Over reaction

[lachy]

Both MD and theAthenian raise valid points

We've a long way to go yet and the list still needs work/tweaking. We will get there and when we do, it will be worth the extra wait

The building of a list is a journey, we will have many ups and downs along the way.

It is a young list, this will exacerbate the issue no doubt, it is however a better young list than most so expectations will be high internally and externally and should be so. But the hysteria surrounding this loss is way out of hand. We will win some more we are not expected to win and lose some we are expected to win.

Personally, 10 to 12 wins will be a successful year. Ladder position for this could be anything from 7th to 15th. Watching the players develop a steely resolve will be more important. We may finish bottom 6, we may finish lower part of the 8 as outside the top 4 to 6 teams the rest have more issues than we have. What we have seen though is what we will be capable of sustaining more and more over the next few seasons

 

[Balony_pony16]

lions lost to a crap eagles team by 100pts at the Gabba 2 years straight in their premiership years...Chin up guys

 

[Optimistic Dog]

It's blatantly clear we've spent all summer working on plan A, and with the late start to Bevo's tenure he's either been unable or unwilling to work on Plan B.
When things aren't going well, as a coach you only have two options - change players, or change the pace of the game.

I expect next pre-season we work on plan B, changing the tempo.

I'm disappointed at the result because Boyd & Murph should have been able to direct the players to slow the game down however in the long term scheme of things we will learn the required tempo plans to avoid a similar mistake in coming seasons.

In any case, throw just one of Libba, Wallis or Jong into that side and we would have won.

Boyd did not play unless referring to Tom

 

[ThirdLegUp]

the sub rule has been brought up a couple times. I'll give my opinion on it for the first time, and the last. It's stupid. In soccer (where they got it from) you do not run on and off the field, you exchange a player and that player is out of the game, new player is in. Done.

What the baffoons at AFL house didn't notice was that in soccer, you have 5 men on the bench. ( or 6 or 7 in some countries) thats right, FIVE! (OR SIX OR SEVEN!! ). only 3 subs per team per game allowed. So you have a spare Keeper, plus a spare for every other area of the pitch if you wish, or all goal keepers if you're insane, up to the manager and coach. Why is this important? because there are 11 on the field. 10 players, 1 keeper. so you have HALF the number of players on the bench!!! You are covered for any situation just about. That! is sportsmanship folks, not just shaking hands after the game.

Here we have 18 players... with 1 sub, and 3 able to run on and off...so essentially 21 players, of all sorts of dimension and position being coverd by 1 player. if you get an injury??? no problem, replace him... oh wait, the player we have on the bench is more then likely a mid, the man that went down is a 2m tall ruckman... hmm, ok, PUNISH the team more then the injury already has, by making them get rid of another player, thus not only handicapping them with the positional player they just lost, but also removing another player from another position.

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!!! if you order within the next 10 minutes you'll get a second injury!,so not only another man down, but our throw in handicap, which will come in the form of a limit to how many times you can take your interchange players on and off! thus insuring that any team guilty of ruining our great game of football, by having the audacity to suffer 2 injured players, will get more tired because anyone who needs to catch his breath will have to wait that little bit longer to get his chance, and thus take that little bit longer to recover.

It doesn't work right, it is far more likely that a team of 18 has more then 1 injury in a contact sport then a team of 11 having to suffer 4 injuries, before they have to play with 1 less player. (bare in mind that it is officially coded, that in some countries even at this point, if the opposition agrees, you can have a 4th sub to keep the game fair, i have actually seen this take place once in the name of sportsmanship while watching a 3rd div game, even though it is not Oz law)

The sub rule should be to replace 1 of the 4 intercange players in case of injury, thus ensuring both teams have 22 able players. If they then get a second injury, then they will be one players short on interchange, but having 3 interchange is still much better then having only 2 rotating for 18 men.

If however a coach wishes to sub out an interchange player early in the game, he only has himself to blame if they get an injury, or worse, 2 injuries. It would be great if each team had 2 or 3 emergancies, any one of which could be the sub, giving better flexability, but also more chance to see a youngster be given a shot in case of misfortune.

Simple, not rocket science.

 

[HiReception]

A few opposition supporters have gotten chewed out on this board for saying things after wins like "You guys remind of us back in [insert year before they started dominating] etc etc" as a form of well-wishing, but for better or for worse, I see a few similarities between ourselves and Port Adelaide in 2013.

They were the hot ticket of the competition after they won their first five matches, also with a first-year coach, and then it all started to go pear-shaped, funnily enough at the same round as this year's Bulldogs-Saints game, and they were 5-5. Plus all the other things that we had in common.

I can't possibly say what will happen to the Dogs from here, but everyone since the Sydney game is asking whether/when we'll "fall away" and be unable to match our output in the early part. I bring up the Port example because that team still made it to the second week of the Finals - so I would argue that teams like ours this year don't necessarily "fall away". Even if they lose five on the trot

 

[theAthenian]

A few opposition supporters have gotten chewed out on this board for saying things after wins like "You guys remind of us back in [insert year before they started dominating] etc etc" as a form of well-wishing, but for better or for worse, I see a few similarities between ourselves and Port Adelaide in 2013.

They were the hot ticket of the competition after they won their first five matches, also with a first-year coach, and then it all started to go pear-shaped, funnily enough at the same round as this year's Bulldogs-Saints game, and they were 5-5. Plus all the other things that we had in common.

I can't possibly say what will happen to the Dogs from here, but everyone since the Sydney game is asking whether/when we'll "fall away" and be unable to match our output in the early part. I bring up the Port example because that team still made it to the second week of the Finals - so I would argue that teams like ours this year don't necessarily "fall away". Even if they lose five on the trot

totally agree - its all about good management and luck from now on

 

[Rockford18sx2]

Think about how you would feel about the game/season so far if you took the St Kilda game and flipped the halves. Eg. we played poorly in the first half and came out after half time with fantastic pressure, fast spread and ball movement from the contest, plenty of run off half back from JJ and Murphy, yet still loose by 7 points. How would you feel?

You'd still be disappointed with the end result, but you'd be ecstatic the boys were able to perform to the standards shown so far this season and that the development we are seeing from them is real. I see it this way regardless if you flipped the halves.

Yes, young teams have failings at times. Half of this weeks game was one of them.