Review Dogs 132 def Giants 44

[bresker]

Any reason they didn't use the edge technology?

The umpire was touching the post or made contact with it

 

[dogwatch]

They’d be a decent chance next week too.

 

[The Slitherin' Snake]

Hogan was clearly injured and should not have played. Limping from his first run at the ball. Sub out of the game with the injury.

Hogan wasn't subbed out. McMullin was

I’ve never understood the crap Cleary gets from some on here. Still developing, could end up being very dependable.

I think he'll be poor mans Ryan Hargrave. Can do a bit of everything in the backline

 

[dogwatch]

I’d take the performance of role players in 15 goal wins with a grain of salt. Everyone looks good when the going is that easy.

Hopefully they live up to the moment against Freo in the last round and a final the week after. That’s when the turning of corners can be proclaimed.

Last week when I posted that Baker and Poulter had decent games a few people immediately jumped on it, pointing out things like “yeah but it was only Essendon” and so on.

So this week they come out and play just as well or even better against a side in top form and it’s “yeah, but it was a 15 goal win”.

Is it just possible that one reason we won by 15 goals is that these blokes played well?

I’m not saying they were in even our best 10 last night (Poulter was for a while, Baker definitely not) and I’m not even sure they are best 23 (Baker’s not, Poulter is close). I’m just saying let’s give them credit for what they’ve done, how hard they are working at their game and for doing what people here (and presumably MC) have been calling for. This also includes the likes of Cleary, McNeil, Garcia and probably Busslinger too.

Importantly MC has given them time to settle into the lineup, develop chemistry with blokes they haven’t often played with and learn their role. If we chucked players out after one week like so many want to do in the team selection threads we’d never see any growth in these players.

That said I can agree that at least some of these players are still not conclusively proven in tight matches. That can’t happen until we actually have a close or a tough game.

Until then they can’t do much more than perform against whoever we are up against. Let’s give them due credit for that.

 

[BEaston]

Pacers were an underrated defensive team come playoff time with Nesmith & Nembhard being absolutely terrors on the perimeter.

Your point stands though in regards to us, the longer we can keep Darcy and Naughton in the forward line the better. Last two weeks Darcy has had 91% and 94% game time, up from his usual low 80s which can only result in good things for us. Also having him out there towards the end of quarters when defenders are knackered is just a must.

Turner on the inside was also very good.
Siakam is very dependent on that end too.

 

[maddog37]

Less blokes running forward for cheap handballs and more defensive focus.

More predictable for the forwards and less isolation of our defenders.

A good balanced approach makes a big difference. Seems players had a much clearer definition of their roles too.

Really liked the game of JOD and there is just something about Garcia that makes me think a big game is just around the corner.

 

[Mofra]

I think he'll be poor mans Ryan Hargrave. Can do a bit of everything in the backline

We'd kill for Ryan Hargrave in the current line up.
One of the toughest blokes to pull on our jumper. He pulled metal staples out of his stomach with pliers one off-session.
No sniping or behind the play stuff, he was proper-tough.

 

[stefoid]

Last week when I posted that Baker and Poulter had decent games a few people immediately jumped on it, pointing out things like “yeah but it was only Essendon” and so on.

Until then they can’t do much more than perform against whoever we are up against. Let’s give them due credit for that.

They both have history to overcome and it will take more than a game or 2 of OKishness to convince cynical dogs supporters that they have turned a corner.

On a more general note, GWS were pathetic. It would have been better for GWS to put up a big fight and give us a better indication of how various players perform under pressure. We already know we can execute under low pressure. They gave us 4 quarters of the rubbish they served up to sydney for the first half. GWS may have been at the top of their game for the last couple of months, but in the last 2 weeks, they have only played 2 good quarters.

Loved smashing them, but smashing low pressure teams isnt the best leadup to a finals campaign for us.

 

[Doggies7]

We'd kill for Ryan Hargrave in the current line up.
One of the toughest blokes to pull on our jumper. He pulled metal staples out of his stomach with pliers one off-session.
No sniping or behind the play stuff, he was proper-tough.

Realised after the Freo game earlier in the year in Perth I was walking out leaving the ground right next to him and his family on the way back towards Crown. Very unassuming guy, I don't think anybody else recognised him.

If he looked over he would have seen this:

 

[MYOB]

The umpire was touching the post or made contact with it

Correct

 

[MYOB]

In 2 weeks time they'll be saying we haven't beat a team in the 8, when the Suns beat GWS and they drop to 9th

 

[Dogs 13]

Did anyone mention Ronny Lerner’s votes in the Herald Sun ?
I think he might have got bored and gone to bed at halftime.
3- Nauts
2- Timmy
1- Poulter

Now Poults had a blistering first qtr, but seriously no Bont, Darce or Libba.

I was listening to SEN on the way home and Adam Simpson went:
3 English
2 Naughton
1 Bont
And he had Darce a close 4th.
Much better

 

[MaxiBont]

Bramble has quietly kept up his good form since the Swans game.

Nothing amazing but he has been consistently solid for a while now.

 

[CDBulldog]

I dont think theres anything more beautiful in the game than watching Ed Richards stream forward and punch a ball low, hard and at velocity.

Not one for wasting time kicking the ball in with slow and high loopy kicks is Ed.



It's the elite level of consistency that places him above all others from his draft year. Which is astounding for a guy who's had two career threatening ACL's.

It's befuddling that he's never been awarded AA recognition. Ive always maintained that he's seen as a bit of an eccentric scrubber. When in reality he's as football (and real world) smart as any player currently in the game.


As I mull over last nights romp in the park. One thing needs to be said. I think Luke Cleary has had that moment in his career that Im pretty sure we've all experienced when starting a new gig. Its the 'I can do this' moment when it all starts to fall into place. Ive been coming around to the idea that he is a Bailey Dale analogue who was thrown into a position that he wasn't physically ready for before his time. But his time has now arrived.

I think that the coaching panel have handled him beautifully. Sent him down when required to work on his deficiencies. Rewarded him with promotion when he's reached those markers. But they have always kept faith in their belief that he has a role to play in the side.

He was very good last night.

 

[Dogs Ball]

What did it say?

YOU'VE GOT THE BONT
WE'VE GOT GREEN
WE HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN 2016

It was something like this.

I remember commenting “who mentions another team’s player in their banner?” My 16 y/o said “We’re in their heads.”

Bunnies indeed.

 

[Brass Dog]

YOU'VE GOT THE BONT
WE'VE GOT GREEN
WE HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN 2016

It was something like this.

I remember commenting “who mentions another team’s player in their banner?” My 16 y/o said “We’re in their heads.”

Bunnies indeed.

Yeah, it was a weird burn. We remember when you beat us in 2016 then won the premiership???

I’m thinking, yeah you do!

 

[dogwatch]

YOU'VE GOT THE BONT
WE'VE GOT GREEN
WE HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN 2016

It was something like this.

I remember commenting “who mentions another team’s player in their banner?” My 16 y/o said “We’re in their heads.”

Bunnies indeed.

Absolutely we're in their heads. The banner spells it out.

If I'd seen that banner before the game I would have changed my tip from us by 6 points to us by 88 points.

 

[Mofra]

Check the contested marking stats out:

2025 AFL League Contested Marks Per Game Leaders (Minimum 5 Games Played)

2025 AFL League Contested Marks Per Game Leaders (Minimum 5 Games Played).

www.footywire.com

Darcy is miles ahead, and just monstered the guy in 3rd spot. Insane.

 

[The Slitherin' Snake]

YOU'VE GOT THE BONT
WE'VE GOT GREEN
WE HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN 2016

It was something like this.

I remember commenting “who mentions another team’s player in their banner?” My 16 y/o said “We’re in their heads.”

Bunnies indeed.

So 2/3rds of their banner were positives for us / reasons we are better than them. Bizarre behaviour

 

[doggie dog]

It is always great to see teams break their membership record.

Giants must have had a membership drive. Quite a successful one by the sounds of it.

What a waste of money the plastics/suns are.
Failed franchises

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Yeah, it was a weird burn. We remember when you beat us in 2016 then won the premiership???

I’m thinking, yeah you do!

It’s not even as if they haven’t made a granny since. Swans too

 

[doggie dog]

Bramble has quietly kept up his good form since the Swans game.

Nothing amazing but he has been consistently solid for a while now.

He is exactly what the dogs need for a cheap pick up from the Hawks and low salary.
You need players like him to balance out Darcy's next monster contract extension.

 

[Anja_Nees]

Last week when I posted that Baker and Poulter had decent games a few people immediately jumped on it, pointing out things like “yeah but it was only Essendon” and so on.

So this week they come out and play just as well or even better against a side in top form and it’s “yeah, but it was a 15 goal win”.

Is it just possible that one reason we won by 15 goals is that these blokes played well?

I’m not saying they were in even our best 10 last night (Poulter was for a while, Baker definitely not) and I’m not even sure they are best 23 (Baker’s not, Poulter is close). I’m just saying let’s give them credit for what they’ve done, how hard they are working at their game and for doing what people here (and presumably MC) have been calling for. This also includes the likes of Cleary, McNeil, Garcia and probably Busslinger too.

Importantly MC has given them time to settle into the lineup, develop chemistry with blokes they haven’t often played with and learn their role. If we chucked players out after one week like so many want to do in the team selection threads we’d never see any growth in these players.

That said I can agree that at least some of these players are still not conclusively proven in tight matches. That can’t happen until we actually have a close or a tough game.

Until then they can’t do much more than perform against whoever we are up against. Let’s give them due credit for that.

The worry I have with those two is that they’ve got history of looking good for a few games then being very, very poor in a loss.

I’d love it if we moved past them, but they were pretty solid last night. I suspect guys like Dolan and Hynes are feeling spent late in their first season anyway.

 

[dogwatch]

The worry I have with those two is that they’ve got history of looking good for a few games then being very, very poor in a loss.

I’d love it if we moved past them, but they were pretty solid last night. I suspect guys like Dolan and Hynes are feeling spent late in their first season anyway.

Yes, that's fair comment.
I don't think Oskar Baker has another level in him (and he's already 27). Poulter might. But watching Dolan in the VFL this afternoon convinced me he is well ahead of both except in his youthful physique. Hynes is already well built but not as advanced with his skills. I expect both to benefit from a full pre-season and to play a lot of senior footy next year.

Dolan didn't look too spent today, by the way. Still a few pennies in his meter for 2025. Could well get a call-up.

 

[MrChristo]

On a more general note, GWS were pathetic.

I'm convinced that the reason we match up on them so well is because they don't have the kicking skills to pierce us up the middle like an Adelaide, Collingwood, Geelong...
(Especially sans Kelly).

It's why disposal (and kicking) efficiency % is a bit of a faux indicator.
Their entire backline will chip around and play it safe all day long.
Ash, Idun, Himmelberg, Taylor all >80%.
Whitfield >75%, but all as threatening as a mosquito at an elephant sanctuary.

(Also, when Channel 7 think the best of them to talk up for a big game was Stringer, the cupboard is pretty bare...)