Autopsy Dogs apparently NOT out coached again... but still find a way to lose 78 v 73

[Next Waiting]

Im not suggesting Doc shouldnt have been played on Greene.
Should have been instructed by the coaching staff to play him close & not come off him.

Can we presume that he wasn't instructed to do that. On at least 3 of the occasions they scored, either with Greene or through him, he was in the right starting position and then left him, and on one of those occasions left him to confront someone who was being run down. Without any firm evidence one way or another, I'm leaning towards judgement over instruction. We'll find out on Thursday I guess.

 

[Orange crush]

If Doc wasnt 'tagging' Greene, then that's on the coaches. .
I had been concerned all week with who to play on him.
Kingy also said on first crack, 'dont get beaten by what you know'.
We knew going in that Greene was always going to be a problem.

Sorry for the intrusion, but this is so right. Everyone knew we were light for forward power with Hogan out and Cadman being a skinny first year player …. Our only avenue to goal was Toby. Gobsmacked that more time wasn’t put into him.

Kingsley had the Ward to Bont move lined up if we couldn’t stop him head to head, but Bevo seemed to have nothing manned at all

 

[Next Waiting]

Sorry for the intrusion, but this is so right. Everyone knew we were light for forward power with Hogan out and Cadman being a skinny first year player …. Our only avenue to goal was Toby. Gobsmacked that more time wasn’t put into him.

Kingsley had the Ward to Bont move lined up if we couldn’t stop him head to head, but Bevo seemed to have nothing manned at all

On the don't get beaten by what you know angle, did Bevo get beaten by what he knew or did Duryea. Duryea did almost everything right on every occasion except the bits where he didn't.

 

[Orange crush]

On the don't get beaten by what you know angle, did Bevo get beaten by what he knew or did Duryea. Duryea did almost everything right on every occasion except the bits where he didn't.

Yeah, fair enough …. But he did seem left out to dry on a few occasions as well, so not all in duryea

 

[fred cook]

Sorry for the intrusion, but this is so right. Everyone knew we were light for forward power with Hogan out and Cadman being a skinny first year player …. Our only avenue to goal was Toby. Gobsmacked that more time wasn’t put into him.

Kingsley had the Ward to Bont move lined up if we couldn’t stop him head to head, but Bevo seemed to have nothing manned at all

Coaches box GWS V Bulldogs from Bevo hey Matthew Spangher and Rohan Smith what do you think we should with T Greene he seems to be taking control of the game and their reply

 

[Next Waiting]

Bro...are you legitimately skirting around the fact that their best forward was out on the ground yesterday?

A player who is legitimately in the top handful of players in the game. One that Im yet to hear a theory about how we could've gone about combating with the team we went into the game with.

Ive gone on enough about why in my view Greene was able to get dominance over the game. If you dont agree thats fine with me.


Nobody wants to hear it, but this has been the nub of our problem all year. It's no coincidence that we played our best stretch of football when Arthur Jones was playing the role. Its also no coincidence that we reverted to type after he gassed out after 3 games.

Much like yesterday once the pressure dropped off mid way through the 2nd. The writing was on the wall for all to see.

For every thousand hacking at the leaves

 

[geoffjennings79]

I don’t post much and rarely on game analysis threads. Girls didn’t play footy when I grew up so I don’t have the game playing experience that others on here clearly have. And I don’t have any ins at the Club like others so I can’t really comment on whether the coach is arrogant or stubborn or not being listened to.

But for what it’s worth and how it looked to me at the game, moving Lobb down back looked like it was well worth a crack. We’d lost two tall defenders and up forward Naughton, despite being beaten, looked liked the only forward likely to take a grab and score the goal/s we needed to arrest momentum/uphold the margin. ‘Marra didn’t look like holding one after quarter time, Weightman was off his game and not crumbing like he needed to in windy conditions and Scott was trying hard but not tall enough or kicking straight. We also sent Williams down there to help Lobb and it seemed we dropped Bont back behind the ball more often.

I don’t know whether it was a well coached game or not, but I do know that as well as stopping goals, we need to score to snuff out a run. Perhaps we could have mixed it up a bit and rotated both Naughton and Lobb down back, but it certainly seemed to me that Naughton was the forward most likely to mark/score and there was no one around him who could hold it in the F50 when the ball hit the ground. Lobb wasn’t going to change that up forward and at least when the ball was on the ground in the B50 he had Williams, Dale, and Dureya having a crack around him.

Gutted for Josh.

You should post more.

 

[Dogs Rule]

When was the last proactive/counterpunch coaching move made by our coaching box to try and halt a run against us?

Yeah, I can't remember either.

I can imagine they all just sit there...

 

[geoffjennings79]

That more likely would have been Ed, he has the ability, speed and skill to run off Greene.

But Ed wasnt playing, Doc got turned inside out. Someone with leg speed - Daniel wasnt having much of an influence up forward and that could have been an option, at least with the disposal efficiency

Selection was wrong, but the list depth has more holes than swiss cheese. That's what happens when they put all their eggs in the one basket with recruiting and playing project players ahead of developing critical roles.

Greene with his body use would have kicked even more on Daniel. I agree we were hamstrung for options, and just my opinion, but that would have been well down my list.

 

[Norm De Guerre]

That more likely would have been Ed, he has the ability, speed and skill to run off Greene.

But Ed wasnt playing, Doc got turned inside out. Someone with leg speed - Daniel wasnt having much of an influence up forward and that could have been an option, at least with the disposal efficiency

Selection was wrong, but the list depth has more holes than swiss cheese. That's what happens when they put all their eggs in the one basket with recruiting and playing project players ahead of developing critical roles.

Thats like pining for the days when we had a player who athletically matches up against Greene with Easton Wood. Or a player who has the fanatical discipline of Matt Boyd. Richards may've been the answer, but he wasn't in the team.

Williams is probably best equiped outside of Duryea, but I don't think he has the game sense to go with Greene.

Sending Daniel to Greene would've been a nightmare and is indicative of how hamstrung we were because of team selection and injury. Having said that, there isn't anybody waiting in the wings who is equiped for the job. Khamis. Nope. Busslinger. Nope. Crozier. Injured. O'Brien. Injured.

We played the cards we were dealt and drew a 2-7 offsuit.

 

[Next Waiting]

You should post more.

The IPad's never free apparently. Someone else is always on it....

 

[dergert]

When was the last proactive/counterpunch coaching move made by our coaching box to try and halt a run against us?

Yeah, I can't remember either.

I can imagine they all just sit there...

We had countered a few run ons earlier in the year when we were playing well.

It's blown up in the past month or so now

 

[immortalmike]

Ok. It seemed awfully convenient that you mention Hogan as missing when he isn't their most dangerous forward.

Ive answered variations of your question multiple times in other replies. So once more into the breach.

The main gripe that everybody in here has is why we had a defensive press so high up the ground. I counter this with the idea that if we maintain shape in the defensive half that most see as the solution when GWS pushed their forwards high. Then we are going to ceed numbers at the contest and by weight of numbers our opponent will invariably win the ball. The reality is that this sides best shut down defender and the player best equiped to deal with Green is Duryea. Another reality is that he is past his prime and that none of the other defenders were equiped to go with a player who plays the role better than anybody else in the competition.

People in here love to roll out the lack of a Plan B trope. Indeed I see it right across Bigfooty when I look at other team boards. In our case, I have yet to read somebody suggest what the plan B for dealing with Greene on the weekend should've been given team selection.

In my view we lost this game at selection when we went into it with 3 KPD two of whom are liabilities with ball in hand and the other is sketchy at best. Combine this with a midfield that gets exposed for its lack of pace and team that has an ongoing inability to apply pressure on its openents across 4 qtrs off a game and our issues are right across the board.

That we chose to do this against a side without its best KPF kinda beggars belief. Once the first domino fell with the injury to Keath. It only exacerbated our selection issues because there was no medium defender to provide coverage. Sending Lobb back when the second domino fell with Bruce was dumb coaching. Sending Naughton back would've been pointless given Greene was the player doing all the damage. Unless people actually believe that he was the guy to do something about it.

To be perfectly honest. I couldn't care less if you or anybody else disagree with my thoughts on the game or if you find them unbelievable.


Thats cute.

If you believe that Im happy with how things are panning out then you are mistaken.

What I am is a realist. I actually understand that the list that we have is one that is vastly overrated. We also have a coach who was given a renewed contract by a board that bought into the narrative that our list was set for a sustained period of success. This regardless of Kane Cornes convenient opinion on the matter is proving not to be the case. I pointed out in the pre-season that re-signing Beveridge and his going all in on talls against where the game looked to be headed may prove to be somewhat of a folly.

For better or worse unless the board or Beveridge want to fall on their swords and admit defeat, then we are stuck with both.

Your point about our top end talent is an obvious one. It just neglects to mention the ordinary state underneath it.

It's a list made up of list cloggers and never gonna be's.

In essence. It's a Footscray side of old and I am in no way nostalgic for those day.


If not Duyrea, then who?



Cliffs: Ive made all of the above points countless times.

A simple "no" would've sufficed.

 

[_Mike_]

We played the cards we were dealt and drew a 2-7 offsuit.

Had the forward line converted their chances it'd be a non issue

 

[glenashley]

In the discussion over whether we're under or over achieving with bevo, I'm firmly in the under achieving camp.

The eye test tells me we've bottled 4 or 5 games which should have is in the top 4.

I wouldn't say we've played really poorly since round 2 and have been a chance in most games.

We're still unable to fix our 2 main issues which IMHO have been there since at least last season if not longer.

1) letting teams get run ons and easy goals.
2) inefficiency with the ball and overuse (playing like it's 2016).

Both these issues for me are a system / coaching / not having a plan B problem which ultimately lands with the coaching panel.

 

[In Repair]

Apologies if this has been discussed in the previous 24 pages but I have heard that there is a video from the weekend in which Bont tells Naughton to move back and Naughton refuses??????

any truth in this? I have attempted a search for all of 2 minutes on twitter (X) and did not find anything. Is this true? or is it a deepfake? If someone could clarify this that would be great

 

[Bulldogs85]

Apologies if this has been discussed in the previous 24 pages but I have heard that there is a video from the weekend in which Bont tells Naughton to move back and Naughton refuses??????

any truth in this? I have attempted a search for all of 2 minutes on twitter (X) and did not find anything. Is this true? or is it a deepfake? If someone could clarify this that would be great

Media would of been all over it if their was some kind of video going around

 

[In Repair]

Media would of been all over it if their was some kind of video going around

That's what I thought too

 

[bresker]

We need to get Bernstein and Woodward on the case . Someone has buried that video and we need to know why !

Or Scully and Mulder .

Putin might be involved.

 

[Dog 36]

If Doc wasnt 'tagging' Greene, then that's on the coaches. .
I had been concerned all week with who to play on him.
Kingy also said on first crack, 'dont get beaten by what you know'.
We knew going in that Greene was always going to be a problem.

Everyone even my 12 year old knew for GWS to win Greene would be the man.

Knowing this they should have played someone on him and next to him. One player should have been given one task for the day stop Greene and be next to him for the duration of the game. Don't worry about anything else. Even follow him to the bench and into the huddle so he knows you are there.

Simple therefore wont happen.

Messy in Coaches head, messy in the players minds, messy on the field and messy result.

 

[dogwatch]

I thought the issue was less to do with how we pressed and more that we didn't game manage very well to protect a lead. A few times we had the ball inside 50 and as GWS's pressure ramped up, we still looked to get the ball away and turned it over through a tackle rather than accept a ball up, or even a "slow" holding the ball call to lock it up.

One of their goals in the last as well was when Treloar had the ball on the boundary 50 out and instead of kicking a flat ball to the near pocket, he floated it behind the pack, allowing them to rebound.

Little things like that have got to be on the players to understand it's entirely fine to play one way when you're chasing the game, and another way to manage the game when you're ahead vs behind.

Totally agree with what you are saying about managing the game situation. What we don't know is whether the players were just slack or whether they had proper training in how to handle those situations.

In most team sports it's a common training drill to practise (and to discuss) what to do in a close finish, either when you are protecting a narrow lead or when you are trying to overcome a narrow deficit to snatch a win. I hope we actually do that stuff in training sometimes. Or do we just play BevBall 100% of the time? Even if we do those drills, how well are they done, do the players know the triggers to start playing that way at the same time, what concomitant moves and instructions are required from the coaches box, especially when other factors come into it like injuries to key players? And so on.

So it comes back to the old question of is it a deficiency in the players or in the coaching or in the on-field leadership. Or some combination of those.

Whoever is to blame it was a very bad look on Saturday. Watching that last hour of play it's not unreasonable to conclude we are poorly drilled and somewhat undisciplined in such things. To my mind that mostly comes back to the coaching.

Let's ask ourselves how a team like Collingwood or Port plays out a game in the same circumstances. And why in fact they very rarely let those opportunities slip (because if we'd saved 3-4 of those games we'd be right up there with them in the top 4). Would they do the same things? If not, why not? Is it just down to the different personnel on the field? Is it their on-field leadership? Or perhaps that they are more cohesive because they all understand and have bought into the various strategies they have to use in different situations?

They aren't entirely rhetorical questions BTW ... I'd genuinely like to know what the answers are.

 

[Dog 36]

Totally agree with what you are saying about managing the game situation. What we don't know is whether the players were just slack or whether they had proper training in how to handle those situations.

In most team sports it's a common training drill to practise (and to discuss) what to do in a close finish, either when you are protecting a narrow lead or when you are trying to overcome a narrow deficit to snatch a win. I hope we actually do that stuff in training sometimes. Or do we just play BevBall 100% of the time? Even if we do those drills, how well are they done, do the players know the triggers to start playing that way at the same time, what concomitant moves and instructions are required from the coaches box, especially when other factors come into it like injuries to key players? And so on.

So it comes back to the old question of is it a deficiency in the players or in the coaching or in the on-field leadership. Or some combination of those.

Whoever is to blame it was a very bad look on Saturday. Watching that last hour of play it's not unreasonable to conclude we are poorly drilled and somewhat undisciplined in such things. To my mind that mostly comes back to the coaching.

Let's ask ourselves how a team like Collingwood or Port plays out a game in the same circumstances. And why in fact they very rarely let those opportunities slip (because if we'd saved 3-4 of those games we'd be right up there with them in the top 4). Would they do the same things? If not, why not? Is it just down to the different personnel on the field? Is it their on-field leadership? Or perhaps that they are more cohesive because they all understand and have bought into the various strategies they have to use in different situations?

They aren't entirely rhetorical questions BTW ... I'd genuinely like to know what the answers are.

Look at Sydney game and Bailey Dale kick in where he ran too far.

There was no plan it was hope!

The coach should call what is to happen and the players should be well drilled and have practised what is expected. Everyone is on the same page.

We concede consecutive goals because there is no plan.

The runner conveys the message and players know what is required.

Simple if there is a plan what we have is confusion.

At 35 points up the plan maybe don't worry about scoring lets take 5 min off the clock and this is how we do it.

 

[_Cerberus_]

Look at Sydney game and Bailey Dale kick in where he ran too far.

There was no plan it was hope!

The coach should call what is to happen and the players should be well drilled and have practised what is expected.

We concede consecutive goals because there is no plan.

The runner conveys the message and players know what is required.

Simple if there is a plan.

Plan or no plan. Dale has fluffed a few kick ins this year and Bevo has gone off at him on the bench.

Running too far, or kicking short dinky kicks to Keath with 100 guys on him and umpires calls play on, or kicking it directly to his opponent is lack of execution and poor decision making on Dales behalf.

 

[Charlie Bucket]

Look at Sydney game and Bailey Dale kick in where he ran too far.

There was no plan it was hope!

The coach should call what is to happen and the players should be well drilled and have practised what is expected. Everyone is on the same page.

We concede consecutive goals because there is no plan.

The runner conveys the message and players know what is required.

Simple if there is a plan what we have is confusion.

At 35 points up the plan maybe don't worry about scoring lets take 5 min off the clock and this is how we do it.

Bailey Dale gets caught hold in the ball and this is what you use to determine that our coach has no plan??

FMD

 

[dogwatch]

Media would of been all over it if their was some kind of video going around

It seems to me like a perfect piece of mischief that has popped into someone's head. Or at best a total misreading of the body language in a conversation they couldn't hear.

Until there's some harder evidence I am totally dismissing it.