Autopsy Pies V Dogs post match analysis

[Vicky Park]

So, is there agreement that Marley showed better form in this game, some signs of the 2013 Marley? He was unconvincing in the first two NAB games, following his problematic 2014.

 

[jathanas]

I don't think Marley was setting the world on fire Vicky Park, but he did account for himself in a more convincing manner than most of his teammates. I'm sure he'll play himself into impressive form. He's a rock.

I wish I could sound as optimistic about the team's potential to do well in 2015. I'll be content if they can get more games into our youth; and offer us supporters glimpses of light at the end of the tunnel.

That game against the Bulldogs was a sobering experience.

 

[Scodog10]

Who would you like them to feed it to? Frost? Sinclair? Toovey? Ramsay? They're all horrible outlet options and they are all in the same backline. Terrible recruiting to have so many poorly skilled role players in the same position, and poor coaching to play them all in that role. If Seedsman can't become a mini-Andrew McLeod off half back, we are screwed.

He'll nope, yep, nope and yep. Our skills are s**t there's no sugar coating it feeding it to Brown, Frost or Toovey just exacerbates the problem. The guys that can/ should be moving the ball out of the back half are just instructed to do it the wrong way. It should all be done with run for Collingwood which unfortunately isn't possible with our fixation on "forward pressure".

Yawn...

You nailed it that's the perfect description of our current game style!

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

The same issues that we all know the team have were as clear as day tonight.

Speed/Skill are a serious worry.

The forward line is also terribly one dimensional... we still only have one thing in mind when it comes to getting it down there.

It's why I'll keep saying that Cloke needs to play in the backline, or not at all. He's a liability to the whole side as a forward.

 

[Anzacday]

Over the years we as a club have prided ourselves on helping the other clubs eg Melb. always get Queens Birthday as a home game.
We helped out the Bulldogs with fund raising/membership in the past., (can't recall the details).

This year is no different.
Peter Gordon asked Ed for some help to which the response was "mate we're already helping via the taxes and equalisation fund and distributions, what more do you want?"
PG - mate we need to sell hope, everybody knows the life blood of a club is membership, we need members!!
EM - our memberships numbers are all above board/bone fide - I can't go giving you any.
PG - it's our last game before the real stuff starts and if we don't play well, we can't sell hope for the year
EM - leave it with me


PS:Only bit that wasn't factored in is how good Bonts looks

 

[Baltimore Jack]

It's why I'll keep saying that Cloke needs to play in the backline, or not at all. He's a liability to the whole side as a forward.

So let me see if I have this right:
The Dogs put 3 players on Cloke because they fully recognise it takes that many to shut him down and your "solution" to the Dogs tactic is to punish Cloke?

 

[MarkT2]

You shouldn't draw too much from practice matches but in reality we are a poor side lacking pace and skill with no depth. That has been evident for a long time.
We didn't play poorly because it was a practice match that we didn't care about we player poorly because we are poor. The list isn't good enough. Whether Buckley I'm not sure but what has happened to the list under his watch is enough to make that irrelevant. Unfortunately I don't see anything changing for us for quite some time.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

So let me see if I have this right:
The Dogs put 3 players on Cloke because they fully recognise it takes that many to shut him down and your "solution" to the Dogs tactic is to punish Cloke?

Jesus man you don't have to be so literal. I've posted this before. When Cloke is down there, they double and triple team him because all teams know that when Cloke is there we only kick it to him. It's something they can't seem to train out of the players so why waste more time trying? Just take him out of the forward line and give them no choice.

Let's be honest, Cloke hasn't been great the last couple of years even when he's NOT being double or triple teamed. He doesn't seem to be able to get the separation on his man other forwards do. Make him a centre half back where we don't need to rely on his bad kicking for goal and his strength can be used to STOP opponents as opposed to always trying to take the harder contested mark.

He has all the attributes to make a fantastic centre half back. I"m sure you would have had this same attitude had I suggested in 2006 that Chris Tarrant become a backman too right?

 

[Captivating]

So let me see if I have this right:
The Dogs put 3 players on Cloke because they fully recognise it takes that many to shut him down and your "solution" to the Dogs tactic is to punish Cloke?

How is it punishing Cloke. What you do is create a bitch of a match up for the opposition. Could they find 3 players as tall and mobile as Trav to cover him across the ground and triple tea, him. No.

And then it opens up our forward line as they won't be stacking it to defend against Cloke.

 

[Refrigerator]

Any forward that is drawing 3 defenders is already doing an important job. Obviously, don't kick to him, kick it to one of the other 2 forwards that doesn't have a defender.

 

[Maggie5]

Any forward that is drawing 3 defenders is already doing an important job. Obviously, don't kick to him, kick it to one of the other 2 forwards that doesn't have a defender.

Correct, meanwhile what are our players doing whilst their opponent is going for the spoil? Star gazing?
I stand to be corrected but there was only a couple of times that Cloke was out-marked and the crumbs were there for our players to get, why no blame on them?

 

[Laurie Holden]

Not seeing a hell of a lot of match analysis here, so i'm going to try and change that.

-The bloke behind me yelling 'CANT BELIEVE WE CHOSE SCHARENBERG OVER BONTEMPELLI! SACK BUCKS!' every time Bonts touched the ball, poor poor form, wanted to correct him but like some on this board, there are just some people in this world that are uncorrectable.

Great post!

I love the Bont talk! Classic ignorance and you see it on here at times also. He was pick 4, we had pick 6! Hello!

Dawes took more marks and kicked more goals than White and was able to take the pressure off Cloke.

We aren't going there again.....surely

 

[Scodog10]

Jeez we have some problems ATM, but moving Cloke to the back half solves none of them.

 

[wednesdaywarrior]

Great post!

I love the Bont talk! Classic ignorance and you see it on here at times also. He was pick 4, we had pick 6! Hello!



We aren't going there again.....surely

I think most of us (outside of the senseless rageaholics like the one mentioned) understand very well that we had no play on Bontempelli.

The suggestion is rather that the Dogs may have bumped him up their order off the hard work of our recruiting department and this suspicion lingers. There is no way of knowing whether it is true and quite possibly they had their own homework done on him.

The reason this conspiracy theory developed was pretty obvious. Up until the final week of the draft Bontempelli was only being discussed as a 10-15 type of pick, perhaps firming as a late top 10 at best. To that point taking him ahead of the settled top four Aish, Schareberg etc. would have been seen as a fairly strident risk. With strong rumours circulating that we were right into him and had been heavily linked and persistent media talk of him being the 'next Pendlebury' other recruiting departments may have done a late due diligence on him to ensure they were not missing out on the 'next Pendlebury', well aware of how the Pies had snared the actual Pendlebury in the 2005 draft.

The idea is not so far fetched when you consider it. Recruiting departments have finite resources and often miss players true capabilities until given a reason to sniff in that direction. Its a game of poker at the end of a game of homework.

Its hard to imagine what might have been when you see him tearing us up on Saturday.

But either way, I'm no longer beating myself up over it. We move on and place our hope in Scharenberg and others who wear the black and white. And as one poster astutely noted, if that was the story of that draft, then purely and simply Hine and co. just have to learn to 'shut the hell up.'

Side by side.

 

[BEEG]

I feel Cloke is not moving enough i have said it before and will say it again play White deep and have Cloke play the Riewoldt role run blokes off there feet

 

[Old Spice]

Just on the game plan, Nick Maxwell was just on SEN and made a very pertinent point. Under Malthouse, we hugged the boundary which was a more conservative approach which once allowed for easy space or a reset if the ball spills over the boundary.

A response to that method was Sydney's slingshot footy in which the opposition defence would flood the opposition forward 50 and then counter-punch through the middle while players skirting the wings were caught boundary side. What we are seeing now is an attempt to move the ball quickly to best option wherever that may be on the field. The criticism of that might be that we don't have the foot skills to execute best target and that the boundary line is taken out of the equation as a reset option, but to my mind you have to practice excellence to achieve it. The game plan will find the players to execute it. We'll flush out the best decision makers and best users who can make it happen. By relying on a conservative approach players won't hone their skills and I think it's a problem to be stuck on one side of the ground near the boundary trying to find options. The opposition then only have to defend one half of the ground. If we can hit targets through the middle we have the whole ground open up to us. If you don't exercise decision making and skills, they won't develop/find players fit for it.

On players, Grundy looks to me like a trireme floating around the ground and blown off course. He puffs around the ground and is simply not fit enough to stay in the contest around the ground. What he provides at the centre bounce is not enough. I'd prefer to see Witts as the solo ruck with White and Gault rucking and presenting up forward. White is much more competitive in the middle than Grundy and won't allow the opposition easy extraction. I still think our mid set-up is damaged by this scenario and creates enormous knock on effects.

 

[Gone Critical]

Jesus man you don't have to be so literal. I've posted this before. When Cloke is down there, they double and triple team him because all teams know that when Cloke is there we only kick it to him. It's something they can't seem to train out of the players so why waste more time trying? Just take him out of the forward line and give them no choice.

Let's be honest, Cloke hasn't been great the last couple of years even when he's NOT being double or triple teamed. He doesn't seem to be able to get the separation on his man other forwards do. Make him a centre half back where we don't need to rely on his bad kicking for goal and his strength can be used to STOP opponents as opposed to always trying to take the harder contested mark.

He has all the attributes to make a fantastic centre half back. I"m sure you would have had this same attitude had I suggested in 2006 that Chris Tarrant become a backman too right?

Madness. Cloke is one of the best key forwards in the comp. Period.

Perhaps the silliest thing you said was Cloke hasnt been that great the last couple of years. Remember a couple of years ago in 2013 when Cloke had arguably his best season, AA, just missed the Coleman, was a contested marking behemoth. Yes he carried injuries in 2014 and was down but expect him to be better this year. Fortunately our MC wont have such a knee jerk response

 

[TradeDraft]

Madness. Cloke is one of the best key forwards in the comp. Period.

Perhaps the silliest thing you said was Cloke hasnt been that great the last couple of years. Remember a couple of years ago in 2013 when Cloke had arguably his best season, AA, just missed the Coleman, was a contested marking behemoth. Yes he carried injuries in 2014 and was down but expect him to be better this year. Fortunately our MC wont have such a knee jerk response

Then why does our Forward Line look like s**t when is in the Forward Line?

 

[Manic Magpie]

Just on Grundy, he doesn't seem as good in the ruck as he was in his first year. I did not see our last game, but last year he was not timing his jumps to achieve maximum height as he did earlier in his career. Now the accusation is being made against him that he lacks body strength to compete with big boys like Minson. As Dave might say, have we drafted a dud? Or is he going to recapture the spring and timing he initially showed in ruck battles? He is certainly yet to give any indication that he is going to dominate in the air as top ruckmen are expected to do. Given Kennedy's obvious lack of size and Broomheads' disappointing performances so far this year (and last year), picks 18, 19 and 20 aren't looking as rosy as they appeared at the time.

 

[TradeDraft]

On players, Grundy looks to me like a trireme floating around the ground and blown off course. He puffs around the ground and is simply not fit enough to stay in the contest around the ground. What he provides at the centre bounce is not enough. I'd prefer to see Witts as the solo ruck with White and Gault rucking and presenting up forward. White is much more competitive in the middle than Grundy and won't allow the opposition easy extraction. I still think our mid set-up is damaged by this scenario and creates enormous knock on effects.

IF we have to Rely on Witts for the Whole Season. Then Hine Stuffed up by not Chasing Giles harder from GWS. He would been better then Varcoe

 

[Gone Critical]

Then why does our Forward Line look like s**t when is in the Forward Line?

Dave, Travis has enough credits in the bank for playing in teams where we didnt look like s**t as you put it. It's kneejerk to repond so ssavagely to a bad NAB cup loss. Have faith in Cloke.

 

[Old Spice]

Then why does our Forward Line look like s**t when is in the Forward Line?

I reckon we need 3 talls in Cloke, Gault and White starting in the forward 50. A genuine ruck with fitness who wins the ball or negates in the middle.

Until Grundy is fit enough to run around the ground or dominate centre bounces (preferably both things) he needs to have a spell.

 

[TradeDraft]

Just on Grundy, he doesn't seem as good in the ruck as he was in his first year. I did not see our last game, but last year he was not timing his jumps to achieve maximum height as he did earlier in his career. Now the accusation is being made against him that he lacks body strength to compete with big boys like Minson. As Dave might say, have we drafted a dud? Or is he going to recapture the spring and timing he initially showed in ruck battles? He is certainly yet to give any indication that he is going to dominate in the air as top ruckmen are expected to do. Given Kennedy's obvious lack of size and Broomheads' disappointing performances so far this year (and last year), picks 18, 19 and 20 aren't looking as rosy as they appeared at the time.

So you saying Hine F**KED up the 2012 Draft and He position should be looked at?

 

[TradeDraft]

Dave, Travis has enough credits in the bank for playing in teams where we didnt look like s**t as you put it. It's kneejerk to repond so ssavagely to a bad NAB cup loss. Have faith in Cloke.

We looked our Best in the NAB Challenge when he was not there

 

[Gone Critical]

Just on Grundy, he doesn't seem as good in the ruck as he was in his first year. I did not see our last game, but last year he was not timing his jumps to achieve maximum height as he did earlier in his career. Now the accusation is being made against him that he lacks body strength to compete with big boys like Minson. As Dave might say, have we drafted a dud? Or is he going to recapture the spring and timing he initially showed in ruck battles? He is certainly yet to give any indication that he is going to dominate in the air as top ruckmen are expected to do. Given Kennedy's obvious lack of size and Broomheads' disappointing performances so far this year (and last year), picks 18, 19 and 20 aren't looking as rosy as they appeared at the time.

He did look very good against the Blues before getting injured. He was up against a very good senior ruckman ans is still developing. Give him time. As to picks 18, 19 and 20 they still look good. Grundy has plenty of potential and the other 2 look capable of being AFL standard at least with time. I favour Kennedy as the better of the 2.

People have overexpected a bit from this trio because we gave up flag players to get them and also because of the constant referral to them as 1st round draft picks. This is almost said at times with a mystical certainty of success. Although technically they were in the 1st round of choices that was only because of team expansion and draft concessions. Historically these number picks have always been 2nd round. More instructive I believe is to look at the history of picks 18, 19 and 20. Occasional gems, some solid types and plenty who didn't make it. Remember our picks of Stanley, Cook, Nixon etc around this mark. If we can get 3 payers out of 18.19, 20 and 1 of them, I favour Grundy, becomes very good and the other 2 regular B-C graders we will have done alright with these picks.