Analysis At what point is it the coaches?

[bobs head soup]

I like the idea of a new experienced senior assistant / forwards coaching role. You would like to think the opportunity to come in and mould Naughton, JUH, Weightman, VDM (I think he’ll still play mostly forward in 2021/22) into a cohesive structure would be relatively appealing on the spectrum of assistant coaching roles and we could get someone decent.

In itself that makes perfect sense, but how do we let go of people the calibre of Joel Corey, Dale Morris and Ben Graham out of supposed necessity and then bring in new people?

 

[BEaston]

The problem isn't our list though, Lachy.

We have had what should have been a top 4 or at least top 6 list every season since 2016. Our problem is the continued mediocre management of that list.

Not so bad that we bottom out, just bad enough that we continue to piss away promising seasons.

Over the 2019/20 preseason it was hard to see how we could fail to make the top 6 with the list we had, but we found a way.

We keep picking Luke's personal development projects, rather than our best 22.

We do it year after year. When will it stop?

We need to bring someone into the football department who will save Luke from himself.

I wouldn't mind seeing Monty back, he seems to have had a big impact at Port, and he was with us in 2016.
I doubt he would comeback or that Luke would have him but we need someone like him who will stand up at selection committee meetings and push back at some of the stupid sh*t we see week after week, year after year.

If we got those extra players you suggest, chances are either we wouldn't pick them in the seniors, or alternatively would drop other deserving senior players to make sure we accommodate the development projects and still end up back where we started.

Who do you put us over, out of:
Cats
Port
Richmond
Pies
Port
GWS
WC
?

All of them have our list covered for ability, balance, depth, experience and hardness and any other criteria you want to think of (except of course, we have GWS covered for heart, cos they're all pea hearts)

Even Saints have a slightly more balanced and experienced list than us after they plugged lots of their holes last year.

It's easy to say that we should be automatically top 4 or top 6 but I don't think it fits reality.

We finished about where we should IMO. Our effort was more consistent this year, with no losses to cellar dwellars unlike last year (I made a post about this somewhere already).

Having said that, I think another preseason for the younger players as well as fixing some list holes could go a long way to putting us into that top echelon.

Personally I don't think a list can be considered top 4 or 6 on paper when we have at least 3 gaping holes in our best 22.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

In itself that makes perfect sense, but how do we let go of people the calibre of Joel Corey, Dale Morris and Ben Graham out of supposed necessity and then bring in new people?

Corey seems to have been well appreciated by the players, Ben Graham wasn’t a coach - IIRC, not sure of his role - and great bloke though Dale is, his value to the team in a coaching capacity so far is pretty much zero.

I’d like to see someone like Luke Hodge, who Bevo has previously worked alongside, and knows how football has evolved, come in in some capacity. His comments during our games indicate he has a handle on our set up.

What do Chris Grant and Chris Maple actually DO?

 

[Proffessor]

Who to you put us over out of:
Cats
Port
Richmond
Pies
Port
GWS
WC

All of them have our list covered for ability, balance, depth, experience and hardness and any other criteria you want to think of (except of course, we have GWS covered for heart, cos they're all pea hearts)

Even Saints have a slightly more balanced and experienced list than us after they plugged lots of their holes last year.

It's easy to say that we should be automatically top 4 or top 6 but I don't think it fits reality.

We finished about where we should IMO. Our effort was more consistent this year, with no losses to cellar dwellars unlike last year (I made a post about this somewhere already).

Having said that, I think another preseason for the younger players as well as fixing some list holes could go a long way to putting us into that top echelon.

Personally I don't think a list can be considered top 4 or 6 on paper when we have at least 3 gaping holes in our best 22.

I disagree completely.

I would have happily chosen our list above all of them at the start of the season, and would suggest that we would still be the equal of any of them now. The problem is not our list it's how we employed it.

What do you think are our 'gaping holes'?

Not enough ruckman?
We had a back up but he was not selected, even once, following a handy preseason performance and a solid season in the VFL last year.

Not enough experience? We had plenty in reserve, we just chose not to use it.

No forwards? Plenty of goal kicking experience fit and waiting to go that was just not favoured by the selection committee.

We finished in the finals despite playing a large number of games with unbalanced teams, which gave the impression of an unbalanced list, but the situation was by choice not necessity.

 

[Yojimbo]

The problem is not our list it's how we employed it.

Technically prof they are all employed are they not ?

 

[mackem]

It gets me that people say that Bevo has only "yes men" as his assistant coaches. If this is the case them surely the public would have heard about it by now. As we are not in the inner sanctum it's all just suppostion.

 

[BEaston]

I disagree completely.

I would have happily chosen our list above all of them at the start of the season, and would suggest that we would still be the equal of any of them now. The problem is not our list it's how we employed it.

What do you think are our 'gaping holes'?

Not enough ruckman?
We had a back up but he was not selected, even once, following a handy preseason performance and a solid season in the VFL last year.

Not enough experience? We had plenty in reserve, we just chose not to use it.

No forwards? Plenty of goal kicking experience fit and waiting to go that was just not favoured by the selection committee.

We finished in the finals despite playing a large number of games with unbalanced teams, which gave the impression of an unbalanced list, but the situation was by choice not necessity.

Haha well if you think our lists are equal or better than all of those, then.. yeah. Not going to argue that point.

gaping holes:
#1 ruckman
#1 KPD
Wing
Apart from Wallis and Naughton, our whole forwardline basically.

That's just best 22, let alone depth where we are severely lacking

The only players with experience that weren't automatic selections were dickson, trengove and lloyd. 2 of which showed they're pretty much done. Trengove isn't making a difference to our season one bit.

We did not have "plenty" of experience in reserve at all. 3 players only, two of whom are cooked as we all witnessed.
We did not have "plenty" of goalkicking available that wasn't played. Lloyd had multiple chances and did nothing, Dickson is retiring which says what you need to know about him.

We had a backup ruckman... key word backup. Sweet is nowhere near it. I know people think he's some great white hope but he's completely average. I almost just wanted us to play him so we could put that argument to bed. We were never going to drop English and its so unlikely we'd play them both.

Experience, we're continually putting out teams with 2 year less experience than the oppo. Even with all dickson, trengove and lloyd in the team we're still likely less experienced week to week (while also putting out a weaker side).

 

[Yojimbo]

It gets me that people say that Bevo has only "yes men" as his assistant coaches. If this is the case them surely the public would have heard about it by now. As we are not in the inner sanctum it's all just suppostion.

The reality is you want them to be on the same page and behind the same philosophy and if they are not no one would ever know and they would be quickly moved on with little fuss.

 

[mackem]

The reality is you want them to be on the same page and behind the same philosophy and if they are not no one would ever know and they would be quickly moved on with little fuss.

All it takes is someone asking why you left and eventually it would come out that he lost his position because he didn't agree to everything the coach says.

 

[Mattdougie]

All it takes is someone asking why you left and eventually it would come out that he lost his position because he didn't agree to everything the coach says.

Coaches don’t do that, it burns any future opportunities

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

All it takes is someone asking why you left and eventually it would come out that he lost his position because he didn't agree to everything the coach says.

I would think you wouldn't be hired in the first place without being aware of the head coach's philosophy and aims. And you would have to convince them that you have the ability to help the coach/club achieve those aims. If after a few years there's a divergence in the vision or relationship you move on. I'm sure it happens all the time.

 

[mackem]

I would think you wouldn't be hired in the first place without being aware of the head coach's philosophy and aims. And you would have to convince them that you have the ability to help the coach/club achieve those aims. If after a few years there's a divergence in the vision or relationship you move on. I'm sure it happens all the time.

That I understand but the inference on here is that Bevo has only yes men and doesn't listen to others point of view regarding selections.

This is inferring that Bevo says this is the team regardless of your opinions.

 

[Braybrook Son]

Hansen has been there how long? How’s our forward line going? He should’ve been the first outed

 

[bobs head soup]

Steve Johnson is apparently available. I reckon he might be able to impart a little forward craft that may be a point of difference from Hansen's offerings.

 

[Proffessor]

Haha well if you think our lists are equal or better than all of those, then.. yeah. Not going to argue that point.

gaping holes:
#1 ruckman
#1 KPD
Wing
Apart from Wallis and Naughton, our whole forwardline basically.

That's just best 22, let alone depth where we are severely lacking

The only players with experience that weren't automatic selections were dickson, trengove and lloyd. 2 of which showed they're pretty much done. Trengove isn't making a difference to our season one bit.

We did not have "plenty" of experience in reserve at all. 3 players only, two of whom are cooked as we all witnessed.
We did not have "plenty" of goalkicking available that wasn't played. Lloyd had multiple chances and did nothing, Dickson is retiring which says what you need to know about him.

We had a backup ruckman... key word backup. Sweet is nowhere near it. I know people think he's some great white hope but he's completely average. I almost just wanted us to play him so we could put that argument to bed. We were never going to drop English and its so unlikely we'd play them both.

Experience, we're continually putting out teams with 2 year less experience than the oppo. Even with all dickson, trengove and lloyd in the team we're still likely less experienced week to week (while also putting out a weaker side).

"Not going to argue the point", then proceed to argue the point.

Firstly every team and playing list has strengths and weaknesses, but also adapt their game plans accordingly. For instance, Richmond are currently vulnerable against teams with strong marking forwards, and have been for the last few seasons but try to win the midfield battle so the weakness doesn't get exploited too often.

Our #1 Ruckman is not a even a hole, let alone a gaping one. Tim English has his strengths and weaknesses, the fact we chose to not give him a back up just exposed his weaknesses a bit more than normal, but that was clearly a tactical decision not a list issue.

#1 and #2 KPD are also in reasonably good shape with Cordy and Keath. Even though I think we should have kept Fletcher Roberts, clearly the plan was for any 3rd opposition tall forwards to be covered by our medium sized leaping defenders like Wood, Williams or even Crozier, and if a genuine 3rd tall defender was required then Trengove was always an #3 KPD as well as a back up ruck option. Unfortunately MC suddenly decided they preferred the poorly performed development project Ryan Gardner as a permanent #3 tall, and this caused a lot of our defensive problems, especially when Cordy got injured.

I hate the term 'cooked'. In a hard running collision sport like AFL, some players do wear out or slow down a bit as they approach retirement but many players don't have a lot of pace to start with, plus everyone looks slower when you are losing and the ball isn't coming to you or faster when you're winning and the ball keeps finding you.

A lot of our team balance issues are created by fitting around favoured players and their positions regardless of whether they really fit there or not. Caleb Daniel really doesn't fit well in defence, he makes us too short back there, so the extra tall/Gardner response could arguably be to compensate for Daniel. Similarly Bruce didn't fit very well beside Naughton and Wallis but we wouldn't drop him or shift him and that led to other issues. Dale, Dickson, Cavarra, Greene, etc. were all options that could have been used in the forward line late in the season but weren't, partially because we were so intent on playing two full forwards.

Wing? Are you serious, Lachie Hunter is in the top few wingmen in the comp, and as we play a team overloaded with midfielders that rotate through the wings and forward line, we don't necessarily have room for another specialist wing in the side. We looked crap on the wings and half forward late in the season partially because we were playing defenders there who were pushed out for Gardner but still included in preference to the natural forward options. Roarke Smith another Beveridge project was also tried as a wing/defensive forward option but like Gardner struggled to repay the coach's faith. In another weird response we even shifted Hunter to more of a half forward role rather than his natural wing.

You say Sweet is nowhere near it, which suggests that perhaps you listened to the press conferences more than saw him in action. Sweet looked pretty comfortable at senior level in the preseason, and if he is nowhere near it then, Gardner and Roarke Smith would be so far out they would be struggling to get satellite reception.

With all that being said, we still have an awesome midfield and a lot of good solid players across the field. We also had several players who have proven they can play at the level which couldn't get regular games in the senior side, plus some talent coming through, which suggests our depth is reasonable.

So things aren't too bad and we aren't too far away from contending again, but only if we address the right problems. My main concern is based on recent history we are more likely to keep trying to fix things that weren't necessarily broken and overlook some obvious areas for adjustment.

 

[BEaston]

"Not going to argue the point", then proceed to argue the point.

Firstly every team and playing list has strengths and weaknesses, but also adapt their game plans accordingly. For instance, Richmond are currently vulnerable against teams with strong marking forwards, and have been for the last few seasons but try to win the midfield battle so the weakness doesn't get exploited too often.

Our #1 Ruckman is not a even a hole, let alone a gaping one. Tim English has his strengths and weaknesses, the fact we chose to not give him a back up just exposed his weaknesses a bit more than normal, but that was clearly a tactical decision not a list issue.

#1 and #2 KPD are also in reasonably good shape with Cordy and Keath. Even though I think we should have kept Fletcher Roberts, clearly the plan was for any 3rd opposition tall forwards to be covered by our medium sized leaping defenders like Wood, Williams or even Crozier, and if a genuine 3rd tall defender was required then Trengove was always an #3 KPD as well as a back up ruck option. Unfortunately MC suddenly decided they preferred the poorly performed development project Ryan Gardner as a permanent #3 tall, and this caused a lot of our defensive problems, especially when Cordy got injured.

I hate the term 'cooked'. In a hard running collision sport like AFL, some players do wear out or slow down a bit as they approach retirement but many players don't have a lot of pace to start with, plus everyone looks slower when you are losing and the ball isn't coming to you or faster when you're winning and the ball keeps finding you.

A lot of our team balance issues are created by fitting around favoured players and their positions regardless of whether they really fit there or not. Caleb Daniel really doesn't fit well in defence, he makes us too short back there, so the extra tall/Gardner response could arguably be to compensate for Daniel. Similarly Bruce didn't fit very well beside Naughton and Wallis but we wouldn't drop him or shift him and that led to other issues. Dale, Dickson, Cavarra, Greene, etc. were all options that could have been used in the forward line late in the season but weren't, partially because we were so intent on playing two full forwards.

Wing? Are you serious, Lachie Hunter is in the top few wingmen in the comp, and as we play a team overloaded with midfielders that rotate through the wings and forward line, we don't necessarily have room for another specialist wing in the side. We looked crap on the wings and half forward late in the season partially because we were playing defenders there who were pushed out for Gardner but still included in preference to the natural forward options. Roarke Smith another Beveridge project was also tried as a wing/defensive forward option but like Gardner struggled to repay the coach's faith. In another weird response we even shifted Hunter to more of a half forward role rather than his natural wing.

You say Sweet is nowhere near it, which suggests that perhaps you listened to the press conferences more than saw him in action. Sweet looked pretty comfortable at senior level in the preseason, and if he is nowhere near it then, Gardner and Roarke Smith would be so far out they would be struggling to get satellite reception.

With all that being said, we still have an awesome midfield and a lot of good solid players across the field. We also had several players who have proven they can play at the level which couldn't get regular games in the senior side, plus some talent coming through, which suggests our depth is reasonable.

So things aren't too bad and we aren't too far away from contending again, but only if we address the right problems. My main concern is based on recent history we are more likely to keep trying to fix things that weren't necessarily broken and overlook some obvious areas for adjustment.

I said I wasn't going to argue the point on us compared to the other teams' lists I mentioned. That's why I specifically said "that point" in my post.

There's 2 wing positions, Hunter fills one. Your comments on this seem to back up my point that the other is a hole.

Considering we only played Gard and Cordy together for 4 games at the end of the season I really doubt it was to compensate for Daniel who was on track to become an AA backman. That's a fairly long bow to draw IMO.

My opinion on Sweet is based on his 2019 output in the VFL. Some live, stats, highlights, etc.

We're at completely polar opposites on the rest what you posted, so I'll just agree to disagree.

 

[Draft Pick]

I disagree completely.

I would have happily chosen our list above all of them at the start of the season, and would suggest that we would still be the equal of any of them now. The problem is not our list it's how we employed it.

What do you think are our 'gaping holes'?

Not enough ruckman?
We had a back up but he was not selected, even once, following a handy preseason performance and a solid season in the VFL last year.

Not enough experience? We had plenty in reserve, we just chose not to use it.

No forwards? Plenty of goal kicking experience fit and waiting to go that was just not favoured by the selection committee.

We finished in the finals despite playing a large number of games with unbalanced teams, which gave the impression of an unbalanced list, but the situation was by choice not necessity.

So you are saying the Dogs have the best list in the comp in 2020 ?
There would not be a person involved in footy who would think that.

Perhaps in two or three years this group has the makings of a top 4 list. Now no way. Too young and not enough big man quality and depth.

 

[Yojimbo]

Steve Johnson is apparently available. I reckon he might be able to impart a little forward craft that may be a point of difference from Hansen's offerings.

I thought he was going back to the GWS Giants ?

 

[Proffessor]

So you are saying the Dogs have the best list in the comp in 2020 ?
There would not be a person involved in footy who would think that.

Perhaps in two or three years this group has the makings of a top 4 list. Now no way. Too young and not enough big man quality and depth.

I'm saying that I think our list is similar in strength to the top sides, and that our mismanagement of our talent is a bigger concern than the talent we have on our list.

Why do people always think things take two or three years? In two to three years a lot of our best players could move past their prime, and we could easily mis manage our list into being in a much worse state than it is today.

Too young? That exactly is what our list managers have actively cultivated, we have been a lot on the young side for most of the decade, two more years at this current rate and we'll potentially be even younger.

Agree we could do with more quality and depth in the big man department, but again this is by decision/design, not by random circumstance.

Ryan Gardner didn't recruit and select himself.

 

[Draft Pick]

I'm saying that I think our list is similar in strength to the top sides, and that our mismanagement of our talent is a bigger concern than the talent we have on our list.

Why do people always think things take two or three years? In two to three years a lot of our best players could move past their prime, and we could easily mis manage our list into being in a much worse state than it is today.

Too young? That exactly is what our list managers have actively cultivated, we have been a lot on the young side for most of the decade, two more years at this current rate and we'll potentially be even younger.

Agree we could do with more quality and depth in the big man department, but again this is by decision/design, not by random circumstance.

Ryan Gardner didn't recruit and select himself.

You actually did say that you would choose our list over all of them in a previous post.

Anyway how can we have as good as list as Richmond, Geelong etc when we don’t have the big man strength that they have ?

Quality big men are hard to get. I am sure they would love another Naughton etc. Yes it is important they target mature big men during the trade period. It will be hard based on their scarcity, and what we will have to give up.

 

[of Kintyre]

At what point ? The answer is now.

The unbalancing of the team through the consistent selection undeserving players like Rourke Smith and Gardner cost us. If Sweet or Trenners plays that StKilda game instead of Smith ,we win. It seems we will continue to play good footballers like Crozier out of position just so we can fit Gardy into our back six.
As predicted by many on this board that Elimination Final was lost at Match Committee and in the coaches box.

We are sitting here bemoaning the absence of a key back to play on the big units like Lynch and Dixon. Well folks we had a a bloke who loved our club , was a jet at full back I( I think AA 2013), premiership player, now playing consistent footy for a finals club and was forced out . Jordan Roughhead come on down.
Since 2016 Bevo has been erratic. Unable or unwilling to adapt to having talented footballers at our club who may need extra or different coaching.

Whatever problems have been created at our club it lies right on the doorstep of the head coach. Surely someone at the club has the minerals to ask for some non-spin ,non -bullshit answers from the bloke.

 

[Mr. Walker]

Steve Johnson is apparently available. I reckon he might be able to impart a little forward craft that may be a point of difference from Hansen's offerings.

I have no idea if Johnson would be a good coach or not but generally speaking it seems to me that the best coaches have always been battlers ( in VFL/ AFL) terms. A few decades ago it was the back pocket plumbers ( Kennedy, Jeans, Hafey , Sheedy and Malthouse) who had to battle for kicks and work hard and think about their games to get by rather than the Royce Harts who it appeared got by on exceptional talent alone. Today it is Bev, , Clarkson and Fagan doing well while Watson, Voss etc have gone. To be fair a number of today’s successful coaches were quality players and Matthews and Blight were elite but they seem to be the exception rather than the rule. Johnson could certainly speak from authority and could well have coaching ability.

 

[Proffessor]

You actually did say that you would choose our list over all of them in a previous post.

Anyway how can we have as good as list as Richmond, Geelong etc when we don’t have the big man strength that they have ?

Quality big men are hard to get. I am sure they would love another Naughton etc. Yes it is important they target mature big men during the trade period. It will be hard based on their scarcity, and what we will have to give up.

I said "I would have happily chosen our list above all of them at the start of the season, and would suggest that we would still be the equal of any of them now"

Our midfield is arguably superior to both Richmond and Geelong. Their ruck divisions are currently stronger than ours but the big man situation is marginal. Take Hawkins out and Geelong's key forward stocks look pretty mediocre, Richmond's defence is still vulnerable against tall forwards.

The difference between both these teams and ours is not the top end, it's that the output from our bottom few players has been so low. But again that's because we have regularly chosen so many rookies/project players ahead of more mature proven types, seemingly more intent on development for the future than maximising our strength in the present.

Doesn't matter what quality the big men are if you refuse to play them. Sweet may have performed very well at senior level, but he hasn't been given a chance.

By the way, based on our track record over the last decade or so, if you were a developing big man, the Bulldogs would be almost the last place you would want to play if you had a choice in the matter. It has been a career graveyard for big men.

 

[Draft Pick]

I said "I would have happily chosen our list above all of them at the start of the season, and would suggest that we would still be the equal of any of them now"

Our midfield is arguably superior to both Richmond and Geelong. Their ruck divisions are currently stronger than ours but the big man situation is marginal. Take Hawkins out and Geelong's key forward stocks look pretty mediocre, Richmond's defence is still vulnerable against tall forwards.

The difference between both these teams and ours is not the top end, it's that the output from our bottom few players has been so low. But again that's because we have regularly chosen so many rookies/project players ahead of more mature proven types, seemingly more intent on development for the future than maximising our strength in the present.

Doesn't matter what quality the big men are if you refuse to play them. Sweet may have performed very well at senior level, but he hasn't been given a chance.

By the way, based on our track record over the last decade or so, if you were a developing big man, the Bulldogs would be almost the last place you would want to play if you had a choice in the matter. It has been a career graveyard for big men.

We actually don’t disagree on much.

We aren’t far away I agree. I just don’t think this was going to be the year, and that we need more height and experience throughout the list.

As I said in another thread the next 2-3 years is where we should start to contend and I will be as negative as anyone if we don’t.

Where I cut the club some slack is that there are three players who have been drafted over the last 10 years who have had their careers at the club cut short that were first round picks or traded for a first round pick

Tom Boyd, Jake Stringer and Clay Smith would now all be in their prime but for unforeseen circumstances they are no longer here.

There was probably a hope that Boyd and English would now be combining as a ruck forward combo.

 

[TMoney22]

We have been kissed on the D with father sons, drafted well with high picks , free agents have been decent and now gifted academy players.

Jesus how much more do we need. Playing finals should be absolute minimum. What else could be to blame.