scottydeewah said:
F*** yeah, hopefully he'll do what he did to Rob Harvey and slam him into the ground at every opportunity.
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 9
The Golden Ticket - Corporate tickets, functions, Open Air Boxes at the Adelaide Oval, ENGIE, Gabba, MCG, Marvel, Optus & People First Stadiums. Corporate Suites at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
8 Winner: myblueroan
Geel vs Bulldogs
- Thread starter year of the cat
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
F*** yeah, hopefully he'll do what he did to Rob Harvey and slam him into the ground at every opportunity.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2004
- Posts
- 16,138
- Reaction score
- 107
- Location
- Price / Newitt
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Mick Kent / Michele Payne
The reason we won't win is because Mooney is suspended, which means someone like Playfair will come in, which means that we will have both Playfair AND McCarthy in our forward line. 
- Joined
- May 11, 2006
- Posts
- 16,589
- Reaction score
- 3,993
- Location
- On the Outer
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls, Aussie Swim Team,
I hope we dont fall for the trap of thinking we need to load up on small & midsized players who are fast to counter-act the dogs speed. This to me is admitting defeat, or admitting our game plan can't win games. I think we need to stick with a similar forward structure as we have had. I would like to see Ottens stay at CHF for the game and bring in Blake to rotate with King in the ruck. Drop Mackie for kelly or Ricco. They are not a tall side, so on a dry TD surface our taller players should be able to pull in a few marks. Keep to our game plan of moving the ball quickly and kicking it long to the forward line so they can't flood back.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2002
- Posts
- 42,732
- Reaction score
- 52,340
- AFL Club
- Geelong
CatmanForever said:
That's the key. It was pretty clear last time that Thompson was scared of Footscray and totally unwilling to back his side to win their way. We'll see if he has the balls to do it this week.
Geelong must play one way only - relentless pressure, hard chasing, hard tackling, and quick movement of the ball to our tall forwards, which should also bring our crumbers such as Ablett, Chapman and Stokes into the game. And unlike round 4 - they might try manning up when Footscray have the ball instead of allowing them the length of the ground to run to kick goals.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2003
- Posts
- 26,983
- Reaction score
- 132
- Location
- Melb.
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Tottenham, Orlando
Hey guys sorry for invading, but if you'd like to discuss the game with some Bulldogs supporters please come over to
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5464711
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5464711
Thompson said:
"There'll be a couple of (changes), we've got a couple of sore boys and there will be a few tests. We want to put some different types of players back in the team."
"We're talking about (James) Kelly, Steve Johnson, Shannon Byrnes, Peter Riccardi, Henry Playfair, Nathan Ablett, he was really good too, so those sorts of boys."
We all know that Mooney wont be playing so H will probably come in for him but who are these sore boys?!?!?!?!?!? Gaz maybe? Who else?
"There'll be a couple of (changes), we've got a couple of sore boys and there will be a few tests. We want to put some different types of players back in the team."
"We're talking about (James) Kelly, Steve Johnson, Shannon Byrnes, Peter Riccardi, Henry Playfair, Nathan Ablett, he was really good too, so those sorts of boys."
We all know that Mooney wont be playing so H will probably come in for him but who are these sore boys?!?!?!?!?!? Gaz maybe? Who else?
cats2rise
#63 - Mount Buller Demons
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2005
- Posts
- 25,699
- Reaction score
- 27,071
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- THFC
Ablett for one. He has been hobling for a week or two and IIRC he had to pass a fitness test for a game last week ad the week before.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2003
- Posts
- 4,930
- Reaction score
- 724
- Location
- TJBC
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- TDot, LFC
Our last encounter was, at least tactically, fascinating to watch. I don't know if I can expect the same this time around, but it should make for some intriguing viewing.
Tactically, and in our approach to the general style of play the Bulldogs seem to employ, I feel we can take a fair bit out from the Round 4 encounter. I say 'general' in preparation for the tricks I expect Eade to pull out on the day nonetheless though - he'll provide something for Bomber and the rest of the box to think about (On a side note, this is a worry, given Bomber's inability to adapt to the game before him and change tactics).
Much has been made of ensuring we don't adopt too negative a gameplan or attempt to go head-to-head with the Dogs as far as their pace-based gameplan goes. I tend to agree with that notion, and believe we must do everything we can to ensure we don't get sucked into going into battle with that mindset. However, whilst trying to play the game on our terms is a priority (slowing the game down, stretching them up forward etc), there must be some balance between the two.
I felt, back in Round 4, we had the basics of a winning gameplan. Of course, the overall execution over the entirety of the game was found wanting, but nonetheless, the blueprint was there:
i - Corridor ball. Direct football is preached endlessly, and in the case of our game plan, which (early on, at least) focused on the long kicking to contests/big marking targets, this was crucial. We saw the results when we remained faithful to the plan and executed it well, yet we still, for whatever reason, decided against it for the majority of the game. The difference in skills between both us and the Dogs cannot be underestimated. We reverted to trying to play "Bulldog ball", for lack of words - pin pointing leads through a blockade of Dog defenders - when our skills and forward setup were not designed for it (at least, in comparison to the Dogs).
The failure to kick to contests was poor decision-making more than anything, though our skills were hardly a non-factor either. Mooney's absence may require a slight shuffle to the setup, but the important thing is that we utilise the size advantage we have up forward. Ottens, McCarthy, H; all are capable of at least providing a contest and bringing the ball to the ground. Maximise their presence with proper delivery.
ii - Controlling the tempo. From memory, many were divided over our approach to the game speed-wise during our last encounter. Some saw our slow, short possession-based game as too negative, allowing them the time to clog our forward line up, and conceding our inability to run with them. Whilst much of that is true, it doesn't discount the fact that it allowed us to dictate the play (for the majority of the game), and not them. Of course, how we capitilise and act upon that decisive advantage we held is another thing. Nonetheless, it was an ingredient of the winning gameplan that we held.
The problem though, as was evident in that very same encounter, was knowing when to play short, possession-based football, and when to run and take risks. I will concede that, for the most parts of the Round 4 game, slowing the game worked to our advantage. However, there were times when risks needed to be taken, space needed to be created, and run needed to be generated and we failed. Something to be said about our decision-making once more.
iii - Pressure. It's been mentioned around the parts already, and rightly so, but apart from the general comments aimed in particular at their running flankers (Gilbee, McMahon, Ray and the likes) I believe something must be made about their midfield setup.
In general, I think it's easy to identify pressure amongst their midfielders as a key to the game (as in all games, really). Digging deeper though, the key is stopping the immediate run from the heart of it all. Scott West has been identified time and time again as the main man, and it's for these reasons why:
Whilst they are equally adept at getting sufficient players around the ball who are willing to work hard enough to win the contest, the Dogs are equally happy with placing a few forward of the pack during the said contest/dispute. Of course, the amount of subsequent pressure on the opposition (us) increases should they manage to win the disputed ball and feed their runners (who are now, nearly always, ahead of the play) but the flipside to the situation is the amount of created pressure on their inside men to win the ball in the first place. Simple logic really, but it's the reason why stopping a guy like West is so crucial to stopping the rest of their midfield. I suppose the tired old argument that West may not be as damaging with his 30 disposals in general play as some others is true to some extent, but examining it all, alot can be said of the true damage of his feeding role (as the instigator of their damaging, skillful runners).
Tactically, and in our approach to the general style of play the Bulldogs seem to employ, I feel we can take a fair bit out from the Round 4 encounter. I say 'general' in preparation for the tricks I expect Eade to pull out on the day nonetheless though - he'll provide something for Bomber and the rest of the box to think about (On a side note, this is a worry, given Bomber's inability to adapt to the game before him and change tactics).
Much has been made of ensuring we don't adopt too negative a gameplan or attempt to go head-to-head with the Dogs as far as their pace-based gameplan goes. I tend to agree with that notion, and believe we must do everything we can to ensure we don't get sucked into going into battle with that mindset. However, whilst trying to play the game on our terms is a priority (slowing the game down, stretching them up forward etc), there must be some balance between the two.
I felt, back in Round 4, we had the basics of a winning gameplan. Of course, the overall execution over the entirety of the game was found wanting, but nonetheless, the blueprint was there:
i - Corridor ball. Direct football is preached endlessly, and in the case of our game plan, which (early on, at least) focused on the long kicking to contests/big marking targets, this was crucial. We saw the results when we remained faithful to the plan and executed it well, yet we still, for whatever reason, decided against it for the majority of the game. The difference in skills between both us and the Dogs cannot be underestimated. We reverted to trying to play "Bulldog ball", for lack of words - pin pointing leads through a blockade of Dog defenders - when our skills and forward setup were not designed for it (at least, in comparison to the Dogs).
The failure to kick to contests was poor decision-making more than anything, though our skills were hardly a non-factor either. Mooney's absence may require a slight shuffle to the setup, but the important thing is that we utilise the size advantage we have up forward. Ottens, McCarthy, H; all are capable of at least providing a contest and bringing the ball to the ground. Maximise their presence with proper delivery.
ii - Controlling the tempo. From memory, many were divided over our approach to the game speed-wise during our last encounter. Some saw our slow, short possession-based game as too negative, allowing them the time to clog our forward line up, and conceding our inability to run with them. Whilst much of that is true, it doesn't discount the fact that it allowed us to dictate the play (for the majority of the game), and not them. Of course, how we capitilise and act upon that decisive advantage we held is another thing. Nonetheless, it was an ingredient of the winning gameplan that we held.
The problem though, as was evident in that very same encounter, was knowing when to play short, possession-based football, and when to run and take risks. I will concede that, for the most parts of the Round 4 game, slowing the game worked to our advantage. However, there were times when risks needed to be taken, space needed to be created, and run needed to be generated and we failed. Something to be said about our decision-making once more.
iii - Pressure. It's been mentioned around the parts already, and rightly so, but apart from the general comments aimed in particular at their running flankers (Gilbee, McMahon, Ray and the likes) I believe something must be made about their midfield setup.
In general, I think it's easy to identify pressure amongst their midfielders as a key to the game (as in all games, really). Digging deeper though, the key is stopping the immediate run from the heart of it all. Scott West has been identified time and time again as the main man, and it's for these reasons why:
Whilst they are equally adept at getting sufficient players around the ball who are willing to work hard enough to win the contest, the Dogs are equally happy with placing a few forward of the pack during the said contest/dispute. Of course, the amount of subsequent pressure on the opposition (us) increases should they manage to win the disputed ball and feed their runners (who are now, nearly always, ahead of the play) but the flipside to the situation is the amount of created pressure on their inside men to win the ball in the first place. Simple logic really, but it's the reason why stopping a guy like West is so crucial to stopping the rest of their midfield. I suppose the tired old argument that West may not be as damaging with his 30 disposals in general play as some others is true to some extent, but examining it all, alot can be said of the true damage of his feeding role (as the instigator of their damaging, skillful runners).
