Strategy Our Offensive System

[Hard Ball Get]

The confluence i was referring to insists that the game flows like a river or stream the confluence is the point where those streams meet, in Bulldog terms our confluence flows generally off the oppositions Rucks hands which leads to an environment of sharking and back fed handballs that eventually can result in an effective possession. Where Jackson Macrae was met by a rampant Ben Long is more or less the point in the centre where our streams meet and also explains why Ben Long was so keen to arrive at that point to break up our potential ball flow. If X happens, do Y kind of explains the random nature of our application and also why it is so hard to plan for.

Absolutely, but that is just one phase of the game and given we win slightly more centre clearances than we lost - you're only accounting for half of the time the game is in that phase. Also given there are only 20 or so centre bounces a game at the moment, it is a very small component in terms of the overall forward structure.

 

[doggies ftw]

The number 1 thing in having an effective forward line is to be predictable to team mates but unpredictable to the opposition.

Our forwards are an inexperienced group - Wallis (transformed from mid), Naughton (young and transformed from back), Bruce (new to the team). That predictably is hard - especially given our style of play.

I've noticed a few people comment on our entries designed to minimise turn overs - absolutely given our structure and the ability for teams to score quickly off clean turn overs. Messy turn overs aren't too much of an issue for us.

I dont buy the negativity around our use of Shache/Cavarra etc. Setting standards is essential to getting a team playing well and making a player a better footballer. Shache had to be dropped after his efforts (remember there are key indicators he had to reach, if the coaching staff said you must make 10 contests and he makes 3 that's not good enough - even if he kicks 3 goals from those contests. We want him to improve. The standard you accept is the standards you're setting. By not accepting anything less than the minimum expectations, it makes Shache a better player in the long run, and therefore us a better team. In the wet, we dont expect him to take 10 marks, he does need to meet other standards though. We can only speculate as to what they are, but he certainly didnt meet them! Accepting poor performance in poor conditions give Shache an out when it is wet next time. The standards you accept...). He then got concussion and HD an interrupted end in the praccies.

I think we desperately need a mobile small forward - which is a VERY hard position to play. Cavarra could be thst guy (I'm not sold, think he is a stop gap/depth) but I'm surprised so many wanted him in. He clearly wasnt ready and needs development in the AFL system. Is he quick enough?

Bruce didnt work. No fault of anyone really, he just had a bad year. Clunks a few of the Marks he got hands to, kicks a few more of his set shots and all of a sudden it's closer to a pass mark. I see him as a guy who just cant get out marked. If he doesnt mark it, he needs to make a contest and bring the ball to ground. He was out marked a few times, and hopefully will be better next year.

Some interesting points here, but do laugh at the "its all our coaches fault" posts. Yeah maybe we would be better short term in the odd match or two, but in order for sustained success, it's important to get the things right and accept no less than what you demand.

So we play safe forward to protect our defensive structure. So to put it simply our game plan is easily broken down defensively but safe/non dangerous offensively, sounds like a good need some changes...

Lmao Can’t make excuses for Schache in the one poor game he played in 50% game time in terrible conditions where we got smashed (on the back of a really good game the week before) but if Bruce held onto a couple more marks and kicked his goals he’d nearly get a pass mark. Sounds like double standards to me. Bruce player 4 games in a row as bad as what Schache producer and never got dropped.

Getting off topic here but how can you possibly say we were setting standards and playing for the future but gifting games to bog average middle aged players who were under performing.

agree that some posts are laughable, yours being one of them.

 

[BEaston]

 

[Hard Ball Get]

So we play safe forward to protect our defensive structure. So to put it simply our game plan is easily broken down defensively but safe/non dangerous offensively, sounds like a good need some changes...

Lmao Can’t make excuses for Schache in the one poor game he played in 50% game time in terrible conditions where we got smashed (on the back of a really good game the week before) but if Bruce held onto a couple more marks and kicked his goals he’d nearly get a pass mark. Sounds like double standards to me. Bruce player 4 games in a row as bad as what Schache producer and never got dropped.

Getting off topic here but how can you possibly say we were setting standards and playing for the future but gifting games to bog average middle aged players who were under performing.

agree that some posts are laughable, yours being one of them.

You've made some incorrect inferences there and some assumptions - where I've clearly stated we can only speculate what the internal targets are.

I always try and avoid the sack the coach threads as often as I can because they turn into a slagging match - often started with posts such as yours. Which I think, demonstrate some pretty simplistic views.

I had hoped this thread would be a little different, given the way the OP structured the conversation. I guess I was wrong.

Carry on.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Sometimes at games you can see a small forward up the ground at a stoppage with their hand raised. May not be right but Im assuming thats the signal they they are the spare player. This year ex-players like Hodge and Bartel and said a number of times we bring forwards up the ground. Due to these players mostly being midfielders, they don't have the forward smarts to know when to get back and they are also too slow.

Meant to add that it would be great if we had one of these at the club, as a tactical advisor or strategist. Preferably Hodge. As has been mentioned frequently, there are not enough outsiders providing fresh perspectives to our rather insular football department.

 

[Boyd oh Boyd]

A really nice write-up here - thanks. It seems as though you're emphasising the role that personnel (both past and present) plays in our offensive woes, but are not quite convinced that the system is up to scratch either just yet. What do you think about Bev's comments in the presser, to the effect of, "We lack the role players?"

I agree with most of your points, but with all due respect, here you have listed a lot of excuses that protect our coaches/system from ever facing criticism. You can always point to one or more of these things - any team in the comp could - but at some point, if you're not able to score with the system that you have despite moving things around over and over again, you need to start thinking that the system is the problem.

Bruce, to me, is possibly evidence that something is not quite right here. He has been a very good player for the Saints for a few years now. Reliable in what he does, and has proven ability to play a role that we desperately need, even in teams that don't have good delivery. Insert him into our team though, and we have a shadow of his former self. What causes that?

Perhaps a coincidence, but the player Bruce was in 2020 was extremely similar to the player Tom Boyd was for us - and that's despite a lot more experience, a lot more aggression, a lot more strength, and a lot more proven ability at AFL level. There were remarkable similarities - from the throwing one hand up, to the dropping sitters, to the chest marks bouncing off when they should be taken with outstretched hands, to the wonky goalkicking, to the failing to get to contests, to the running under the ball. All of these things were frustrations in the Boyd era. So is this a coincidence, or is there something about the role that really hampers a player's ability to do the basics well? Have we failed to tailor a role to these players? Is it a flow-on effect from issues up-field, or a problem with who we're surrounding them with?

I'd agree with Beveridge on role players. Roarke and Richards don't seem to be able to fill that defensive forward role that we're desperate for. Crozier was sent forward because out of all of our defenders he's the closest to it, but again isn't the right fit for the role. I'm not sure if we want a specific defensive foward or two or if we want our entire forward six to play balance offensive and defensive. Dale and Schache have gotten games despite low defensive efforts but there's also been a definitely push to get them to play that way at the cost of their natural game, especially Dale.

I think the system is bad but it's a knock on effect of not having the right players. There's been a few times over the past few seasons we've had a mix of forwards in good form at the same time - 2019 being the obvious one with Naughton, Schache, Dale and Dickson being significant threats all at once. Once we had those players in form we changed the way we played. We held our sixth forward back instead of sending him to the stoppage and scored heavily. I think, or maybe I hope, if we ever get an in form forward group again we'll return to that structure and the current plan is just because we don't have enough in form forwards to justify it. I'll admit it was also due to a different approach to the midfield: played Bont/Macrae/Dunkley most of the game with Bailey Smith and Lipinski rotating through as needed. Lipinski out and Libba in makes it different because Lipinski was a more rounded mid/forward. We've tried to replicate it with Dunkley to questionable results. Getting the midfield mix right helps us get the forward mix right, but I have a feeling we might stick to what we're doing now.

Bruce I'm not sure about. Before he moved to us I never paid attention to him much but looking over some highlights he seems to be better at covering the ground than wrestling at full forward. I think we've tried to make him into something he's not by bulking him up for a bear in the square role in the hopes Naughton could run a bit more free. All it's done is remove his pace. I'm hoping we try to slim him down next year.

I don't think our midfield is blameless in the current debacle either. Spending so much time with unreliable talls has lead to us trying to find someone free or outpositioning their opponent. The problem being a Bruce or Roarke in a position where they're 70/30 to get there before their opponent is probably less likely to lead to a mark than Naughton or Wallis in a 50/50. We see that when we go for quick kicks on the rebound we don't overthink it, but slower entries we try to pick out the perfect target. The final was a great example of the difference from the first half to the second. We went quick and a bit chaotic in the second. It was messy and not reliable but we definitely scored more easily. The handball game doesn't help a leading forward either. How to time a lead when there's no way of knowing when the kick is coming.

I suppose this is the question. Do you tailor the system to the players or pick the players for the system? If you change systems every time you have a best 22 change you never end up with consistency and struggle for long term success. It goes against the 'one man out, one man in' approach that clubs usually run with. But if your list doesn't suit the system are you getting the best return from what you have? Do we want congestion and ground ball because that's the way we've been going for five years or do we want isolated forwards used as our main targets because that suits what we have right now?

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

To answer your last question, Beveridge did say when he first arrived that he was tailoring the game plan to the cattle he inherited. After 2016 he was definitely casting out the ones that didn’t fit in with his plans and bringing in the type of players he wanted, I guess with a view to having them play the way he envisaged. Has this been successful?

 

[TommyD13]

Versatility is so frustrating. I've worked in offices where staff were constantly moved around in the name of "versatility". Ended up no one worked to their strengths and tasks no one wanted to do were left for the next move to be attended to (hopefully). The public service is the worst example of this system, and it's an environment that Beveridge has worked in - WTF??

I seem to remember Hardwick asked his players what they wanted to do and they wanted to be able to play to their strengths in positions they were confident with.

Wood, Crozier to the forward line are just ridiculous. "Roles" are ridiculous if players are not used to them and games are wasted with them trying to adapt.

I'm grateful to Bevo for getting us that flag, but the way we are playing is not advancing, particularly if he is still harking back to long-gone rules. The players are valiantly trying to do as instructed but a time will come when they lose faith in the system they are being asked to fit into.

How much influence does our leadership group have in putting forward alternative strategies? I'm thinking very little - Bevo is the Boss Man, and they are employees whose careers live or die on a word from him. Bont is a new captain so is still feeling his way but he may feel able to speak up in the next couple of years.

Absolutely spot on. Specialization is much more effective than versatility - in sport and in work, just in life in general. That's not to say if a player breaks down mid game and we need someone to fill that spot they would be useless. They're all AFL footballers and can play the game, but they should be given the best opportunity to thrive in their natural position for the vast vast majority of game time.

 

[doggies ftw]

Absolutely spot on. Specialization is much more effective than versatility - in sport and in work, just in life in general. That's not to say if a player breaks down mid game and we need someone to fill that spot they would be useless. They're all AFL footballers and can play the game, but they should be given the best opportunity to thrive in their natural position for the vast vast majority of game time.

This. You absolutely need versatile players in your team, no doubt about it. The ability to throw Naughty back, Cordy forward, Daniel forward etc with effect is huge. But you don’t build a team with 22 of those payer

 

[Yojimbo]

Goals and Behinds Ladder (Sponsored by Tradie Body Spray) fresh pits and bits:

Geelong: 182 Goals, 141 Behinds.
St Kilda: 171 Goals, 133 Behinds.
Port Adelaide: 168 Goals, 177 Behinds.
Brisbane: 165 Goals, 194 Behinds.
Richmond: 164 Goals, 151 Behinds.
West Coast: 162 Goals, 123 Behinds.
Western Bulldogs: 159 Goals, 149 Behinds.
Melbourne: 155 Goals, 133 Behinds.

Hawthorn: 147 Goals, 122 Behinds.
Carlton: 146 Goals, 141 Behinds.
GWS Giants: 145 Goals, 137 Behinds.
Gold Coast: 142 Goals, 144 Behinds.
Collingwood: 139 Goals, 131 Behinds.
Essendon: 136 Goals, 122 Behinds.
Sydney: 128 Goals, 122 Behinds.
Fremantle: 127 Goals, 104 Behinds.
North Melbourne: 124 Goals, 114 Behinds.
Adelaide: 116 Goals, 130 Behinds.

Don't be fooled by all the glum reviews as we still do enough right to put a score on the board although the method may only get us to a certain point of being able to beat the sides below us and creep into the finals. As we have proven in the fairly recent past we can win the big one from seventh, but if it was that easy it would happen more than once since the top eight was introduced in 1994. Considering the many flaws that have been exposed and covered up, papered over there is still a skill involved and it pays to not underestimate that skill.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

The number 1 thing in having an effective forward line is to be predictable to team mates but unpredictable to the opposition.

Our forwards are an inexperienced group - Wallis (transformed from mid), Naughton (young and transformed from back), Bruce (new to the team). That predictably is hard - especially given our style of play.

I've noticed a few people comment on our entries designed to minimise turn overs - absolutely given our structure and the ability for teams to score quickly off clean turn overs. Messy turn overs aren't too much of an issue for us.

I dont buy the negativity around our use of Shache/Cavarra etc. Setting standards is essential to getting a team playing well and making a player a better footballer. Shache had to be dropped after his efforts (remember there are key indicators he had to reach, if the coaching staff said you must make 10 contests and he makes 3 that's not good enough - even if he kicks 3 goals from those contests. We want him to improve. The standard you accept is the standards you're setting. By not accepting anything less than the minimum expectations, it makes Shache a better player in the long run, and therefore us a better team. In the wet, we dont expect him to take 10 marks, he does need to meet other standards though. We can only speculate as to what they are, but he certainly didnt meet them! Accepting poor performance in poor conditions give Shache an out when it is wet next time. The standards you accept...). He then got concussion and HD an interrupted end in the praccies.

I think we desperately need a mobile small forward - which is a VERY hard position to play. Cavarra could be thst guy (I'm not sold, think he is a stop gap/depth) but I'm surprised so many wanted him in. He clearly wasnt ready and needs development in the AFL system. Is he quick enough?

Bruce didnt work. No fault of anyone really, he just had a bad year. Clunks a few of the Marks he got hands to, kicks a few more of his set shots and all of a sudden it's closer to a pass mark. I see him as a guy who just cant get out marked. If he doesnt mark it, he needs to make a contest and bring the ball to ground. He was out marked a few times, and hopefully will be better next year.

Some interesting points here, but do laugh at the "its all our coaches fault" posts. Yeah maybe we would be better short term in the odd match or two, but in order for sustained success, it's important to get the things right and accept no less than what you demand.

I think you make some very reasonable points here. It's very fair to suggest that there are KPIs that the players I mentioned aren't meeting and that selection decisions are made with a view to improving a player. It's worth remembering that many were angry at Beveridge's management of McLean - but it's difficult to deny that he was a much better player following his omissions. It doesn't always work out, but that's the view. I think everyone, including myself, can be more mindful of this from time to time. It being impossible to know what the KPIs are makes it difficult to understand at times, though.

I suppose my concern is that the two primary focuses of your response are fairly incompatible: it's very difficult to consistently set the standard while also facilitating familiarity/predictability. That is, you can't keep dropping players who aren't quite hitting their KPIs if your goal is getting your forward line as familiar with each other as possible. Similarly, you can't really keep an underperforming player in the team forever. So this is a bit of an enigma: which do you prioritise, and how do you decide when it's time to switch?

I'm interested in your views here, but it feels as though we have very little idea what our preferred/ideal forward structure is. It's clear we want to be taller than years past, even if it means moving players out of their preferred position, but beyond that it feels like we've tried every assortment of players possible for varying periods of time and without much of a 'bigger picture' view. I see this as a real issue - if we don't have a clear view of what we are striving for, I don't see how you can make the decision above in a considered way.

So we play safe forward to protect our defensive structure. So to put it simply our game plan is easily broken down defensively but safe/non dangerous offensively, sounds like a good need some changes...

Lmao Can’t make excuses for Schache in the one poor game he played in 50% game time in terrible conditions where we got smashed (on the back of a really good game the week before) but if Bruce held onto a couple more marks and kicked his goals he’d nearly get a pass mark. Sounds like double standards to me. Bruce player 4 games in a row as bad as what Schache producer and never got dropped.

Getting off topic here but how can you possibly say we were setting standards and playing for the future but gifting games to bog average middle aged players who were under performing.

agree that some posts are laughable, yours being one of them.

I completely appreciate that you're frustrated. It makes sense to be. Everybody is, myself included - the things we saw in that final are the same things we've seen again and again and asked to be fixed for years now, and it's infuriating to see what are, to us at least, reasonably straightforward changes not be made. But there's two sides to every story, even when it's hard to see or understand the other side. I want this thread to be a place for people to consider viewpoints that they maybe haven't before, so please - as much as possible, whether you agree or disagree, just try to keep the emotion out of it. There are plenty of threads for that.

I'd agree with Beveridge on role players. Roarke and Richards don't seem to be able to fill that defensive forward role that we're desperate for. Crozier was sent forward because out of all of our defenders he's the closest to it, but again isn't the right fit for the role. I'm not sure if we want a specific defensive foward or two or if we want our entire forward six to play balance offensive and defensive. Dale and Schache have gotten games despite low defensive efforts but there's also been a definitely push to get them to play that way at the cost of their natural game, especially Dale.

I think the system is bad but it's a knock on effect of not having the right players. There's been a few times over the past few seasons we've had a mix of forwards in good form at the same time - 2019 being the obvious one with Naughton, Schache, Dale and Dickson being significant threats all at once. Once we had those players in form we changed the way we played. We held our sixth forward back instead of sending him to the stoppage and scored heavily. I think, or maybe I hope, if we ever get an in form forward group again we'll return to that structure and the current plan is just because we don't have enough in form forwards to justify it. I'll admit it was also due to a different approach to the midfield: played Bont/Macrae/Dunkley most of the game with Bailey Smith and Lipinski rotating through as needed. Lipinski out and Libba in makes it different because Lipinski was a more rounded mid/forward. We've tried to replicate it with Dunkley to questionable results. Getting the midfield mix right helps us get the forward mix right, but I have a feeling we might stick to what we're doing now.

Bruce I'm not sure about. Before he moved to us I never paid attention to him much but looking over some highlights he seems to be better at covering the ground than wrestling at full forward. I think we've tried to make him into something he's not by bulking him up for a bear in the square role in the hopes Naughton could run a bit more free. All it's done is remove his pace. I'm hoping we try to slim him down next year.

I don't think our midfield is blameless in the current debacle either. Spending so much time with unreliable talls has lead to us trying to find someone free or outpositioning their opponent. The problem being a Bruce or Roarke in a position where they're 70/30 to get there before their opponent is probably less likely to lead to a mark than Naughton or Wallis in a 50/50. We see that when we go for quick kicks on the rebound we don't overthink it, but slower entries we try to pick out the perfect target. The final was a great example of the difference from the first half to the second. We went quick and a bit chaotic in the second. It was messy and not reliable but we definitely scored more easily. The handball game doesn't help a leading forward either. How to time a lead when there's no way of knowing when the kick is coming.

I suppose this is the question. Do you tailor the system to the players or pick the players for the system? If you change systems every time you have a best 22 change you never end up with consistency and struggle for long term success. It goes against the 'one man out, one man in' approach that clubs usually run with. But if your list doesn't suit the system are you getting the best return from what you have? Do we want congestion and ground ball because that's the way we've been going for five years or do we want isolated forwards used as our main targets because that suits what we have right now?

It sounds as though you're not convinced on the mix of our team overall - what do you see as the biggest imbalances?

Regarding your last questions, I did find Beveridge's reference to "role players" interesting given his insistence that we need to tailor our approach to what we have. Generally, I feel that his approach is a bit of both. He generally tailors the system to the players, but it feels that he is unwilling to budge on certain aspects. For example, my personal view is that the selection of somebody like Roarke as a forward is more of a decision based on set roles than it is on output or ability, while selecting nine primary defenders is a decision made for the opposite reason. It makes it quite difficult to assess what the approach is, and to understand the bigger picture. Does anybody else feel that we flip flop on these kinds of things in ways that are difficult to comprehend?

 

[Yojimbo]

Top Four Goal Kickers (Plus inside 50 differential + or -):

Power: Dixon 33, Gray 15, Motlop 13, Butters 11, = 72 , pre-finals = 68 (I50 diff = +170)
Lions: Cameron 29, Hipwood 23, Rayner 16, McCarthy 15, = 83 , pre-finals = 79 (I50 diff = +123)
Tigers: Riewoldt 30, Lynch 28, Castagna 15, Martin 15, = 88 , pre-finals = 85 (I50 diff = +156)
Cats: Hawkins 42, Rohan 19, Miers 16, Menegola 13, = 90 , (I50 diff = +74)
Eagles: Kennedy 34, Darling 30, Ryan 26, Allen 18, = 108 , pre-finals = 99 (I50 diff = -42)
Saints: Butler 28, King 22, Membery 20, Marshall 13, = 83 , pre-finals = 78 (I50 diff = +44)
Bulldogs: Wallis 25, Naughton 14, Bruce 14, Bontempelli 11, = 65 , pre-finals = 62 (I50 diff +52)
Magpies: Mihocek 23, De Goey 14, Cox 14, Stephenson 13, = 64 , pre-finals = 56 (I50 diff = +102)

Demons: Fritsch 22, Weideman 19, Melksham 15, Petracca 15, = 71 (I50 diff = +38)
Giants: Cameron 24, Finlayson 19, Greene 17, Himmelberg 15, = 75 (I50 diff = -87)
Blues: McKay 21, Casboult 16, Newnes 13, Betts 13, = 63 (I50 diff = +42)
Dockers: Taberner 29, Walters 15, Schutz 12, Lobb 10, = 66 (I50 diff = -90)
Bombers: McDonald-Tippa 19, Stringer 15, Stewart 11, Langford 11, = 56 (I50 diff = -58)
Suns: King 25, Sexton 19, Day 12, Rankine 12, = 68 (I50 diff = -66)
Hawks: Gunston 31, Wingard 18, Breust 16, O'Brien 12, = 77 (I50 diff -56)
Swans: Papley 26, Hayward 10, McCartin 9, Blakey 8, = 53 (I50 diff = -128)
Kangaroos: Zurhaar 18, Larkey 14, Hall 10, Brown 8, = 50 (I50 diff = -100)
Crows: Walker 15, McAdam 12, Himmelberg 9, Fogarty 8, = 44 (I50 diff = -174)

The tip of the iceberg is masked only by the length of the tail on the dragon, i adjusted the top eight with two totals because of the finals, Geelong did not change meaning they got little from their top four goal kickers mainly through bad conversion it must be said. A little bit of end of season analysis thrown in their to bother the livestock as well as a brief window to the teams methodology. Our dragon has a very long tail for those struggling to follow where as other teams dragons have relatively short tails and a reliance on the tip of the iceberg. Port Adelaide for instance as the top finishing team have a low tip to their iceberg but with a +170 inside fifty differential obviously use their contested dominance to trap it at their end and rely on repeat entries, you would expect with a compressed methodology their dragon's tail would be long.

 

[samass03]

Defending with the ball.

I heard Bartel or Hodge talk about this while commentating this year he said that teams will often set up not so much thinking about moving the ball forward but more so about setting up to limit direct turnovers and or being hurt off turnovers.

The idea is and I think we saw this a lot more this season (for many reasons) is to set up defensively when you have the ball in hand rather then focus on purely attacking with the ball in hand.

Every club sets up defensively when leaving the Defensive 50 but we especially look to set up to mitigate turnover damage once we have left our defensive 50 compared to other teams. We do this to limit how much a turnover hurts us, it seems we are happy kicking to contests with the idea being to bring the ball to ground where we have players set up to crumb the ball and handball until it gets to a player in space or congest the area to create stoppages. Most likely we do this more then other teams because we don’t have too many really strong marking targets (especially considering Naughton was out or limited most of the year).

Picture 1: moving the ball out of our defensive 50 we have 4 players in line with the ball, 3 players within 15m in front of the ball and then 3 players within 30m of the ball. Looking at Geelongs set up here it gives them minimum 2 player advantage down the ground.



Picture 2: Geelong moving the ball have 2 players in line with the ball and 5 roughly 15-20m in front of the ball and then 4 players 40m from the ball. This leaves ya with a 1 player advantage downfield but all Geelong players are on the goal side of there



Obviously the state of the match impacts these set ups but I did notice it so often with us that out set up with ball in hand was super defensive. For example look at our set up with Daniel kicking the ball early in the arm against the saints.


Very defensive set up with ball in hand.

Giving oppositions +2/3 players downfield is going to really limit how effectively a forward line can operate. That is only confounded by the pure lack of “natural forwards” we have, guys that can seem to make things happen out of nowhere (de Goey, Cameron, Greene).

 

[Yojimbo]

The Alf Stewart Guide To Happiness (Home and Away):

5-4-34: I/50 = 22, MG = 3,385, SI = 39, Loss 52 Points.
7-7-49: I/50 = 39, MG = 4,065, SI = 56, Loss 39 Points.
8-9-57: I/50 = 44, MG = 4,489, SI = 67, Win 24 Points.
10-7-67: I/50 = 42, MG = 4,289, SI = 68, Win 28 Points.
13-9-87: I/50 = 44, MG = 5,052, SI = 112, Win 49 Points.

7-9-51: I/50 = 53, MG = 4,593, SI = 61, Loss 52 Points.
14-9-93: I/50 = 48, MG = 5,274, SI = 96, Win 42 Points.
7-9-51: I/50 = 37, MG = 5,333, SI = 57, Win 5 Points.
7-7-49: I/50 = 35, MG = 4,283, SI = 66, Loss 41 Points.
5-12-42: I/50 = 39, MG = 4,212, SI = 58, Loss 13 Points.

11-6-72: I/50 = 47, MG = 4,416, SI = 71, Loss 24 Points.
16-15-111: I/50 = 61, MG = 5,627, SI = 116, Win 57 Points.
12-8-80: I/50 = 43, MG = 5,387, SI = 68, Win 28 Points.
9-7-61: I/50 = 33, MG = 3,669, SI = 76, Loss 11 Points.
**** BYE ****

6-13-49: I/50 = 45, MG = 4,207, SI = 84, Win 2 Points.
11-10-76: I/50 = 42, MG = 4,207, SI = 84, Win 36 Points.
11-8-74: I/50 = 48, MG = 4,718, SI = 109, Win 30 Points.

I/50 = Inside Fifties, MG = Metres Gained, SI = Score Involvements.

Amazingly had the identical Metres Gained and Score Involvements in Rounds 16 & 17 which is almost demonic and a sign of the return of Satan. We had over 5,000 Metres Gained 5 x times for the season against North Melbourne, Essendon, Gold Coast, Adelaide and Melbourne the who's who of the competition in terms of overall difficulty to play against (sarcasm). As usual tells you a lot without adding the crucial component of the opponents stats, but we can't have everything. Interestingly below 4,000 Metres Gained on two occasions versus Collingwood and Geelong where we combined for a staggering 55 x Inside 50's in the two games which makes them hard to play against even though Geelong were our bitch for a quarter. Our Offensive System could be a clever play on words by Dannnnnnnnnn as our forward system is offensive, but Ugle-Hagan will save us from the abyss of ordinary and he has a hyphen in his name which is always a massive positive for the future "Hyphen Hall Of Fame" team.

 

[whyBulldogs]

watching Geelong trashed Pies, I saw Tom Hawkins really played in a team. He blocked opp defenders and allowed his mate (can't remember who) jump and mark the ball in front of him. On the other scene, I saw most of time 2 or 3 Bulldogs forwards crashed the pack and jumped for the same ball, ending up with ball landing on opposition hands. Where's our forward coach?

 

[Yojimbo]

The M-F-D conundrum (A sweeping saga of regret):

6-6-10 = 22
7-8-7 = 22
7-8-7 = 22
6-9-7 = 22
8-7-7 = 22
8-7-7 = 22
7-6-9 = 22
7-6-9 = 22
6-7-9 = 22
8-7-7 = 22
7-8-7 = 22
10-7-5 = 22
8-7-7 = 22
8-7-7 = 22
9-6-7 = 22
8-5-9 = 22
9-4-9 = 22

9-4-9 = 22

How many of our forwards are forwards or are they mids or defenders, i can smell the versatility it fills my nostrils. Now my rating of the three groups can come into question, but every man is entitled to his opinion and open to ridicule.

 

[Yojimbo]

The M-F-D conundrum (A sweeping saga of regret):

6-6-10 = 22
7-8-7 = 22
7-8-7 = 22
6-9-7 = 22
8-7-7 = 22
8-7-7 = 22
7-6-9 = 22
7-6-9 = 22
6-7-9 = 22
8-7-7 = 22
7-8-7 = 22
10-7-5 = 22
8-7-7 = 22
8-7-7 = 22
9-6-7 = 22
8-5-9 = 22
9-4-9 = 22

9-4-9 = 22

How many of our forwards are forwards or are they mids or defenders, i can smell the versatility it fills my nostrils. Now my rating of the three groups can come into question, but every man is entitled to his opinion and open to ridicule.

So Yojimbo you are effectively saying that Luke Beveridge ran an exhaustive review of our Midfield, Forwards and Defenders until he arrived at the summit of Mt Everest and settled on the 9-4-9 set up drawing Roarke Smith from the midfield group and Hayden Crozier from the defensive group in a attempt to apply some forward pressure on the flow of ball exiting our forward fifty. Yes Yojimbo that is the case all though you would need to speak to Luke to obtain full clarity it does show however that he tried many set ups through the year mainly in vain trying for the holy grail of balance and efficiency.

 

[Braybrook Son]

The number 1 thing in having an effective forward line is to be predictable to team mates but unpredictable to the opposition.

Our forwards are an inexperienced group - Wallis (transformed from mid), Naughton (young and transformed from back), Bruce (new to the team). That predictably is hard - especially given our style of play.

I've noticed a few people comment on our entries designed to minimise turn overs - absolutely given our structure and the ability for teams to score quickly off clean turn overs. Messy turn overs aren't too much of an issue for us.

I dont buy the negativity around our use of Shache/Cavarra etc. Setting standards is essential to getting a team playing well and making a player a better footballer. Shache had to be dropped after his efforts (remember there are key indicators he had to reach, if the coaching staff said you must make 10 contests and he makes 3 that's not good enough - even if he kicks 3 goals from those contests. We want him to improve. The standard you accept is the standards you're setting. By not accepting anything less than the minimum expectations, it makes Shache a better player in the long run, and therefore us a better team. In the wet, we dont expect him to take 10 marks, he does need to meet other standards though. We can only speculate as to what they are, but he certainly didnt meet them! Accepting poor performance in poor conditions give Shache an out when it is wet next time. The standards you accept...). He then got concussion and HD an interrupted end in the praccies.

I think we desperately need a mobile small forward - which is a VERY hard position to play. Cavarra could be thst guy (I'm not sold, think he is a stop gap/depth) but I'm surprised so many wanted him in. He clearly wasnt ready and needs development in the AFL system. Is he quick enough?

Bruce didnt work. No fault of anyone really, he just had a bad year. Clunks a few of the Marks he got hands to, kicks a few more of his set shots and all of a sudden it's closer to a pass mark. I see him as a guy who just cant get out marked. If he doesnt mark it, he needs to make a contest and bring the ball to ground. He was out marked a few times, and hopefully will be better next year.

Some interesting points here, but do laugh at the "its all our coaches fault" posts. Yeah maybe we would be better short term in the odd match or two, but in order for sustained success, it's important to get the things right and accept no less than what you demand.

Then how do you explain Bruce and Gowers getting free runs of games if Schache was getting dropped for the reasons you mentioned? How did West not get more games? How did Greene not get one game and why was Lewis Young forgotten about after being chosen to play late 2019 and the elimination final in 2019, then round 1 2020, and then forgotten about? Doesn’t make any sense. If the selected teams in 2020 and the non-selected players in 2020 doesn’t tell you that there were favorites picked in front of others, then I’m not here!

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

With the news that Hannan has requested a trade to us, Lonie is looking increasingly likely, and Cox has been linked to us several times now, I felt it was appropriate to revisit.

The overwhelming sentiment from this thread was that our offensive struggles were the result of both personnel and system, in addition to an interaction between the two where our imperfect personnel hinders our attempts to devise a reliable system, and our suboptimal system does not maximise our players' output.

My question to you all is: do any of these players address any of your/our concerns? Do you believe they can make any difference, either to personnel, system, or otherwise?

A few sub-questions, too:

1. What kind of player do you see Hannan as? What role does he play for us?
2. How do you rate Lonie? He is somewhat of a conundrum for me, based on limited viewing and statistics. He's a very high F50 tackle and pressure player, and a relatively high groundball get player I50. He's also a high inside 50 and marks inside 50 (especially on the lead) player. But for all of that, he's a pretty low score involvement, goal, and goal assist player. This is a pretty odd collection of stats - how do you interpret these?
3. Is Cox the answer to our forward/ruck issues? Can he play alongside two other key forwards? If not, who is he competing with?

Let's not turn this into list management 2.0, but keep it focused on how these acquisitions would theoretically assist our offensive structure.

 

[Yojimbo]

My question to you all is: do any of these players address any of your/our concerns? Do you believe they can make any difference, either to personnel, system, or otherwise?

After long and thorough consideration the answer is no, i realize that is sub-optimal in nature, but the answer is still NO.

We thrive in the area of the ground that has no goal posts and our goal construction is horrendous.

 

[Mantis Toboggan]

The M-F-D conundrum (A sweeping saga of regret):

6-6-10 = 22
7-8-7 = 22
7-8-7 = 22
6-9-7 = 22
8-7-7 = 22
8-7-7 = 22
7-6-9 = 22
7-6-9 = 22
6-7-9 = 22
8-7-7 = 22
7-8-7 = 22
10-7-5 = 22
8-7-7 = 22
8-7-7 = 22
9-6-7 = 22
8-5-9 = 22
9-4-9 = 22

9-4-9 = 22

How many of our forwards are forwards or are they mids or defenders, i can smell the versatility it fills my nostrils. Now my rating of the three groups can come into question, but every man is entitled to his opinion and open to ridicule.

None of those subtractions add up to 22.

 

[Boyd oh Boyd]

With the news that Hannan has requested a trade to us, Lonie is looking increasingly likely, and Cox has been linked to us several times now, I felt it was appropriate to revisit.

The overwhelming sentiment from this thread was that our offensive struggles were the result of both personnel and system, in addition to an interaction between the two where our imperfect personnel hinders our attempts to devise a reliable system, and our suboptimal system does not maximise our players' output.

My question to you all is: do any of these players address any of your/our concerns? Do you believe they can make any difference, either to personnel, system, or otherwise?

A few sub-questions, too:

1. What kind of player do you see Hannan as? What role does he play for us?
2. How do you rate Lonie? He is somewhat of a conundrum for me, based on limited viewing and statistics. He's a very high F50 tackle and pressure player, and a relatively high groundball get player I50. He's also a high inside 50 and marks inside 50 (especially on the lead) player. But for all of that, he's a pretty low score involvement, goal, and goal assist player. This is a pretty odd collection of stats - how do you interpret these?
3. Is Cox the answer to our forward/ruck issues? Can he play alongside two other key forwards? If not, who is he competing with?

Let's not turn this into list management 2.0, but keep it focused on how these acquisitions would theoretically assist our offensive structure.

Hannan I see most damaging as a mobile deep forward option. Good mark, pace, and snap shot. Reasonably good at ground level and pressuring. He's more of an all rounder than dedicated to one specific role. Bailey Dale

31

Bailey Dale

Age

27

Ht

188cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

13.2

3star

K

7.6

3star

HB

5.6

4star

M

3.1

3star

T

1.6

4star

MG

117.4

2star

D

9.0

2star

K

5.1

2star

HB

3.9

3star

M

2.3

2star

T

1.7

3star

MG

117.4

2star

D

8.0

2star

K

5.0

2star

HB

3.0

3star

M

1.4

2star

T

2.0

4star

in his best form (late 2019) is a superior version but Hannan's lows in the right role aren't as low as Dale. He can have one game where he kicks 3 and the next 3 where he kicks none but the slight increase in pressure means he still contributes in some way when this happens. Improves our output based on personnel.

Lonie I see as a dedicated pressure player. At his best he can force a turnover or win a ground ball and get a goal that otherwise would've been an easy rebound for the opposition. High handball to kick ratio implies he may have a slight mismatch to our game style. After winning that ground ball or turnover he might go for goal himself or try a more difficult pass than the simple handball we usually go for. Goal accuracy is terrible so we want him passing when he can. On the other hand it can be argued we need to kick out of traffic more. Maybe we'll get him to play our way, maybe he'll bring us a different look compared to our handball happy team. He wins double the amount of frees for than against. Hopefully a good amount of those are HTB. Lonie is no star but he is much more suited to the role of pressure forward than others we've been using. Improves our output based on system.

Cox will not be a very big help forward. With us he would be more focused on the ruck. He and English can give us a 1-1.5 goals a game pairing in the right scenario which is not elite but it is solid. Cox isn't difficult to stop as a forward. He needs to take a mark with his arms fully extended and he needs to be balanced or he struggles to control the ball. Enough body contact a few seconds before a mark is enough to throw him off. His strength is when he gets a mismatch or his opponent loses focus his height lets him take advantage of this. If we rotate English and Cox often enough it should be more difficult to keep track of him and he can take this advantage. This is the best case scenario though. Mostly he will not have as much time forward as he did with Collingwood and so will likely not kick as many goals. With two rucks it's important to have other forwards that can kick winning scores with basically a man down. (Not to turn this into list management but) Does a forward line (say) Bruce, Naughton, Wallis, Hannan, Lonie, resting mid and resting ruck kick enough goals? The answer might just be 'if they're all in form.' Does a forward line of 3 talls, 2 mediums, 1 small and 1 mid give us a good balance? That might just depend on if that mid is dead tired from running or is only a part time mid and has enough in the tank to pressure and crumb, or it might depend on how small Hannan can play if we get him to focus on doing that instead.

I see all 3 as best 22 and improving us individually but if you were to play all 3 in the same forward line, along with what's currently our forward set-up there are question marks. Does 1 small and 3 talls leave us all out of balance? Is it too much of a risk to play 2 rucks when instead we could play another goal kicker? Hannan is a fine player but are we better off with someone is a more specific role than another balanced all rounder? All just comes down to the massive queries over our system.

 

[Yojimbo]

None of those subtractions add up to 22.

I gave you a like, not because i liked your comment MT, but because i liked your comment. (When is a minus not a minus ?)

 

[Jeff 1975]

With the news that Hannan has requested a trade to us, Lonie is looking increasingly likely, and Cox has been linked to us several times now, I felt it was appropriate to revisit.

The overwhelming sentiment from this thread was that our offensive struggles were the result of both personnel and system, in addition to an interaction between the two where our imperfect personnel hinders our attempts to devise a reliable system, and our suboptimal system does not maximise our players' output.

My question to you all is: do any of these players address any of your/our concerns? Do you believe they can make any difference, either to personnel, system, or otherwise?

A few sub-questions, too:

1. What kind of player do you see Hannan as? What role does he play for us?
2. How do you rate Lonie? He is somewhat of a conundrum for me, based on limited viewing and statistics. He's a very high F50 tackle and pressure player, and a relatively high groundball get player I50. He's also a high inside 50 and marks inside 50 (especially on the lead) player. But for all of that, he's a pretty low score involvement, goal, and goal assist player. This is a pretty odd collection of stats - how do you interpret these?
3. Is Cox the answer to our forward/ruck issues? Can he play alongside two other key forwards? If not, who is he competing with?

Let's not turn this into list management 2.0, but keep it focused on how these acquisitions would theoretically assist our offensive structure.

Cox could be a good addition to the forward line and second ruck
Hopefully he can hold his marks, if not we need to lock-in player and from your description Lonie seems a good candidate
We may need to slip Bruce out and go with Naughton and Cox
Don’t know much about Hannan hopefully he can play mid or a lock-in forward
I believe we have enough back-men with three talls minimum
Could go a little taller with Lewis Young

33

Lewis Young

Age

25

Ht

202cm

Wt

99kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.6

3star

K

7.5

3star

HB

4.1

3star

M

4.4

4star

T

1.6

4star

MG

197.9

3star

D

4.0

1star

K

3.0

1star

HB

1.0

1star

M

3.0

3star

T

0.0

1star

MG

26.0

1star

D

14.4

4star

K

8.2

4star

HB

6.2

4star

M

6.4

5star

T

2.0

4star

MG

181.6

3star

and Schache getting games

 

[doggies ftw]

I don’t think Naughty, Bruce and Cox works at all. All contested marking types who fly at everything. Naughty and Cox could work though. Naughty draws so much attention I think Cox really could get quite a few mismatches and really good looks alongside Naughty.