Opinion Bulldogs Culture and Brendan McCartney discussion thread

[yebiga]

I have been a BMac apologist but even I think it's time to bury this
The passion and unity of commitment shown yesterday is the essential ingredient we have virtually never had - even during preliminary final years.
Now maybe BMac had nothing to do with any of the great drafting of stringer, Macrae, bonti, talia or even the development of jong, and JJ
What he did do without fear of argument was front the players who were not committed who were selfish and soft
This caused a crisis which meant largely all these soft selfish players largely left and that same crisis has bonded the remaining list behind a smarter and more nuanced coach

There is no doubt BMac had serious limitations as a senior coach but I also have no doubt he gave it his all and prepared the team and list for its move up the ladder. A move he was never destined to lead.

I was listening to terry Wallace on sen talking about list management
He compared the list managemenr under frawley himself and Hardwick
How richmond has simply been unable to nail the drafts over any successive number of years and has traded selections for short cuts which have invariably backfired.

We have virtually nailed the last 5 drafts: some by luck and some by design

Wallis liber dalhaus JJ

Clay, talia, dickson, jong, roberts, campbell,

Stringer, Macrae, Hrovat, Stevens, hunter

Bontempelli, Crameri, Honeychurch

Boyd, Webb,

That is 20 - 4 a year on average - who we consider part of our future

AVERAGE 4 players from the last 5 drafts/trades

16 of that list played yesterday

The remaing 6 players in yesterday's team come from a 11 year period of drafting/trading from 1999 - 2009

Average 0.54

There is simply no hiding the fact that the list has been rejuvenated

To achieve this a certain amount of angst was inevitable and necessary

 

[Martyn_30_]

Except, as expressed over the years, claiming that Macca was good at development is just circular logic and confirmation bias. The amount of times I've seen the circular logic "Macca is good at development because players developed because Macca was good at development because our players developed..." as well as the confirmation bias - looking for reasons why he was good at development. I look at Talia playing in VFL not good for his development - he clearly showed he had AFL ability in 2013, then why did he only play 3 games in 2014, and then in 2015 he's showing that ability that we all knew along that he had? Why did Mitch Wallis turn into the highest vote getting midfielder in the 2012 Rising Star award to a negative tagger and wingman under McCartney in 2013 and 2014, thus stunting his development that he's slowly getting back, after we were all raving about his season at the end of 2012?

Giving young players different roles such as Wallis becoming a tagger or Stringer going to defense is a good learning experience there aren't too many good players that started their career in the position they ended up in. I doubt Chris Grant would have played the way he did 97 if he didnt spend 96 in the backline, which is just of many examples that there have been.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Giving young players different roles such as Wallis becoming a tagger or Stringer going to defense is a good learning experience there aren't too many good players that started their career in the position they ended up in. I doubt Chris Grant would have played the way he did 97 if he didnt spend 96 in the backline, which is just of many examples that there have been.

Again, that's circular reasoning at it's finest. You're beginning what you're ending with. Read the wikipedia definition of Circular Reasoning. What's to say that Wallis would have been a better player if he didn't play on a wing or tagged, or Stringer a better player if he didn't play in defence? You shouldn't use that circular logic. "Different roles improved their development because it was a new learning experience which improved their development because they played different roles which is good for their experience because it's a learning experience".

 

[Martyn_30_]

Again, that's circular reasoning at it's finest. You're beginning what you're ending with. Read the wikipedia definition of Circular Reasoning. What's to say that Wallis would have been a better player if he didn't play on a wing or tagged, or Stringer a better player if he didn't play in defence? You shouldn't use that circular logic. "Different roles improved their development because it was a new learning experience which improved their development because they played different roles which is good for their experience because it's a learning experience".

Its pretty simple to understand you will learn more as a player when you play in different roles and positions. Countless players have commented on how playing in a certain position helped accelerate their development. The improvement in Stringer for example after changing his role was obvious, his stats back this up.

I'm interested have you played or been in involved in footy yourself? Because its sounds like the opinion of someone who hasn't.

 

[memberforever]

Young, Austin, Goodes oops we didn't dodge them

Lower, Fuller

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Its pretty simple to understand you will learn more as a player when you play in different roles and positions. Countless players have commented on how playing in a certain position helped accelerate their development. Im interested have you played or been in involved in footy yourself? Because its sounds like the opinion of someone who hasn't.

As opposed to playing more games in the position that they would play in the future? Where do you have evidence that "countless" players have stated this? One I can think of is that Jong playing as a tagger under McCartney was good for his development, but it's funny how he got dropped doing that and then returned to being a standard mid then dominated. He was probably saying that to be diplomatic, anyway. I do not think, for example, for a second that Wallis is currently better player than he otherwise would have been because he played 2013 and 2014 as a wingman and as a tagger rather than being a standard inside mid like he was in 2012, and for the first two rounds of 2015 before he got injured.

 

[Martyn_30_]

As opposed to playing more games in the position that they would play in the future? Where do you have evidence that "countless" players have stated this? One I can think of is that Jong playing as a tagger under McCartney was good for his development, but it's funny how he got dropped doing that and then returned to being a standard mid then dominated. He was probably saying that to be diplomatic, anyway. I do not think, for example, for a second that Wallis is currently better player than he otherwise would have been because he played 2013 and 2014 as a wingman and as a tagger rather than being a standard inside mid like he was in 2012, and for the first two rounds of 2015 before he got injured.

Stringer has stated publicly how it improved him as a forward im sure you can find a quote for that quite easily if you search for it, quality players mention this all the time listen to them when they talk about how they devolped. Young players often dont start where they end up because they're better suited elsewhere, but you can't find this out if they don't get moved around at some stage. Who knows for example what Lake would have become if he stayed as a forward.

 

[Toastman]

Except, as expressed over the years, claiming that Macca was good at development is just circular logic and confirmation bias. The amount of times I've seen the circular logic "Macca is good at development because players developed because Macca was good at development because our players developed..." as well as the confirmation bias - looking for reasons why he was good at development. I look at Talia playing in VFL not good for his development - he clearly showed he had AFL ability in 2013, then why did he only play 3 games in 2014, and then in 2015 he's showing that ability that we all knew along that he had? Why did Mitch Wallis turn into the highest vote getting midfielder in the 2012 Rising Star award to a negative tagger and wingman under McCartney in 2013 and 2014, thus stunting his development that he's slowly getting back, after we were all raving about his season at the end of 2012?

I like the way you use circular logic and confirmation bias in an attempt to prove that "claiming that Macca was good at development is just circular logic and confirmation bias".

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Young, Austin, Goodes oops we didn't dodge them

Did you enjoy the win yesterday, Ernie?

 

[ErnieSigley]

Did you enjoy the win yesterday, Ernie?

Yes. There is obviously a thread for that

 

[immortalmike]

As opposed to playing more games in the position that they would play in the future? Where do you have evidence that "countless" players have stated this? One I can think of is that Jong playing as a tagger under McCartney was good for his development, but it's funny how he got dropped doing that and then returned to being a standard mid then dominated. He was probably saying that to be diplomatic, anyway. I do not think, for example, for a second that Wallis is currently better player than he otherwise would have been because he played 2013 and 2014 as a wingman and as a tagger rather than being a standard inside mid like he was in 2012, and for the first two rounds of 2015 before he got injured.

Was Macca only coach in 2014?

 

[Norm De Guerre]

bump!

 

[dogwatch]

Noooooooooo!!!

Is it possible to unbump?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The one thing you probably overlook is that Bev has taken over players with 3 years of development in them.
BMac had to start with the apocalypse that was the remnants of Eades failed attempt at "refreshing"
Yes he had many limitations as a coach and was out of his depth, however I honestly don't think we would be where we are today without the development he put in.
Geelong, Us and now we are starting to see some of the same traits in Melbourne, even the type of kids they are drafting (Oliver)
And by the way, I dont miss Griff one little bit

I am not denying, for a second, that contested ball isn't important (Brisbane's stagnation at the bottom of the ladder proves that, it's tied to the fact they've been a bottom team in contested ball for a good part of 5-6 years). Neither am I denying that the foundations of contested ball were laid by McCartney that we are reaping the benefits of now.

But you can't credit the benefits of contested ball helping us now, whilst ignoring the negative impacts that such a contested ball mantra helped.

Where do I start? Well, how about pure tactics. Focusing on contested ball meant that we ignored other important tactical aspects of the game. McCartney was actually quoted as saying that the "scoreboard will take care of itself" once appropriate contested and defensive philosophies were put in place which is seriously one of the most ridiculous statements from a senior coach I have ever heard in regards to tactics. (Source) So instead of having a philosophy, a tactical mantra, of a way of scoring goals or a process of scoring goals (however flawed, or poor, at least one exists) his tactical philosophy of kicking goals is "we'll worry about it later, and later, it'll just happen". This isn't even going of course, as well, as such impact on defensive tactics that it had. By emphasising the contested ball players go sucked into the contest, meaning that defending opposition uncontested ball was absolutely terrible, in stark contract to the pressured zone defence today, some terrible opposition balls moved the ball forward toward goal with ease such as the losses to Bisbane and Carlton, two bottom teams on the ladder, in 2014.

How about the impact on team selection with such a contested ball mantra? Well, he picked too many inside midfield players, meaning players had their development stunted by playing out of position. My favourite example of this is Mitch Wallis - played very well in 2012, but due to the rise of other players like Libba and the selection of players like Nick Lower had to play as a wing and tagger through 2013-14. Was dropped multiple times, had many fans rightly so questioning his development. Bev comes along, plays him inside midfielder instead of on the outside, and he becomes the player we all expected to him to come after that 2012 year where he came 3rd in the rising star behind two key position players.

How about the contested ball mantra impacting club culture and enjoyment of the footy? Multiple players with Bev said they simply enjoyed playing footy more with the more free-wheeling style that Bev brought that off-season. And even at the senior, most professional level, the enjoyment factor is critical. Players play better when they're enjoying the style of footy that they're playing.

And lastly - how about the club culture that he fostered with his hard-as-nails matra of long-term development of a contested style? Irrespective of their playing ability, listed players that we had contracts extensions in front of, or were contracted, in Higgins, Tutt, Jones and Griffen, all walked out on the club, with others to follow if they knew that they could get a gig somewhere else, or stayed after McCartney left.

Whilst Beveridge certainly has gotten benefits from such a contested mantra, we have to realise that he's had to overcome the negative impact of such a mantra. Defensively, he had to implement an actual modern defensive tactic using zoning and pressing that McCartney didn't, one that we're only starting to reap the benefits of this year (seeing as we're a much better team at conceding less scores this year than last year). He had to overcome how some players had their natural attacking flair taken away from them in McCarntey's system (Hunter) or had their natural position taken away from them (Wallis), of which to Beveridge's credit he managed to do is less than a year (with those players gun form in the second half of last year), not requesting "5-6 years" that McCartney demanded to develop those players.

And lastly, when talking about development, I could easily say people developed in spite of McCartney, not because of it. Jake Stringer was a high draft pick who would have gone earlier if there were no doubts about his broken leg, and seeing as those doubts haven't eventuated, one could argue that he was actually stunted by McCartney - being dropped in 2014 and playing key defence, and a year later kicking 50 goals and being an All-Australian. What's not to say that he could have played that well a year earlier under a different coach?

 

[grassman75]

I am not denying, for a second, that contested ball isn't important (Brisbane's stagnation at the bottom of the ladder proves that, it's tied to the fact they've been a bottom team in contested ball for a good part of 5-6 years). Neither am I denying that the foundations of contested ball were laid by McCartney that we are reaping the benefits of now.

But you can't credit the benefits of contested ball helping us now, whilst ignoring the negative impacts that such a contested ball mantra helped.

Where do I start? Well, how about pure tactics. Focusing on contested ball meant that we ignored other important tactical aspects of the game. McCartney was actually quoted as saying that the "scoreboard will take care of itself" once appropriate contested and defensive philosophies were put in place which is seriously one of the most ridiculous statements from a senior coach I have ever heard in regards to tactics. (Source) So instead of having a philosophy, a tactical mantra, of a way of scoring goals or a process of scoring goals (however flawed, or poor, at least one exists) his tactical philosophy of kicking goals is "we'll worry about it later, and later, it'll just happen". This isn't even going of course, as well, as such impact on defensive tactics that it had. By emphasising the contested ball players go sucked into the contest, meaning that defending opposition uncontested ball was absolutely terrible, in stark contract to the pressured zone defence today, some terrible opposition balls moved the ball forward toward goal with ease such as the losses to Bisbane and Carlton, two bottom teams on the ladder, in 2014.

How about the impact on team selection with such a contested ball mantra? Well, he picked too many inside midfield players, meaning players had their development stunted by playing out of position. My favourite example of this is Mitch Wallis - played very well in 2012, but due to the rise of other players like Libba and the selection of players like Nick Lower had to play as a wing and tagger through 2013-14. Was dropped multiple times, had many fans rightly so questioning his development. Bev comes along, plays him inside midfielder instead of on the outside, and he becomes the player we all expected to him to come after that 2012 year where he came 3rd in the rising star behind two key position players.

How about the contested ball mantra impacting club culture and enjoyment of the footy? Multiple players with Bev said they simply enjoyed playing footy more with the more free-wheeling style that Bev brought that off-season. And even at the senior, most professional level, the enjoyment factor is critical. Players play better when they're enjoying the style of footy that they're playing.

And lastly - how about the club culture that he fostered with his hard-as-nails matra of long-term development of a contested style? Irrespective of their playing ability, listed players that we had contracts extensions in front of, or were contracted, in Higgins, Tutt, Jones and Griffen, all walked out on the club, with others to follow if they knew that they could get a gig somewhere else, or stayed after McCartney left.

Whilst Beveridge certainly has gotten benefits from such a contested mantra, we have to realise that he's had to overcome the negative impact of such a mantra. Defensively, he had to implement an actual modern defensive tactic using zoning and pressing that McCartney didn't, one that we're only starting to reap the benefits of this year (seeing as we're a much better team at conceding less scores this year than last year). He had to overcome how some players had their natural attacking flair taken away from them in McCarntey's system (Hunter) or had their natural position taken away from them (Wallis), of which to Beveridge's credit he managed to do is less than a year (with those players gun form in the second half of last year), not requesting "5-6 years" that McCartney demanded to develop those players.

And lastly, when talking about development, I could easily say people developed in spite of McCartney, not because of it. Jake Stringer was a high draft pick who would have gone earlier if there were no doubts about his broken leg, and seeing as those doubts haven't eventuated, one could argue that he was actually stunted by McCartney - being dropped in 2014 and playing key defence, and a year later kicking 50 goals and being an All-Australian. What's not to say that he could have played that well a year earlier under a different coach?

You make some sound points, however Bmac said 5-6 years for development. The players had 3 under him and it was in the 4th year (Bevs first) that many started to improve and you could argue that in this year (the 5th) more have improved and some more have come on. That is still in that window of 5 years

I'm glad that the 4 players you mentioned didn't sign a contract - 2 have so far shown themselves to be shit trucks of the highest order and Griffen is in the twighlight. Higgins has been serviceable for Norf, but he is playing his favoured one dimensional role up forward. He wouldn't have survived under Bevo anyway purely on the demand to be multi skilled in different positions. He was sooking it up under Bmac because the big bad coachey woachey wouldn't let him play with his favourite toys. This sort of petulant behaviour would have contributed immensely to the feeling around the club.

I would be very interested to find out how many players were actually going yo walk, because who did aren't worth wasting oxygen on - in fact Lake might have been right with his selfish quip!

I can definately imagine that it wouldn't have been a fun place to be around playing negative all the time and naturally players are going to revolt but it seems it was the ones who feared they would be pushed out anyway are the ones who caused the most trouble.

Wallis has added goal kicking to his armour now rather than just being a pure extractor. Did that time on the wing, help develop this?

Hunter was so lazy, with all th talent in the world. He needed a rocket up him. The turn around in him is unbelievable his defensive efforts last night were sensational.

We could debate it forever on the pros and cons, but I think we have to give some credit where it's due.

I feel that we are about to see Melbourne finally climb the ladder and they are starting to score (38 goals in last 2 weeks!) and I am 100% certain it isn't because of Paul Roos

 

[threenewpadlocks]

You make some sound points, however Bmac said 5-6 years for development. The players had 3 under him and it was in the 4th year (Bevs first) that many started to improve and you could argue that in this year (the 5th) more have improved and some more have come on. That is still in that window of 5 years

But they developed under a completely different tactical system. Are you saying players like Mitch Wallis developed across 5 years because of McCartney's timeline? I would like to think that it's Beveridge's new tactics that he's thriving in.

I'm glad that the 4 players you mentioned didn't sign a contract - 2 have so far shown themselves to be shit trucks of the highest order and Griffen is in the twighlight. Higgins has been serviceable for Norf, but he is playing his favoured one dimensional role up forward. He wouldn't have survived under Bevo anyway purely on the demand to be multi skilled in different positions. He was sooking it up under Bmac because the big bad coachey woachey wouldn't let him play with his favourite toys. This sort of petulant behaviour would have contributed immensely to the feeling around the club.

Griffen was our existing club captain - that is a fact. I made it clear that it didn't matter how good or bad they were, but that had contracts in front of them and chose not to accept them but rather walk out on the club and move to another club, because they didn't want to play under McCartney. Higgins has been more than "serviceable" - he made the All-Australian squad of 40 last year for pete's sake! And in any case, maybe he sooked because he was being played out of position out of half back? I don't know you but if I asked to play my natural position that I was good at and the Coach refused to listen, I wouldn't be too happy either.

I would be very interested to find out how many players were actually going yo walk, because who did aren't worth wasting oxygen on - in fact Lake might have been right with his selfish quip!

I know for a fact that Grant and Talia (again, don't look at how good they were/will become, but just for the fact that they were contracted for another year at the time) were walking that year. Who knows what the likes of Stringer and Roughead said to Peter Gordon in the hours/days before McCartney was sacked but we can only assume. How about Minson and that rumoured fight with Stevens? I also have it on good authority that a few other players would have walked, fringe type players, would have walked if another club had a contract in front of them.

I can definately imagine that it wouldn't have been a fun place to be around playing negative all the time and naturally players are going to revolt but it seems it was the ones who feared they would be pushed out anyway are the ones who caused the most trouble.

But that isn't my point. That culture from fringe types seeps into the rest of the playing group, negatively impacting their play style.

Wallis has added goal kicking to his armour now rather than just being a pure extractor. Did that time on the wing, help develop this?

No. His time on the wing meant that he played poorly and was dropped to the reserves on more than one occasion under McCartney.

Hunter was so lazy, with all th talent in the world. He needed a rocket up him. The turn around in him is unbelievable his defensive efforts last night were sensational.

Funny how it's that him being rocketed and turnaround in defensive efforts seemed only to exist after Beveridge came to the club?

We could debate it forever on the pros and cons, but I think we have to give some credit where it's due.

Yes. I've credited how he revitalised our recruiting and list management policies, for example. Before him we had an inconsistent system without a method for drafting, which meant less Christian Howards and more Jake Stringers in the first round. We also made sure we re-signed young players earlier to longer contracts, ensuring that we didn't have another Callan Ward situation because we didn't extent his contract earlier.

I'm also not discrediting how we benefit from his contested ball mantra. But I think that on the balance of the positives and the negatives, it was a net negative in which Bev had to overturn to improve the club.

I feel that we are about to see Melbourne finally climb the ladder and they are starting to score (38 goals in last 2 weeks!) and I am 100% certain it isn't because of Paul Roos

I'd like to think some of that is Goodwin's doing. And in any case in the time that Roos has been their, almost all of their improvement has come from improving blowout scores against, rather than kicking their own competitive scores, through tactics like more flooding, slowing down the pace of play with more dominant time in possession, and forcing stoppages. Doesn't make them any more likely to win a flag but Roos needed to stem the bleeding after years of fan pain so I can accept him for that. But he isn't some messiah who made them into a attacking juggernaut - take out mature recruits that don't improve the structural tactics, like Bernie Vince, and they're not that much better of a team than they used to be, they just have prevented blowout lossess. Goodwin should improve their attack as shown by this year's NAB Cup.

 

[VitalDread]

Yet the macca thread is still going strong, that's full of people attacking each other.

Times still havent changed but location of thread has

 

[dogwatch]

Nobody's disagreeing with you 3NP. (Well not to any great extent) So I'm not sure what the renewed lather is about.

In general, the McCartney era as coach was like a mini Dark Ages. All we are saying is that it wasn't a total waste ... just as there were seeds of the Renaissance quietly sprouting in the Dark Ages. Some of the things that happened DID provide a measure of benefit. Or to paraphrase IM, things don't always have to be utterly black or white. The really good guys (Bev) and the really bad guys (Macca) turn out to be more nuanced than cliched comic strip superheroes / baddies.

Anyway, some added fuel for you: I think I read somewhere that Wallis was one of those who were set to walk if Macca stayed. For a bloke so steeped in the RW&B that should surely have set off alarm bells. The Macca reign didn't end a minute too soon.

It seems that nearly all of us are in furious agreement so let's move on.

Unbump!

 

[Mattdougie]

I'm soooooo tempted but I will behave

 

[JJHunter]

I'm soooooo tempted but I will behave

Temptation island this is

 

[immortalmike]

I'm soooooo tempted but I will behave

Quiet you. I'm still waiting for the two to four years we were set back.

 

[grassman75]

But he started it.....

dogwatch said it well. No one disagrees with 3np

The discussion is done to death, however I can stand when people won't give credit where it is due. 3NP corrected this in his next statement and all is good in the Renaissance

I only just posted to get MD to bite anyway, but unfortunately he won't

It's ok MD, we love you JONG time

 

[TempleKelvington]

You crazy poleukas.

 

[X_box_X]

I've decided to venture into this thread after forming a personal belief that our Club's current position is the worst it has ever been since Bevo has been coached. Naturally, I thought back to the McCartney years seeing as though that's the last time I thought our Club was in pretty bad shape.

While not everyone is going to share this view, the purpose of this post is not to actually dwell on the bad times.

I thought I'd revisit this thread and post my five most memorable Bulldogs victories under McCartney (2012-2014).

5. Richmond R3, 2014:



Giansiracusa the super sub. We led by 37 points at half time. The Tigers roared back to hit the front with four minutes remaining. Gia then wins the game with a clutch goal with two minutes remaining.

4. Carlton R20, 2013:



This match was in the midst of the only period in Macca's reign where we were playing good footy. We won four of our final six in 2013 and this victory was one of the best of those victories. Jarrod Grant with one of the best matches of his career (four goals three behinds with two Brownlow votes).

3. Collingwood R13, 2014:



Huge upset victory in a Sunday afternoon classic. Cooney subbed early, Liam Jones

19

Liam Jones

Age

33

Ht

199cm

Wt

98kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.4

2star

K

6.5

3star

HB

2.9

3star

M

4.3

4star

T

2.0

4star

MG

134.5

2star

D

7.6

2star

K

6.1

3star

HB

1.4

1star

M

4.1

4star

T

1.4

2star

MG

116.3

2star

D

9.4

3star

K

7.4

3star

HB

2.0

2star

M

4.0

4star

T

2.2

4star

with an equal career-high four goals. Bont kicks his first career goal and helps set up Tutt's match-winning goal.

2. Adelaide R21, 2013:



Cooney's 200th match was a memorable one. Dickson with six goals, Tom Campbell

38

Tom Campbell

Age

32

Ht

201cm

Wt

108kg

Pos.

Ruck

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.1

2star

K

4.2

2star

HB

4.8

3star

CL

1.6

4star

HO

17.0

5star

D

5.0

1star

K

3.0

1star

HB

2.0

1star

CL

1.0

3star

HO

2.0

5star

D

7.2

2star

K

4.2

2star

HB

3.0

3star

CL

1.2

4star

HO

13.2

5star

with four. A high-scoring entertaining match. Libba outstanding.

1. Brisbane R1, 2013



Incredibly, we were on top of the ladder after round one after a surprising victory (68 pts) over the much more fancied Lions. We had winners all over the park including seven players with multiple goals. Libba and Wallis simply brilliant.

 

[PJGoDogs]

Posted by KDF67 - yesterday

Here is the truth of the situation, and you can all debate it and rant about the minutiae of the current situation, but the bigger picture is where the answer lies.

First of all, though, let me declare my admiration for Brendan McCartney and his intentions. He was two wins away from being able to carry out his plan. The reason he didn't get the two wins is that his senior players let him down - not the kids who were coming through, but the supposed leaders of the club. Had we got a little more from some of the elder statesmen of the group we would have snagged those two wins and we wouldn't have the crisis. It was edifying to hear Cameron Mooney speak after Macca's sacking about the 'sooks' on the list. They would be the same ones who undermined our chances of sustained success by not putting in when it counted. At Geelong, according to Moons, the sooks would have been whacked by the group and brought into line. Ruthlessly. It would have been a self-correcting aberration that didn't stand in the way of the greater purpose of winning premierships. At the Bulldogs, there is no culture of winning, no ingrained understanding of what it takes to win. It takes hard players, with strong minds and ruthless intent.

Decoded, Macca's espousal of 'good people' playing 'the right way' was about being ruthless, hard-arsed bastards who are prepared to win at any cost. You can lament the loss of Shaun Higgins and Liam Jones all you like, but as long as their arses point to the ground they will not be hard bastards who are prepared to win at any cost. Cooney either. These are blokes who proved over a long period that they were only prepared to float through. [By the way, I was absolutely spewing to read that Jones is putting in some early hard yards so that he can be at his best for his first pre-season at Carlton. Might have helped his cause at our club had he brought the same application to doing what was necessary.]

There are others. I had a chat to an inner sanctum member last year after one of ours was nominated for a Rising Star. Apparently, Macca was filthy and wanted to drop the player for disobeying team orders to rack up possessions allowing his man to be one of the opposition's best. But the politicians prevailed. In my opinion, it was the start of the end for him. From that time on he re-doubled his efforts to push the group to take on the hard-arse principles that drive teams to ultimate success. History told what actually happened; the sooks didn't like being held accountable and it showed in their performances.

If we had a few more members, I think the board would have stayed with 'Plan A' and kept Macca on to see out his vision of building a flag capable team. We would have cleaned out the last of the influential soft c0cks, would have snagged Boyd a year later, the young flag-winning* VFL players would have brought some new steel to the group (this will still happen), and we would have moved towards a sustainable winning culture. But, we don't have the 5000 or so discretionary memberships to lose on the back of some hard decisions, and instead went with 'Plan B', which is short term gain (survival) and potentially another 60 years in the wilderness.

*Interesting to note, Black Pup and others, that Chris Maple coached a premiership winning side. Was it because he: a) followed Macca's game plan, b) can coach, c) can't coach, d) got lucky? If you said a) and/or b) give yourself a gold star!

Surface watchers, like Mattdougie, The Athenian and The (spell-check averse) Proffessor, can blame the ex-coach for the situation, but those who look a little deeper will understand the truly epic proportions of the opportunity we have just missed. It was caused not by a coach who 'lost' the players, but a change-resistant culture of losing that stretches back to the mid 1950s. Until we are able to break our connection to being 'battlers' and end our love affair with OK instead of demanding excellence, we are doomed to re-living 'bulldog day' forever.
End of KDK67
-------------------------------

This post eloquently and succinctly expresses the feelings of every bulldogs supporter I meet in the real world. It is a post which the club Peter Gordon, Board and Players all need to read.
It also a post which a good club would answer and respond to.

There are a small cabal of posters on this board, who you can verify, joined the board around June/July 2013. Their posts exclusively vilify Brendan MacCartney. When during the July/August period of the 2013 season the bulldogs had some success this cabal is entirely absent from the board. They are not in the least interested in any success. They did not log a single post from July 2013 until 30 march 2014 following our second round loss - where the insults against Brendan resume

No posts from july 9 to 30 mar - about any win, any player, any draft of bontempelli, any trade re Crameri.


During the 8 months of posting one member of this cabal has logged 2200 posts - 98% about you know who - that is near 10 anti Macca posts a day.

To continue with the Shakesperean tragic theme - there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.

If you listen to Brendan on the "Sacked" podcast he admits he lost the players by being too hard on them. He was rapt when we won the flag and l believe he deserves a lot of credit for turning the club around.