kilda have started with their list under pressure.

Eade is doing plenty by giving young players a chance.

[Jasper]

I believe there is more to it than you suggest.

Cats have a much healthier list, while the Dogs have effectively playing catch up with key players underdone.

We have effectively lost our best defender (Lake), our best forward (Hall) and our best midfielder (Cooney).

Additionally Hudson has gone from being basically close to AA standard to unable to retain his place.

I doubt any side would have coped with this and just look at how St Kilda have started with their list under pressure.

Eade is doing plenty by giving young players a chance.

Perhaps there is an element of luck although I note from Geelong's best team last year, Hawkins, Chapman, Ablett and Mooney aren't there, I would suggest Cooney, Lake and Hall are equivalent at best. And look at today's result.

[Bulldog Joe]

Perhaps there is an element of luck although I note from Geelong's best team last year, Hawkins, Chapman, Ablett and Mooney aren't there, I would suggest Cooney, Lake and Hall are equivalent at best. And look at today's result.

If you are going to count Ablett you need to count Johnson and Eagleton

Hawkins is a non event as he has been replaced by Vardy who looks an upgrade.

We have been hampered by several players not being ready, while Geelong have the luxury of rotating fit players and carrying lots of confidence because things are going right.

[Jasper]

If you are going to count Ablett you need to count Johnson and Eagleton

Hawkins is a non event as he has been replaced by Vardy who looks an upgrade.

We have been hampered by several players not being ready, while Geelong have the luxury of rotating fit players and carrying lots of confidence because things are going right.

Why would you count Johnno and Eagle when they hardly played last year and when they did...they had little positive impact. I think you're clutching at straws here. Lets face it things are very grim at the moment in Bulldog land.

[bornadog]

Why would you count Johnno and Eagle when they hardly played last year and when they did...they had little positive impact. I think you're clutching at straws here. Lets face it things are very grim at the moment in Bulldog land.

Grim on the one hand ie big losses, but positive to play the kids and get game time in them.

Having said that, Jones needs to go back to Willi, last two weeks he has touched the ball 9 times.

[w3design]

There's a reason why he's played less than 20 games, and that's because of his poor decision making and ball handling under pressure. Lindsay Thomas was drafted a few places after Stack in the same draft and he's played 80+ games. Stack has been lucky to be given so much time to develop. Not saying he can't become an average AFL footballer, but he's been a very slow developer.



Lindsay Thomas is decidedly woeful. Even North supporters will tell you that.

Shouldn't write of Stack after less than 20 games, but everyone thinks new players have to be superstars from the get-go.

[Greystache]

Lindsay Thomas is decidedly woeful. Even North supporters will tell you that.

Shouldn't write of Stack after less than 20 games, but everyone thinks new players have to be superstars from the get-go.

I don't get this. They're the same age, were drafted at the same time, at about the same position. One has played some outstanding games at AFL level and one hasn't.

You write one off as being woeful, yet tell people to lay off the other because he's just a kid? :confused:

[Bulldog Joe]

Lindsay Thomas is decidedly woeful. Even North supporters will tell you that.

Shouldn't write of Stack after less than 20 games, but everyone thinks new players have to be superstars from the get-go.

I think everyone at the Dogs would be happy to swap Stack for a woeful player like Lindsay Thomas, who has been a match winner on more than one occasion.

[w3design]

Thomas played a few good games last year, but has lost them 2-3 this year. Is absolutely shot mentally.

Stack hasn't shown his full potential yet. Still has improvement.

[Topdog]

thomas' only problem at the moment is goal kicking. When not if he gets over the yips as hundreds of players have in the past he will etch out a very good career.

Stack on the other hand has shown glimpses of possibly being good enough to play 50-100 games.

[Desipura]

thomas' only problem at the moment is goal kicking. When not if he gets over the yips as hundreds of players have in the past he will etch out a very good career.

Stack on the other hand has shown glimpses of possibly being good enough to play 50-100 games.

Really? How? All he has shown me is that he can kick goals against Freo as a half fwd flanker when no one knew him.

[KT31]

thomas' only problem at the moment is goal kicking. When not if he gets over the yips as hundreds of players have in the past he will etch out a very good career.

Stack on the other hand has shown glimpses of possibly being good enough to play 50-100 games.

On his current performances he will be lucky to be with us afer his contract runs out.

[Mofra]

On his current performances he will be lucky to be with us afer his contract runs out.
I'm all for giving kids an extended run, but he hasn't really stamped a position yet.

With Howard playing well enough to keep his spot, Wood getting better and Schofield knocking on the door Stack will find it hard to keep a HBF spot, especially as those three guys seem to have a fair bit of upside to them.

[Greystache]

Seeing how quickly guys like Wood, Libba, and Howard have adapted to AFL footy and continue to improve it just makes me wonder why we bother persisting with Stack. After 5 years on the list he's behind first and second year players, and nothing he's shown suggests he'll ever be an average AFL player.

[Mofra]

After 5 years on the list he's behind first and second year players, and nothing he's shown suggests he'll ever be an average AFL player.
I think he could be an average footballer with an extended run.

The question is - don't we want better from our list than just average?
For example, the three guys I listed above have at least one above average attribute:

Wood - pure athleticism
Howard - raking left foot
Dalhaus - pace & agility (ranked no 1 agility at state screening IIRC)

Stack reminds me of Cam Wight in some respects - he's about 95% of the way there, but will he imporve?

[Desipura]

I think he could be an average footballer with an extended run.

The question is - don't we want better from our list than just average?
For example, the three guys I listed above have at least one above average attribute:

Wood - pure athleticism
Howard - raking left foot
Dalhaus - pace & agility (ranked no 1 agility at state screening IIRC)

Stack reminds me of Cam Wight in some respects - he's about 95% of the way there, but will he imporve?

Stack has poor awareness and his skills below his knees are average. We are going so bad that we are playing some like Stack and Djerkurra not because they have something to offer us log term, because we have a number of players out injured or are out of form.
The above 2 players will not be playing AFL long term IMHO

[bornadog]

I think he could be an average footballer with an extended run.

The question is - don't we want better from our list than just average?
For example, the three guys I listed above have at least one above average attribute:

Wood - pure athleticism
Howard - raking left foot
Dalhaus - pace & agility (ranked no 1 agility at state screening IIRC)

Stack reminds me of Cam Wight in some respects - he's about 95% of the way there, but will he imporve?

Wood has a long way to go. I thought he was poor last night, and hasn't played well at all this season.

[BulldogBelle]

Stack has poor awareness and his skills below his knees are average. We are going so bad that we are playing some like Stack and Djerkurra not because they have something to offer us log term, because we have a number of players out injured or are out of form.
The above 2 players will not be playing AFL long term IMHO



Will Stack be with us in 2012? 2013?

He has been on the list for 5 seasons, and first year players like Wallis, Libba, Howard and Dalhaus (1 senior game) are showing more than him.

I would bite the bullet, and play Schofield, Dalhaus, Howard or Tutt in the HBF position ahead of Stack given we are unlikely to salvage anything from this season. In addition Stack hasnt showed any real improvement this season compared to last and we would be better of trying the above players.

[DOG GOD]

Wood has a long way to go. I thought he was poor last night, and hasn't played well at all this season.

I agree. I think Wood has been lucky to hold his spot since coming back from injury. His position in the side would be under some pressure from Schofield atm.

[GVGjr]

Which of our younger guys has made progress this season?

Wood isn't progressing, Ward hasn't been great despite being injury free. Grant is definitely down, Jones is up and down.
Higgins, Hooper, Stack, Hill, Mulligan, Roughead and Reid haven't done enough.

Now we can make some allowances for injuries etc but whilst the focus has been on calling out and highlighting the older guys we actually don't have a lot of youngsters knocking the door down.

We are lucky that Libertore and Wallis were gifted to us and Dahlhaus has been good.

[always right]

I think everyone at the Dogs would be happy to swap Stack for a woeful player like Lindsay Thomas, who has been a match winner on more than one occasion.

And you would be wrong

[Prince Imperial]

Which of our younger guys has made progress this season?

I'm very pleased with what I've seen of Howard in his first three games.

[Desipura]

Will Stack be with us in 2012? 2013?

He has been on the list for 5 seasons, and first year players like Wallis, Libba, Howard and Dalhaus (1 senior game) are showing more than him.

I would bite the bullet, and play Schofield, Dalhaus, Howard or Tutt in the HBF position ahead of Stack given we are unlikely to salvage anything from this season. In addition Stack hasnt showed any real improvement this season compared to last and we would be better of trying the above players.

Stack won't be with us long term. If the MC think Tutt or Schofield are ready to play AFL without doing their future prospects any harm, they should play them as early as next week.
Stack, DJ, Barlow give me nothing to be excited about long term.

Howard ran to the right positions early in the game which suggests to me he has confidence in himself by demanding the ball. He appears to have reasonable hands and I do like his left foot kicking style (only criticism at this early stage, he is like most lefties who favor it heavily)
Dahlhaus was good with his decision making, would have liked to have seen him run and carry, that will come with more games.
Veszpremi should have played, other than Gia, we had no natural forwards playing down there.
Jones will be a player, a heave burden to play CHF in a struggling side with poor disposal in the forward 50

[azabob]

Which of our younger guys has made progress this season?

Wood isn't progressing, Ward hasn't been great despite being injury free. Grant is definitely down, Jones is up and down.
Higgins, Hooper, Stack, Hill, Mulligan, Roughead and Reid haven't done enough.

Now we can make some allowances for injuries etc but whilst the focus has been on calling out and highlighting the older guys we actually don't have a lot of youngsters knocking the door down.

We are lucky that Libertore and Wallis were gifted to us and Dahlhaus has been good.

What is the definition of a "kid" ?
I think Markovic and Liberatore have been the standouts of the inexperienced players. I'm still unsure why Markovic hasn't been playing.
With the rest of the kids have up's and downs but I guess that is the nature of players who have played less than 80 games.

I guess what posters are getting at is the "known" or regular players haven't been able to get the job done so lets go with the "unknown" the younger players.

Hopefully Cooney, Lake and Hargrave can get back form and fitness and help spread the load sooner rather than later.

[MrMahatma]

Jones looks like he'll be able to be the go-to man in the near future. Kicking is an obvious weakness which needs addressing ASAP - should've had 4 goals last night. But can't fault his application.

DJ made some poor decisions - and again should have had 3 goals but was wasteful/too afraid to take the shot etc. But he got the ball.

What we have is a mix of different youngsters and new comers who play different roles. We don't have the puzzle complete yet - but these guys seem to be doing OK at playing a role.

For mine, it's not the kids that are losing us games. It's wasteful/past it senior blokes. The end comes quickly and I think the time has come to weild the axe on a few.

If for the rest of the season we can get 10 more games into Jones, 5-6 into Dal, Vez gets games, maybe Cordy debuts - then we can have something to into pre-season 2012 feeling good about. No point continuing to bemoan "Cross can't kick, Hudson's so slow, Higgins doesn't chase" - we need to focus on the kids.

[LostDoggy]

Jones looks like he'll be able to be the go-to man in the near future. Kicking is an obvious weakness which needs addressing ASAP - should've had 4 goals last night. But can't fault his application.

DJ made some poor decisions - and again should have had 3 goals but was wasteful/too afraid to take the shot etc. But he got the ball.

What we have is a mix of different youngsters and new comers who play different roles. We don't have the puzzle complete yet - but these guys seem to be doing OK at playing a role.

For mine, it's not the kids that are losing us games. It's wasteful/past it senior blokes. The end comes quickly and I think the time has come to weild the axe on a few.

If for the rest of the season we can get 10 more games into Jones, 5-6 into Dal, Vez gets games, maybe Cordy debuts - then we can have something to into pre-season 2012 feeling good about. No point continuing to bemoan "Cross can't kick, Hudson's so slow, Higgins doesn't chase" - we need to focus on the kids.

I would like to see DJ play the rest of the year and then make a decision. He goes to the right spots and he does win the ball just needs to finish and maybe a little more time is what he needs.

[LostDoggy]

Stack won't be with us long term. If the MC think Tutt or Schofield are ready to play AFL without doing their future prospects any harm, they should play them as early as next week.
Stack, DJ, Barlow give me nothing to be excited about long term.

Howard ran to the right positions early in the game which suggests to me he has confidence in himself by demanding the ball. He appears to have reasonable hands and I do like his left foot kicking style (only criticism at this early stage, he is like most lefties who favor it heavily)
Dahlhaus was good with his decision making, would have liked to have seen him run and carry, that will come with more games.
Veszpremi should have played, other than Gia, we had no natural forwards playing down there.
Jones will be a player, a heave burden to play CHF in a struggling side with poor disposal in the forward 50

We sure looked like we had no one in the forward line at times, this has been the case all year.

[LostDoggy]

I would like to see DJ play the rest of the year and then make a decision. He goes to the right spots and he does win the ball just needs to finish and maybe a little more time is what he needs.

Yes, give the guy a chance to settle... the rest of the year is a big call but we should have a fair idea after a half dozen games.

[bornadog]

Yes, give the guy a chance to settle... the rest of the year is a big call but we should have a fair idea after a half dozen games.

I agree, he needs to play a few full games so we can see how he goes. He gets enough of the ball, but his disposal is not so great. He tends to want to dish it off as soon as possible.

[LostDoggy]

I am just hanging to see Ves get a good run at it i have a feeling he will not disappoint.

[stefoid]

Can someone tell me what the story is with roughhead?

[G-Mo77]

Can someone tell me what the story is with roughhead?

What do you mean? :confused:

[Greystache]

Can someone tell me what the story is with roughhead?

He was pretty good for Willi on Saturday, got a bollocking at 1/4 time and responded well if that's what you're asking?

[LostDoggy]

We definitely have a few coming through the ranks at the moment, future is actually looking fairly bright.

Dahlhaus once again performed well last night, Schofield i thought performed very well in his first game & Jones although his goal kicking needs tweaking, he works extremely hard across CHF creating options for our players running forward.

[neddie]

Last night showed we have got to persevere with youth. Dalhaus and Barlow showed promise. Schofield has some way to go, especially when he picks a fight with Tippett.

[ledge]

I was surprised Hooper didnt get a go Friday night too, he played well against Ballarat, we have a lot to look forward to with these kids,
Eade definitely has looked to the future, as much as some of us have given a good spray to the recruiting the last few years, watch it come to fruition all of a sudden.

[chef]

I was surprised Hooper didnt get a go Friday night too, he played well against Ballarat, we have a lot to look forward to with these kids,
Eade definitely has looked to the future, as much as some of us have given a good spray to the recruiting the last few years, watch it come to fruition all of a sudden.

This. Dalrymple seems to be filling Claytons shoe quite well.

[Remi Moses]

Clayton has lived off his great Brissie recruiting( given everything under the sun)He's done a good job, he'll get lauded for Gold Coast's picks. The jury is out on Darymple but he's had a good start IMO. Stephen Wells at Geelong has been brilliant, as has Derek Hyne at The Pies.

[Remi Moses]

Last night showed we have got to persevere with youth. Dalhaus and Barlow showed promise. Schofield has some way to go, especially when he picks a fight with Tippett.

I actually liked that last night. Just great to see some fight and spunk in the kid!
Subtle thing I noticed with Schoefield was he showed a little poise and seemed to have that extra bit of time with the ball in hand. Early Days but just an observation.

[Bulldog4life]

I actually liked that last night. Just great to see some fight and spunk in the kid!
Subtle thing I noticed with Schoefield was he showed a little poise and seemed to have that extra bit of time with the ball in hand. Early Days but just an observation.

Noticed that myself. A lot of first gamers and inexperienced players tend to kick hurriedly. He didn't.

[LostDoggy]

I was surprised Hooper didnt get a go Friday night too, he played well against Ballarat, we have a lot to look forward to with these kids,
Eade definitely has looked to the future, as much as some of us have given a good spray to the recruiting the last few years, watch it come to fruition all of a sudden.

From what i seen today, Hooper has a long way to go until he gets another senior game.

[LostDoggy]

I loved Dahlhaus last night, been watching him at some of the Williamstown games and was looking forward to seeing him in the red white and blue.

Went to Williamstown match today (Wanted to see how Lake went, hoping he would be back soon) and thought Markovic did well, Skinner, potentially, will be exciting, good to see Grant putting a bit of effort in and even Hill seemed to be trying a bit harder.
(Does anyone know what happened with Lakey?)

Edit: Just found a article on Lake going to hospital with eye injury.

[bornadog]

I loved Dahlhaus last night, been watching him at some of the Williamstown games and was looking forward to seeing him in the red white and blue.

Went to Williamstown match today (Wanted to see how Lake went, hoping he would be back soon) and thought Markovic did well, Skinner, potentially, will be exciting, good to see Grant putting a bit of effort in and even Hill seemed to be trying a bit harder.
(Does anyone know what happened with Lakey?)

Edit: Just found a article on Lake going to hospital with eye injury.

Skinner was named in the bests, how did he play?

[LostDoggy]

I thought Skinner did well, he runs hard at times, can be a great mark (and very exciting to watch), kicked a couple, missed a couple.

If he can "mature" with a bit more consistency of effort and accuracy, then he will be fantastic.

At the moment, it would appear, that the Hills', Grants', Williams',etc, come across as "Lazy", maybe the fitness, or the hunger just isn't there or maybe it's confidence?

I would like to persevere with Jones though, I think he would benefit from playing next to Hall to take the pressure off, (and some off field accuracy practice!)

[Mitcha]

Posted this in another thread but probably should be here.


Just some perspective on Liam Jones guys. We need to remember that he is only 20 years of age and due to the fact that Big Baz is not playing is copping the oppositions best defender every week and due to our lack of forward structure gets sucked up the ground far too often. He has the ability to take contested grabs up forward, a commodity we haven't had for while. Yes his kicking is not flash but this bloke is the one we MUST play for the rest of the season regardless of form for he is our future.

[LongWait]

Posted this in another thread but probably should be here.


Just some perspective on Liam Jones guys. We need to remember that he is only 20 years of age and due to the fact that Big Baz is not playing is copping the oppositions best defender every week and due to our lack of forward structure gets sucked up the ground far too often. He has the ability to take contested grabs up forward, a commodity we haven't had for while. Yes his kicking is not flash but this bloke is the one we MUST play for the rest of the season regardless of form for he is our future.

Totally agree!!!

[Jasper]

Agree with proviso, that what is best for Jones' development must occur. If that means Barry doesn't play he doesn't. If it means Liam is dropped he is dropped. Agree reckon he is our only overhead contested marking big fwd (Roughead is ruck, and Barry can take an overhead but has never been strong in this area).