Not Worth A Thread - Random Bulldog Discussion

[_M_16_]

The sub is history, 4 interchange players on the bench with rotations capped at 80 from next year. Gerard Healey's inside word after the coaches made some headway over a curry at Gil's house. dogwatch

80 is a big change and too tight. 100 interchange cap, and no sub player would have been perfect in my opinion

 

[Next Waiting]

80 is a big change and too tight. 100 interchange cap, and no sub player would have been perfect in my opinion

Might still be 100. Can't remember if that was his understanding or hope. He mentioned both 100 and 80. good news though. I hate the sub rule and endless rotations. Should allow fit and very skilled players to shine,esp in second halves and we might see a few more traditional stay at home forwards. Hope so.

 

[_M_16_]

Might still be 100. Can't remember if that was his understanding or hope. He mentioned both 100 and 80. good news though. I hate the sub rule and endless rotations. Should allow fit and very skilled players to shine,esp in second halves and we might see a few more traditional stay at home forwards. Hope so.

I could be wrong, but I thought the cap was at 120 at the moment? Hence I said they should trial with 100, before they drop it to 80

 

[StringyDog]

The less interchange the better for us, highly reduces impact type players and makes versatile players able to play multiple positions and slower endurance type players all the more important, which most of our side and recruiting has been based on, 80 good, make it 60 if they want, would be even better.

 

[_M_16_]

The less interchange the better for us, highly reduces impact type players and makes versatile players able to play multiple positions and slower endurance type players all the more important, which most of our side and recruiting has been based on, 80 good, make it 60 if they want, would be even better.

That would just slow the game right down and make them slow, low scoring defensive struggles that fans and experts whinge about and were trying to get rid of and avoid. There was no cap in the 80's and 90's when football was awesome to watch. Even those with good endurance will get tired in time. 60 is to low, but each to their own opinion

 

[Next Waiting]

I could be wrong, but I thought the cap was at 120 at the moment? Hence I said they should trial with 100, before they drop it to 80

I think you're right about the 120 currently. I was indulging in a bit of hyperbole with the endless bit. 120 is far too many in my view. Run 5m to Kick a goal and then run 100m to the bench for a rest is bollocks for example, annoys me greatly and is made possible by the number of allowable rotations. I was always found that many rotations detrimental in a lot ways with little to commend it. In my view, has contributed to higher velocity impacts over the course of the game because players don't get as tired. One of many unintended consequences perhaps. I welcome the reduction of rotations and scrapping of sub if indeed it turns out to be true.

 

[Easty]

That would just slow the game right down and make them slow, low scoring defensive struggles that fans and experts whinge about and were trying to get rid of and avoid. There was no cap in the 80's and 90's when football was awesome to watch. Even those with good endurance will get tired in time. 60 is to low, but each to their own opinion

There didn't have to be a cap in the 80s and 90s because back then there was no such thing as rotations.

 

[MYOB]

Couldn't see this posted anywhere else and thought this is as good as place as any to post it.

This is one in a series of short films.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

80 is a big change and too tight. 100 interchange cap, and no sub player would have been perfect in my opinion

I think too many people have bought the AFLPA's tripe about this issue.

There is no empirical data to support the assertion that 80 rotations is "too tight". That is purely conjecture. I disagree, but can at least admit that I have no direct statistical evidence to prove anything.

The available evidence is that our game historically not just survived, but in fact thrived, when there were far fewer than 80 interchange rotations per side per match.

 

[_M_16_]

I think too many people have bought the AFLPA's tripe about this issue.

There is no empirical data to support the assertion that 80 rotations is "too tight". That is purely conjecture. I disagree, but can at least admit that I have no direct statistical evidence to prove anything.

The available evidence is that our game historically not just survived, but in fact thrived, when there were far fewer than 80 interchange rotations per side per match.

Agree with you post, though I think my main point was that 120 to 80 is to big a jump to do in one season, they should trial 100 first, or work their way up first

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Agree with you post, though I think my main point was that 120 to 80 is to big a jump to do in one season, they should trial 100 first, or work their way up first

I'd be OK with that, makes some sense especially in an area without a lot of evidence to say exactly what would happen.

 

[toddys10]

I was just mucking around with this today to avoid doing any actual work. I like the red jumper, but together with red shorts I just think it's too much red. They would look a lot better with white shorts I reckon. Thoughts?

 

[SonOfScray]

I was just mucking around with this today to avoid doing any actual work. I like the red jumper, but together with red shorts I just think it's too much red. They would look a lot better with white shorts I reckon. Thoughts?

I hated the red strip at first glance a while back, but on the whole I have come to like it. Red shorts could get a run more frequently. White shorts look OK with it as well.

 

[SonOfScray]

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Thought I'd...errr, brighten everybody's day with some thoroughly depressing stats.

• We've averaged 122 effective kicks per game this season - 18th in the competition.
• We've allowed the opposition to win 59% of their possessions uncontested this season - 17th in the competition.
• We've averaged 11 fewer tackles per game than our opponent since round 17 - 18th in the competition.
• We've recorded a hitout-to-advantage rate of 24% since round 15 - 16th in the competition (perhaps part of the reason for Wilbur's omission???).
• We've averaged 12 fewer uncontested marks per game than our opposition this season - 17th in the competition.
• We've been outscored by 108 points from clearances this season - 14th in the competition.
• We've been outscored by 82 points from turnovers since round 17 - 15th in the competition.
• We've allowed the opposition to score a goal from 27% of inside 50s since round 17 - ranked 15th in the competition.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Thought I'd...errr, brighten everybody's day with some thoroughly depressing stats.

• We've averaged 122 effective kicks per game this season - 18th in the competition.
• We've allowed the opposition to win 59% of their possessions uncontested this season - 17th in the competition.
• We've averaged 11 fewer tackles per game than our opponent since round 17 - 18th in the competition.
• We've recorded a hitout-to-advantage rate of 24% since round 15 - 16th in the competition (perhaps part of the reason for Wilbur's omission???).
• We've averaged 12 fewer uncontested marks per game than our opposition this season - 17th in the competition.
• We've been outscored by 108 points from clearances this season - 14th in the competition.
• We've been outscored by 82 points from turnovers since round 17 - 15th in the competition.
• We've allowed the opposition to score a goal from 27% of inside 50s since round 17 - ranked 15th in the competition.

This is actually the most worrying stat out of all of those for me. I'd expect us to be better than that frm stoppages.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

This is actually the most worrying stat out of all of those for me. I'd expect us to be better than that frm stoppages.

It's not so much that we're poor at stoppages, just that we suck at transitioning the ball, which we all knew anyway, really. We're pretty highly placed with clearances and contested possession, we just can't score from stoppage situations. Partly because of awful ball movement, partly because of a poor forward line. At least that's my interpretation.

The second one is the worst for me. Allowing that much uncontested ball is, in its simplest form, a lack of work rate and defensive awareness (which I've been peddling for months about our midfield - glad I finally have some sort of support for it rather than just my eyes ). That's also supported by our lack of tackling. The second stat combined with the final stat shows the major reason why we're struggling to win games - we let the opposition get on the outside too much, and we have a back line that struggles to stop scoring.

 

[dogwatch]

Thought I'd...errr, brighten everybody's day with some thoroughly depressing stats.

• We've averaged 122 effective kicks per game this season - 18th in the competition.
• We've allowed the opposition to win 59% of their possessions uncontested this season - 17th in the competition.
• We've averaged 11 fewer tackles per game than our opponent since round 17 - 18th in the competition.
• We've recorded a hitout-to-advantage rate of 24% since round 15 - 16th in the competition (perhaps part of the reason for Wilbur's omission???).
• We've averaged 12 fewer uncontested marks per game than our opposition this season - 17th in the competition.
• We've been outscored by 108 points from clearances this season - 14th in the competition.
• We've been outscored by 82 points from turnovers since round 17 - 15th in the competition.
• We've allowed the opposition to score a goal from 27% of inside 50s since round 17 - ranked 15th in the competition.

Interesting stats Dannnnnnnnnn .

The mixture of damning stats "this season" and damning stats "since round xx" begs a few questions:

• What's been going on since about Rd 15-17? Cumulative fatigue in a senior side comprised of many players barely out of junior leagues? Too little support for overworked workhorses like Minson and Roughead?
• Are the all-season stats simply chronic list deficiencies while the "since rd 15" stats are merely temporal?
• Where were we placed in the "since rd 15" stats from rounds 1-14?
• No doubt there are also some good stats where we rate in the top 8 or 9, otherwise we'd be sitting 17th or 18th on the ladder. But how many of these good stats have also turned south since Rd15?

I'm not expecting incisive answers to all those questions but this is why I think it would be great to have a dedicated statistical and/or trend analysis thread that we could contribute to and discuss throughout the season.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Interesting stats Dannnnnnnnnn .

The mixture of damning stats "this season" and damning stats "since round xx" begs a few questions:

• What's been going on since about Rd 15-17? Cumulative fatigue in a senior side comprised of many players barely out of junior leagues? Too little support for overworked workhorses like Minson and Roughead?
• Are the all-season stats simply chronic list deficiencies while the "since rd 15" stats are merely temporal?
• Where were we placed in the "since rd 15" stats from rounds 1-14?
• No doubt there are also some good stats where we rate in the top 8 or 9, otherwise we'd be sitting 17th or 18th on the ladder. But how many of these good stats have also turned south since Rd15?

I'm not expecting incisive answers to all those questions but this is why I think it would be great to have a dedicated statistical and/or trend analysis thread that we could contribute to and discuss throughout the season.

I'm curious about a lot of this too DW. Unfortunately Champion Data don't make a lot of statistics readily available (so they can charge for access!) and I really don't get my hands on the more in-depth stats (past disposals, marks etc) until they release their Prospectus at the end of the year. Until then I tend to just post whatever stats I come across by sheer luck.

Would definitely get involved in a dedicated stats thread though. They aren't for everybody but I enjoy forming interpretations and listening to others'.

 

[stmookeyj]

*Sharpens knives in anticipation of knifing the coach based on those figures*.....

 

[Chicago1]

I warned you about posting pics that could scare young children and the elderly! Just stop it!

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Interesting stats Dannnnnnnnnn .

The mixture of damning stats "this season" and damning stats "since round xx" begs a few questions:

• What's been going on since about Rd 15-17? Cumulative fatigue in a senior side comprised of many players barely out of junior leagues? Too little support for overworked workhorses like Minson and Roughead?
• Are the all-season stats simply chronic list deficiencies while the "since rd 15" stats are merely temporal?
• Where were we placed in the "since rd 15" stats from rounds 1-14?
• No doubt there are also some good stats where we rate in the top 8 or 9, otherwise we'd be sitting 17th or 18th on the ladder. But how many of these good stats have also turned south since Rd15?

I'm not expecting incisive answers to all those questions but this is why I think it would be great to have a dedicated statistical and/or trend analysis thread that we could contribute to and discuss throughout the season.

Having a think about a few of the round 17 statistics DW - specifically these:

• We've averaged 11 fewer tackles per game than our opponent since round 17 - 18th in the competition.
• We've been outscored by 82 points from turnovers since round 17 - 15th in the competition.
• We've allowed the opposition to score a goal from 27% of inside 50s since round 17 - ranked 15th in the competition.

Something interesting to consider: Mitch Wallis was injured in round 18. While Mitch doesn't directly influence these stats (except perhaps the tackling) - especially the latter of the three - I wouldn't be surprised if these statistics are indirectly associated with his absence. My theory (while not backed by anything more than some abstract logic and from watching how differently our midfield operates without him) is that Wallis is an expert at what I call 'narrowing the ground' - he creates contested situations regularly, is an expert at creating spilled ball (thus disallowing ball on the outside), and plays predominantly through the corridor - that is, when he gets ahold of the ball it is either a handball (throw) to an overlap runner still close to the contest or a hurried kick through the middle. The overall result of this is a less open game. The logical consequences of losing his ability to close the game include:

• A more open game, resulting in less opportunities to tackle - tick.
• Less pressured disposal by the opposition due to operating in more space, allowing them to move the ball more quickly on the rebound - tick.
• Greater distribution forward, allowing the opposition to make more out of their forward entries - tick.

In my opinion, we haven't actually replaced Wallis with any sort of like-for-like player - none of the players that have had midfield time that have come in since round 17 (including Higgins and Cooney) are capable of playing that sort of role. Instead, we're playing more outside run, and therefore more of an open game style, which is exposing our poor skills, average scoring power, and extremely vulnerable key defensive posts. In short, our inability to have a player play Wallis' role since the end of our round 18 match is hurting us defensively.

Of course with any sort of abstract statistical analysis it's all subjective and none of this is a perfect explanation, but I see it as something that - combined with other factors - can actually help define our indifferent form.

 

[dogwatch]

Good analysis Dannn. I nearly posted last night that the main factor I could see was Wallis's absence (also Gia from Rd 14) but I couldn't see a strong line of logic to link them, so I left that thought dangling.

It could well be a key factor, although maybe not the only one.

 

[Billy ray]

Hi bulldogs fans. Didn't want to start a new thread, but when did you guys change your name from footscray to western? And is it short for western suburbs? Or is it just western?
Would you consider changing it back to footscray?
Or to west melbourne even? (There is a north melbourne after all)
Or something else?

Thanks and good luck against Sydney on Sunday.

 

[BallaratBulldog]

Hi bulldogs fans. Didn't want to start a new thread, but when did you guys change your name from footscray to western? And is it short for western suburbs? Or is it just western?
Would you consider changing it back to footscray?
Or to west melbourne even? (There is a north melbourne after all)
Or something else?

Thanks and good luck against Sydney on Sunday.

-1997 was the first year to have WB as the trading name, targeting the western Melbourne suburbs rather than solely Footscray and grow the baseline of our supporters. (but we are still Footscray as the name of the club behind the trading name)
-We would never change back I'd wager now after 14 odd years despite what some might want it too. Our VFL standalone is enjoying the Footscray name along with the revert of our older jumper in both AFL and VFL and ''Footscray End'' at our home games Ethiad. So this isn't like Brisbane disrespecting Fiztory.
-It won't change from Western Bulldogs either.