Review Dogs Lose to Demons by 28 - Rd 11, 2021

[LondonBulldog]

I'm not convinced. The Hawthorn v Collingwood game started at 3.20pm. Our game started at 4.40pm. We would have overtaken Hawthorn had they lost to Collingwood and we had beaten Freo.

The Hawks only won by one point. We were 9 pts down at QTR time and 11 pts down at HT. This is around the time the Hawks match was finishing.

We were already behind and had been totally outplayed up until that point.

We run out after half time knowing we couldn't go up or down. It definitely was a factor in the subconscious mind in my view. The players new they had to be "up" the following week. Busting their guts in the second half against Freo meant nothing.

 

[Charlie Bucket]

The media commentary and reviews of analysts agree with many of the comments on here...we may have shuffled a few players into different positions but we persisted all night with a game style that didn't resemble what we've been doing for the rest of the games this season. Melbourne stacked the corridor with players and we did what they wanted us to do...we went sideways, backwards and across the ground. The opposite of the way we've played other games this year.

Beveridge was outcoached. Pure and simple in my view. Bevo is a very good coach but so too is Goodwin and his team. On the weekend they adjusted their plan (by filling the corridor) to disrupt ours and it worked. Once more...we had no obvious plan B.

Mutt, your post is a little all over the shop. No offence.

Melbourne held field position through the middle of the ground, not allowing us to play too similar to how we play most weeks. We didn’t just decide not to play our natural game.
The players adjusted and played wider, due to the inability to create and find targets inboard.
We weren’t allowed the same transition we’d had most weeks prior, it wasn’t by choice.
This is what some love to claim as being PLAN B. Just there, you’ve contradicted your no plan b comment.

The players did the right thing by adjusting how we moved the ball. The unfortunate thing is that we absolutely butchered the execution. I can’t recall exact numbers but something like 70-80% of Melbourne’s scores were from turnovers. That’s horrendously bad. I can tell you from experience, moving the ball wider on a footy field is far easier than setting up transition through the guts. It’s far easier to butcher it through the guts than switching and moving the ball through wider space. Our turnovers were inexcusable.

Quick question... If the players had stuck to how we play most weeks, moving the ball central, and turned it over due to Melbourne’s field positioning, wouldn’t you think it’s pretty brain dead we didn’t try to avoid that space on transition? I’m astounded some posters think otherwise.

Pure and simpley, Melbourne set up really well, we adjusted accordingly, but butchered the execution.
Throw in a couple of areas where we lacked considerably ie intensity, field position (numbers to the outside of contests were woeful), composure and that’s our game in a nutshell.

Coach blaming has become an art form on here. Sometimes I think some fans are looking for any excuse to lay the boots in, but imo, this isn’t the game.

 

[BEaston]

Mutt, your post is a little all over the shop. No offence.

Melbourne held field position through the middle of the ground, not allowing us to play too similar to how we play most weeks. We didn’t just decide not to play our natural game.
The players adjusted and played wider, due to the inability to create and find targets inboard.
We weren’t allowed the same transition we’d had most weeks prior, it wasn’t by choice.
This is what some love to claim as being PLAN B. Just there, you’ve contradicted your no plan b comment.

The players did the right thing by adjusting how we moved the ball. The unfortunate thing is that we absolutely butchered the execution. I can’t recall exact numbers but something like 70-80% of Melbourne’s scores were from turnovers. That’s horrendously bad. I can tell you from experience, moving the ball wider on a footy field is far easier than setting up transition through the guts. It’s far easier to butcher it through the guts than switching and moving the ball through wider space. Our turnovers were inexcusable.

Quick question... If the players had stuck to how we play most weeks, moving the ball central, and turned it over due to Melbourne’s field positioning, wouldn’t you think it’s pretty brain dead we didn’t try to avoid that space on transition? I’m astounded some posters think otherwise.

Pure and simpley, Melbourne set up really well, we adjusted accordingly, but butchered the execution.
Throw in a couple of areas where we lacked considerably ie intensity, field position (numbers to the outside of contests were woeful), composure and that’s our game in a nutshell.

Coach blaming has become an art form on here. Sometimes I think some fans are looking for any excuse to lay the boots in, but imo, this isn’t the game.

Agree. I think the plan was sound, but failure in execution. The other option we could have turned to was more long down the line towards the boundary, try to force repeat stoppages. A much more negative plan. Handballing through the middle of the ground would have played into their hands as they were set up for it. With a full strength side in, I'd be more inclined to just go head to head and do that but I think we were a bit limited by personnel.

 

[Proffessor]

Coaches' votes. No surprises there.

Western Bulldogs v Melbourne

9 Max Gawn (MELB)
9 Clayton Oliver (MELB)
4 James Harmes (MELB)
4 Jake Lever (MELB)
3 Christian Petracca (MELB)
1 Tom McDonald (MELB)

No Bulldogs players get votes? We lost by 28 not 128, and 19 scoring shots to 22.

 

[Northernsoul74]

No Bulldogs players get votes? We lost by 28 not 128, and 19 scoring shots to 22.

Who would you honestly put in there ahead of those listed? We were crap. It happens.

 

[dogwatch]

No Bulldogs players get votes? We lost by 28 not 128, and 19 scoring shots to 22.

Yes I thought we might sneak in for a vote or two but even Bevo didn't think anyone deserved it.

 

[Mattdougie]

Yes I thought we might sneak in for a vote or two but even Bevo didn't think anyone deserved it.

We got slapped. Scoreboard flattered us imo

 

[Mattdougie]

The media commentary and reviews of analysts agree with many of the comments on here...we may have shuffled a few players into different positions but we persisted all night with a game style that didn't resemble what we've been doing for the rest of the games this season. Melbourne stacked the corridor with players and we did what they wanted us to do...we went sideways, backwards and across the ground. The opposite of the way we've played other games this year.

Beveridge was outcoached. Pure and simple in my view. Bevo is a very good coach but so too is Goodwin and his team. On the weekend they adjusted their plan (by filling the corridor) to disrupt ours and it worked. Once more...we had no obvious plan B.

Beveridge has never had a bad day in the coaching box according to some in here.

He had a shocker the other night and made no moves to adjust the way we were playing. At no stage did we even try to take the game on or run at the Dees. We just tried to switch and switch when it was so obvious that wouldn’t work. To do it for 1 qrt can be a wholly player issue, to do it for 3 is poor coaching. We have made in game switched this year but made none Friday night.

Yes the players had a bad night also but to suggest it was all on them shows a lack of indepth coaching knowledge by some that think they know more than they clearly do. I was stunned we didn’t try to take them on with our normal style of play at any single stage of the night after we started poorly. Even if it didn’t work it was better than crashing against numbers all night. We were turning it over regardless so why not try something else.

We apparently have these fantastic HB kicks and they were the worst contributors to how we play wide all night.

Amazing effort to only go down by 5 odd goals.

Continuing to put Lipinski in positions he was obviously out of his depth was another poor decision that hurt us. It was clear early he was

 

[Charlie Bucket]

Agree. I think the plan was sound, but failure in execution. The other option we could have turned to was more long down the line towards the boundary, try to force repeat stoppages. A much more negative plan. Handballing through the middle of the ground would have played into their hands as they were set up for it. With a full strength side in, I'd be more inclined to just go head to head and do that but I think we were a bit limited by personnel.

The long down the line is an interesting point. Melbourne’s field position was good, but it still allowed us to move the ball wide rather than long down the line (most of the time, which would be the least desirable option). We still had plenty of wiggle room but just couldn’t nail the basics.
Can understand why the coaches were so disappointed.

 

[Proffessor]

Who would you honestly put in there ahead of those listed? We were crap. It happens.

It's lazy analysis by both coaches. We had 7 out of the top 8 possession getters.
The game results impact the voting outcomes more than they should.

 

[Northernsoul74]

It's lazy analysis by both coaches. We had 7 out of the top 8 possession getters.
The game results impact the voting outcomes more than they should.

You haven’t answered the question. Stats aren’t everything. Just going by number of possessions is also lazy analysis.

 

[maddog37]

So MD thinks the coaching errors were that they didn’t instruct the players to “take them on” at any stage of the night.

That’s straight out of the sh*t coach/club play book.
Bottom 6 team, down by 50 at 3qtr time. fu** it, just take them on boys. Nothing to lose here. Hilarious stuff MD.

This is how I know you were involved with sh*t clubs, in the shittest division of the shittest league in Melbourne.
The basic footballing methods are all you know.

There’s no doubt you’ll cry to the mods to have this post taken down, as you do with all the others. Hopefully you’ll be less a coward and respond directly this time instead.

Edit: No offence to those involved in the above mentioned leagues.

This post adds nothing. Reported.

 

[Mutt]

Mutt, your post is a little all over the shop. No offence.

Melbourne held field position through the middle of the ground, not allowing us to play too similar to how we play most weeks. We didn’t just decide not to play our natural game.
The players adjusted and played wider, due to the inability to create and find targets inboard.
We weren’t allowed the same transition we’d had most weeks prior, it wasn’t by choice.
This is what some love to claim as being PLAN B. Just there, you’ve contradicted your no plan b comment.

The players did the right thing by adjusting how we moved the ball. The unfortunate thing is that we absolutely butchered the execution. I can’t recall exact numbers but something like 70-80% of Melbourne’s scores were from turnovers. That’s horrendously bad. I can tell you from experience, moving the ball wider on a footy field is far easier than setting up transition through the guts. It’s far easier to butcher it through the guts than switching and moving the ball through wider space. Our turnovers were inexcusable.

Quick question... If the players had stuck to how we play most weeks, moving the ball central, and turned it over due to Melbourne’s field positioning, wouldn’t you think it’s pretty brain dead we didn’t try to avoid that space on transition? I’m astounded some posters think otherwise.

Pure and simpley, Melbourne set up really well, we adjusted accordingly, but butchered the execution.
Throw in a couple of areas where we lacked considerably ie intensity, field position (numbers to the outside of contests were woeful), composure and that’s our game in a nutshell.

Coach blaming has become an art form on here. Sometimes I think some fans are looking for any excuse to lay the boots in, but imo, this isn’t the game.

What do you mean "no offense"? Of course you offended by describing my post as "a little all over the shop" and then concluding by stating that "some fans are looking for any excuse to lay the boots in". By all means make your point... but don't patronise me.

 

[Charlie Bucket]

What do you mean "no offense"? Of course you offended by describing my post as "a little all over the shop" and then concluding by stating that "some fans are looking for any excuse to lay the boots in". By all means make your point... but don't patronise me.

“some fans” Me and you both know you aren’t one of the regulars. I was pointing out that what you had written happens to be what is regurgitated on a regular in here.

Plus I also pointed out a bit of a double standard. If you take offence to that, all good. We can’t be chummy on here all of the time, Mutt

 

[Next Waiting]

Yes I thought we might sneak in for a vote or two but even Bevo didn't think anyone deserved it.

Western Bulldogs v Melbourne

9 Max Gawn (MELB)
9 Clayton Oliver (MELB)
4 James Harmes (MELB)
4 Jake Lever (MELB)
3 Christian Petracca (MELB)
1 Tom McDonald (MELB)

What's your theory on how these votes were distributed? Logically, the way a coach votes would lend itself to where they think the game was won and/or lost.

I think it panned out like this

Bevo
5 Oliver
4 Gawn
3 Petracca
2 Harmes
1 Lever

Goodwin
5 Gawn
4 Oliver
3 Lever
2 Harmes
1 McDonald

Some subsequent supporting evidence is Bevo's lamenting a lack of support for Libba. The number of tackles and defensive gaps that Oliver and Petracca were able to waltz through at CBs esp and stoppages was disappointing. Senior players were culpable as were less experienced players. Gawn was dominant but his targets had a ride that was far too easy. We got beaten at the coal face, offensively and especially defensively. Clean getaways had a cumulative effect. Lipi was particularly poor at Cbs defensively and in contests. Sweet was at times caught out with defensive positioning but he's young and inexperienced and up against the best ruckman going around who knows his targets well. I can accept that.

I understand the arguments that maybe we could have done this or done that from the back 6 working their way back up the ground. I think that misses the mark in this instance. Our team has to dominate the clearances, defensively and offensively to win against the better teams. Some of the players that are missing will provide better positional, get out and contested options for the back 6 to pick out when they return which will in turn broaden the options available to them (the back 6). But ultimately, win the coalface or lose.

 

[stefoid]

Mutt, your post is a little all over the shop. No offence.

Melbourne held field position through the middle of the ground, not allowing us to play too similar to how we play most weeks. We didn’t just decide not to play our natural game.
The players adjusted and played wider, due to the inability to create and find targets inboard.
We weren’t allowed the same transition we’d had most weeks prior, it wasn’t by choice.
This is what some love to claim as being PLAN B. Just there, you’ve contradicted your no plan b comment.

The players did the right thing by adjusting how we moved the ball. The unfortunate thing is that we absolutely butchered the execution. I can’t recall exact numbers but something like 70-80% of Melbourne’s scores were from turnovers. That’s horrendously bad. I can tell you from experience, moving the ball wider on a footy field is far easier than setting up transition through the guts. It’s far easier to butcher it through the guts than switching and moving the ball through wider space. Our turnovers were inexcusable.

Quick question... If the players had stuck to how we play most weeks, moving the ball central, and turned it over due to Melbourne’s field positioning, wouldn’t you think it’s pretty brain dead we didn’t try to avoid that space on transition? I’m astounded some posters think otherwise.

Pure and simpley, Melbourne set up really well, we adjusted accordingly, but butchered the execution.
Throw in a couple of areas where we lacked considerably ie intensity, field position (numbers to the outside of contests were woeful), composure and that’s our game in a nutshell.

Coach blaming has become an art form on here. Sometimes I think some fans are looking for any excuse to lay the boots in, but imo, this isn’t the game.

We scored 59 pts. Not good enough.
The turnovers were annoying, but leaving them out, there was no confidence that we could kick a winning score. Melbourne always felt in control.

If you take a long time moving the ball into the F50, the opposition will already be there. So much harder to score. I mean, we had more inside 50s, but they were poor quality because of the long time they too to get there.

You got to mix it up. Go fast sometimes and slow sometimes. Go long over the back sometimes. keep them guessing.
Repeatedly and ponderously doing the 'alert, alert, we are now switching the ball to the opposite side of the ground...' didnt work.

fun fact, we had 76 turnovers and melbourne had 70. So they wernt exactly flawless either, but what they did do on occasion was get the ball down their end faster, and as a result their efficiency inside 50 was way better and they kicked a bigger score. From less kicks and less inside 50s.

I think the 1st quarter turnovers were unfortunate not only because of the melbourne goals but it also destroyed our risk taking for the rest of the match and from that point we were toast.

 

[dogwatch]

Western Bulldogs v Melbourne

9 Max Gawn (MELB)
9 Clayton Oliver (MELB)
4 James Harmes (MELB)
4 Jake Lever (MELB)
3 Christian Petracca (MELB)
1 Tom McDonald (MELB)

What's your theory on how these votes were distributed? Logically, the way a coach votes would lend itself to where they think the game was won and/or lost.

I think it panned out like this

Bevo
5 Oliver
4 Gawn
3 Petracca
2 Harmes
1 Lever

Goodwin
5 Gawn
4 Oliver
3 Lever
2 Harmes
1 McDonald

Some subsequent supporting evidence is Bevo's lamenting a lack of support for Libba. The number of tackles and defensive gaps that Oliver and Petracca were able to waltz through at CBs esp and stoppages was disappointing. Senior players were culpable as were less experienced players. Gawn was dominant but his targets had a ride that was far too easy. We got beaten at the coal face, offensively and especially defensively. Clean getaways had a cumulative effect. Lipi was particularly poor at Cbs defensively and in contests. Sweet was at times caught out with defensive positioning but he's young and inexperienced and up against the best ruckman going around who knows his targets well. I can accept that.

I understand the arguments that maybe we could have done this or done that from the back 6 working their way back up the ground. I think that misses the mark in this instance. Our team has to dominate the clearances, defensively and offensively to win against the better teams. Some of the players that are missing will provide better positional, get out and contested options for the back 6 to pick out when they return which will in turn broaden the options available to them (the back 6). But ultimately, win the coalface or lose.

The fact that Bevo thought there wasn't enough tackling pressure might mean the opposite of what you suggest. He might think they had an easy ride because of the lack of defensive pressure and therefore weren't that good!

The breakdown you've suggested certainly seems plausible. There are a few possible combinations. One thing is clear though: both coaches gave votes to Gawn, Oliver, Harmes and Lever. Petracca and McDonald only got votes from one coach each (and it had to be a different coach for each).

 

[Mattdougie]

We scored 59 pts. Not good enough.
The turnovers were annoying, but leaving them out, there was no confidence that we could kick a winning score. Melbourne always felt in control.

If you take a long time moving the ball into the F50, the opposition will already be there. So much harder to score.

You got to mix it up. Go fast sometimes and slow sometimes. Go long over the back sometimes. keep them guessing.
Repeatedly and ponderously doing the 'alert, alert, we are now switching the ball to the opposite side of the ground...' didnt work.

fun fact, we had 76 turnovers and melbourne had 70. So they wernt exactly flawless either, but what they did do on occasion was get the ball down their end faster, and as a result their efficiency inside 50 was way better and they kicked a bigger score.

I think the 1st quarter turnovers were unfortunate not only because of the melbourne goals but it also destroyed our risk taking for the rest of the match and from that point we were toast.

We went so wide time and time again it’s locked us into entries on one side of the ground and May and Lever could just jog from side to side and cover.

The week before Adelaide also got pushed wide but didn’t go out as wide as we did, they tried to stay in as close to the centre squares lines as they could and therefore they had the ability to hit the open side of the ground if a target opened and therefore Lever and May had far more ground to cover. They also hit a lot of shorter balls that May and Lever also couldn’t get to.

We were so predictable all night.

We went side to side all night for 4 qrts and never looked like pinching the game. It was 4 qrts of footy on the Demons terms.

After the turnovers early players clearly went into their shells and stoped trying to hit those targets we have all year which is normal but for the coaching panel to not instruct them to be confident and try again was an error in my opinion. I doubt they did because I doubt very much out players would ignore Bevs instructions

 

[dogwatch]

We scored 59 pts. Not good enough.
The turnovers were annoying, but leaving them out, there was no confidence that we could kick a winning score. Melbourne always felt in control.

If you take a long time moving the ball into the F50, the opposition will already be there. So much harder to score. I mean, we had more inside 50s, but they were poor quality because of the long time they too to get there.

You got to mix it up. Go fast sometimes and slow sometimes. Go long over the back sometimes. keep them guessing.
Repeatedly and ponderously doing the 'alert, alert, we are now switching the ball to the opposite side of the ground...' didnt work.

fun fact, we had 76 turnovers and melbourne had 70. So they wernt exactly flawless either, but what they did do on occasion was get the ball down their end faster, and as a result their efficiency inside 50 was way better and they kicked a bigger score. From less kicks and less inside 50s.

I think the 1st quarter turnovers were unfortunate not only because of the melbourne goals but it also destroyed our risk taking for the rest of the match and from that point we were toast.

I agree it felt like Melbourne were always in control but it felt like that more because we just weren't able to peg back that 27 point deficit we gifted them in the first quarter. It seldom went out beyond that.

Most people's memories of the game (including those in the media) will probably be that Melbourne did it easily. If that's how it gets reported so be it.

However I think we held them fairly well for long periods of the game despite being a bit off form on the night. They were good enough not to give us too much of a sniff. I think we got to within about 15 points at one stage and held sway for lengthy periods but just couldn't get the continuity of scoring that we needed.

It's all academic now of course. I've moved on and hope the players have too (but are hungry for some wins).

 

[Unorth]

Dees just left Cordy on his own in the pocket, almost willing the Dogs to kick it to him.

I was thinking about that, and had a quick look. Cordy actually set a new career high for kicks in a game - 15. His career per game average is just under 7.

Obviously completely by Melbourne design. But it equally could have been Lewis Young or Gardner put in that position, and we wouldn't have been any better off.

Yet another example of how magnificent having two Alex Keaths would be.

 

[WallyStringhaus]

Interesting that Bevo mentioned today that we didn't train as well as we had been last week leading into the game.

What i love about this sport is that there is no hiding, you get what you deserve. If the players as a collective dropped their intensity at training and started drinking their own bathwater, it only took a quarter of footy to get snapped back to reality.

We got what we deserved and it will hold us in good stead moving forward.

 

[Next Waiting]

The fact that Bevo thought there wasn't enough tackling pressure might mean the opposite of what you suggest. He might think they had an easy ride because of the lack of defensive pressure and therefore weren't that good!

The breakdown you've suggested certainly seems plausible. There are a few possible combinations. One thing is clear though: both coaches gave votes to Gawn, Oliver, Harmes and Lever. Petracca and McDonald only got votes from one coach each (and it had to be a different coach for each).

Sorry DW, it might be the vaccine, but I'm trying to get my head around this.

I'm suggesting that our lack of defensive pressure around clearances (especially CB's) was in fact the primary reason we lost. Everything else was symptomatic of a primary cause. 3 of our 5 "outs" were quick ones (Treloar, VDM and Scott) which compounded our available options from exiting D50 and the other 2 (Martin and Dunkley) are good defensive stoppage players who were likely to stem the bleeding in the first place.

The end result of not having Martin, Dunkley and Treloar (also defensively capable as well as being able to burst from stoppages) available as options against Gawn, Oliver, Petracca was that G, O and P had match influencing games and we lost because of it and will continue to lose games against that quality of midfield if we can't remedy the defensive aspect of clearances in the interim. With a full compliment to choose from I don't believe it would have panned out that way. We didn't have them so it did but I'd be optimistic later in the year.

Are we miles apart?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

There's more accuracy in astrology than trying to figure out the reasoning behind one coach or the other coach giving one player or the other player coaches' votes. People can largely agree with their assessment of the game in this thread then give wildly different Ching votes, for example, there's no explanation to it, it's just two humans assessing things differently.

If you got people to predict who gave what votes then deanonymised them I bet you wouldn't be able to separate people's "educated assessments" for press-conferences or anything with just splitting the votes up randomly.

Except for Brad Scott not giving a clear BOG Bont a 5 out of spite, which was pretty funny.

 

[Next Waiting]

There's more accuracy in astrology than trying to figure out the reasoning behind one coach or the other coach giving one player or the other player coaches' votes. People can largely agree with their assessment of the game in this thread then give wildly different Ching votes, for example, there's no explanation to it, it's just two humans assessing things differently.

Except for Brad Scott not giving a clear BOG Bont a 5 out of spite, which was pretty funny.

I can cop people ridiculing things, even players, as much as the next bloke but astrology.....there's a line

 

[Proffessor]

You haven’t answered the question. Stats aren’t everything. Just going by number of possessions is also lazy analysis.

They aren't everything but they are something, as opposed to just saying we were crap, which apparently passes for a comprehensive assessment so long as you agree with it.

The way I see it, on Friday night we were beaten by a side that came with a plan and worked better as a unit on the night, it doesn't mean they had the best individuals. In fact I would argue that we had too many players at the poor end of the spectrum rather than not enough at the top end. Gawn and Oliver were standouts for them and clearly deserved their votes, after that it was a bit of a lottery and I think should have included some Bulldog players if the coaches were looking at the game more objectively. Despite being the focus of negative attention players like Bontempelli and Macrae still worked their buts off, got lots of possession and generated drive for their team. Jake Lever certainly played his role in Melbourne's win but its worth considering Zaine Cordy had the same number of possessions and took more marks.