View Full Version : Looking at the dogs is our future!!
Calcium Man
10 Sep 2006, 20:41
Speed, speed and more speed.
That is the direction our side is going and it looks good. I think we will have a better forward structure in 2-3 years then they do now. With Shulz and Hughes
They do have West and Cross as brilliant ball winners, we have tuck and cogs who are good but not upto West and Cross. Hopefully Polo and Foley come on really well, could also put raines in that hard midfield type roll in 2-3 years. Quick Mids will be reasonably similar.
Defense??? Theres is solid but not great either, its still better then ours. I can see us getting the same sort of run that Griffen and McMann give with JON, White and Casserly. But can Thursty come on and who will support him??
Still love seeing the Dogs win and even better its against Collingwood. :D
tiger4life
10 Sep 2006, 21:07
love watching the doggies play and hopefully we can mirror it in the next few years. have shown at times throughout the season that we can play a very attacking run and carry style like them....with some success! :)
Darth_Tiger
10 Sep 2006, 22:18
with richmond not in the finals the next best thing is to see collingwood belted and knocked out. will be exciting times when all our pacy midfielders are getting regular senior games.
Our future gameplan is pretty much a hybrid of the way the Dogs and Crow's play.
Dogs are about 2 years ahead of us in development but are due to lose 3-4 of their experineced players over the next few years. They are definately candidates for older draft "top up" players.
Suprised the Dogs broke the Collingwood floodgates so easily in the end. Malthouse is stuck in a rut between the old dour "one/one" game and the need for speed. He tried a bit of both yesterday and was found lacking.
This years final series has so far really emphasised the need for speed especailly on the bigger Subiaco and MCG.
September bonecrushing action is now simply a fucntion of e=mc2, not old fashion body/body stuff.
12 quick guys that can be rotated out of the centre is now minimun.
CoggaRules
11 Sep 2006, 17:31
Our future gameplan is pretty much a hybrid of the way the Dogs and Crow's play.
Dogs are about 2 years ahead of us in development but are due to lose 3-4 of their experineced players over the next few years. They are definately candidates for older draft "top up" players.
Suprised the Dogs broke the Collingwood floodgates so easily in the end. Malthouse is stuck in a rut between the old dour "one/one" game and the need for speed. He tried a bit of both yesterday and was found lacking.
This years final series has so far really emphasised the need for speed especailly on the bigger Subiaco and MCG.
September bonecrushing action is now simply a fucntion of e=mc2, not old fashion body/body stuff.
12 quick guys that can be rotated out of the centre is now minimun.
dont know what games you were watching man, but from what i saw, crunching was the name of the game.
ANyway, it seems the tigers are on that same road that the bullies are on, in regards to speed. Its also apparent that all our youngsters do have the skill lacking in most of our "been there done that" players, disposal.
Now its all about building fitness into the youngsters to be able to run and run and run all day.
The huge plus that TW has with the tiges that he couldnt get happening at the bullies is that one nemesis now, height and strength, down back and in the forward line, that makes them susceptible to sides that dont rely on a Rocca type to develop within 20 years, is already at the tigers, developed and raring to go. When we do get to the level that the bullies are, in development, we will definetely be a more potent unit than them.
The other huge factor in the tiges elevating themselves into the September action is our coach and his cunningness. I would bet on him, one on one, against any other coach, with a similarly developed team, when it comes to conjuring the game plan that works, on the fly. ;)
dont know what games you were watching man, but from what i saw, crunching was the name of the game.
Yes but different type of crunching that comes from high speed collisions as opposed to body/body ala Jakovich v Carey, Voss v Buckley etc.
The other huge factor in the tiges elevating themselves into the September action is our coach and his cunningness. I would bet on him, one on one, against any other coach, with a similarly developed team, when it comes to conjuring the game plan that works, on the fly.
In terms of match day tactics ; TW is good, Roos is excellent, Eade is exceptional.
Calcium Man
11 Sep 2006, 18:26
The huge plus that TW has with the tiges that he couldnt get happening at the bullies is that one nemesis now, height and strength, down back and in the forward line, that makes them susceptible to sides that dont rely on a Rocca type to develop within 20 years, is already at the tigers, developed and raring to go. When we do get to the level that the bullies are, in development, we will definetely be a more potent unit than them.
We do look to have the height down forward with Shulz, Hughes and possibly one of Limbach or McGuane to come on. But down back we need somebody, the dogs have Harris and can throw grant back there. We have thursty who needs development and gasper who wont be there in 2 years. So we have to hope somebody steps up there.
I personally think west is the biggest difference between where they are and where we will be. West demands the best tagger/opponent week in week out. Not to mention Jono played in there as well. This allowed guys like Cooney, Cross, and ray to develop with less pressure. We have Johnson who is a tagger, tuck whos a good average midfielder. This means that deledio is already getting the heavier tags. Cogs could take the role but he has been killed by injury.
Dogs are about 2 years ahead of us in development but are due to lose 3-4 of their experineced players over the next few years. They are definately candidates for older draft "top up" players.
One thing we have to be careful of is getting impatient.
Daniel Giansiracusa (7th year)
Ryan Hargrave (7th year)
Mitch Hahn (7th year)
Robert Murphy (7th year)
Lindsay Gilbee (7th year)
Daniel Cross (6th year)
Jordan McMahon (6th year)
These 'young' Bulldogs have been around a lot longer than people think. They aren't 2 years ahead of us, more like 4.
The used just 5 under-23 players on the weekend ...
Cooney (3rd year), Griffen (2nd year), Wight (4th year), Ray (3rd year) and Minson (4th year).
You don't win with kids.
Calcium Man
11 Sep 2006, 18:41
One thing we have to be careful of is getting impatient.
Daniel Giansiracusa (7th year)
Ryan Hargrave (7th year)
Mitch Hahn (7th year)
Robert Murphy (7th year)
Lindsay Gilbee (7th year)
Daniel Cross (6th year)
Jordan McMahon (6th year)
The thing i like about that is that TW put that list together!! :thumbsu:
These 'young' Bulldogs have been around a lot longer than people think. They aren't 2 years ahead of us, more like 4.
Good point.
CoggaRules
11 Sep 2006, 20:21
One thing we have to be careful of is getting impatient.
Daniel Giansiracusa (7th year)
Ryan Hargrave (7th year)
Mitch Hahn (7th year)
Robert Murphy (7th year)
Lindsay Gilbee (7th year)
Daniel Cross (6th year)
Jordan McMahon (6th year)
These 'young' Bulldogs have been around a lot longer than people think. They aren't 2 years ahead of us, more like 4.
The used just 5 under-23 players on the weekend ...
Cooney (3rd year), Griffen (2nd year), Wight (4th year), Ray (3rd year) and Minson (4th year).
You don't win with kids.
naaa Weave, what you "obviously" omit in your summation of the time lines is that yes the bullies have those players and they have been around as long as you suggest, but they also had a Rhode around in that time too.
Geez man, i know you come across as an authority, or try to, but you tend to look ridiculous when you omit most important "facts".
Lets face it, Rhode didnt have any of the current list, capable of doing anything that they can do now, when he had them, did he? naaaa, no way jose.
You also tend to omit that there are about 4 or 5 players missing from their list that Eade has somehow coped with.
You dont win with kids? naaa man, you dont win with dud coaches that have kids with talent. ;)
Madtiger2006
11 Sep 2006, 21:31
I prefer to look at nice chicks than looking at dogs
Saturday@2
12 Sep 2006, 16:11
You dont win with kids? naaa man, you dont win with dud coaches that have kids with talent. ;)
How did the Bullies go last year with the supercoach Eade?