Autopsy Poor 1st qtr effort & matchups sees Dogs lose another one to them by 13 pts

[Dogs_r_barking]

Me too, the way the opposition run out of our forward line anyway why not at least have the added strengths of a tall forward line with some marking options. They’re not all gonna be in the forward line at once anyway. Bukus not even a tall he should be a 4th forward, 3rd at a stretch. When the ball goes inside 50 Naughty takes the hitout and English and Buku/Schache drop back to the perimeter to cut off any quick hacks out of defence.

Schache should be a running flanker who gets up and down the middle of the ground all day presenting lead up options - and can pinch hit in the ruck. Naughty deepest and Buku hanging around down there too.

Then we just set up our defence a little bit further back, our last line of defence should no longer set up in front of their opponents - it’s too costly. Our last line of defence should be the deepest players on the field at any one time, the next line can zone and cover space in front - so we don’t let them over the top as easy when they’re coming out and focus more on turning the ball over at half back rather than half forward, with options in the forward half when we’re bringing it out of defence.

I’d love to just see us play some tempo footy, short kicks and repetitive leading and presenting from multiple options up the field, we don’t have to butcher everything trying to play at a million miles an hour every single minute of the game. Need to be able to learn when to go and when not to, but we’ve never quite figured that out.

We miss Hunter, who usually runs it up, and kicks into the fifty.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

LISTEN: Zach Tuohy proves the Players Code is alive and well when asked about Bailey Smith headbutt

Zach should charge Bazlenka a fee for legal services!

www.theroar.com.au

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

We miss Hunter, who usually runs it up, and kicks into the fifty.

Macrae to Hunter - the rhythm is lost.

 

[VogonProsthetnic]

We miss Hunter, who usually runs it up, and kicks into the fifty.

Actually Naughton is as good as a small forward at ground level anyway.

I wouldn’t even play him as the marking target.

Watch how Geelong use Cameron.

 

[doggies ftw]

Not for me, Can't play Buku and JUH in the same forward line, with both of them gassed in the last quarter, teams will be walking the ball out of defence. Schache isn't quick but at least he'll run the game out. 3 talls I'd be happy with

Teams are already walking the ball out of our forward line though and I think with both playing full time forward they should be able to run out a game, maybe Buku not now but a few weeks ago I think we could have expected that from him. I don’t think running out a game has really been Jamarras problem at the level this year honestly.

I’d be happy with Naughty, Jamarra, Schache/Buku & Sweet, English in the ruck and then even just Keath & Gards/O’Brien down back or all 3.

It sounds so ridiculously tall because we’ve been conditioned to feel that way because we’re usually at least 2 talls short but that is really not excessive.

Look at Geelong last night, Hawkins/Cameron/Rohan/Blicavs/Stanley in the front half is very similar.

Melbourne - Weideman, Brown, Fritsch, Jackson, Gawn.
St Kilda - Wood, Membrey, King, Marshall, Ryder, Sharman
Lions - Hipwood, McStay, Daniher, Fort, McinErny (lumbering talls anywhere not an ounce of defensive pressure between them, yet extremely fast paced, quick side???)
Swans - Franklin, McDonald, Reid, Ladhams, Hickey
Tigs - Riewoldt, Soldo, Lynch, Nank, Balta
Blues - McKay, Curnow, De Koning, Silvagni, Pittonet

Why do we lose our s**t at the thought of how bad our pressure will suffer as soon as someone talks about adding an extra tall - we have an unheard of elite midfield and some real Quality pressure smalls like Weightman and West too surely we can handle it and if not well time to look elsewhere.

At any one time you’ve probably got Naughty and Jamarra in the forward 50, Schache roaming higher up the field and Sweet/English in the ruck with the other on the bench or sitting behind the ball. So you’ve got 4 tall players in the front half of your ground - this is not going to kill our team defence.

The fact that Naughty is literally elite for any sized player with his defensive pressure and tackling so you can pretty much discount him as being a tall when the ball hits the ground. Jamarra being similar when he actually wants to (this becoming more consistent is key) and English being literally another midfielder at ground level and one of the best runners for a ruckman in the comp also being discounted as a tall.

It means we’re only carrying two lumbering types in Schache and Sweet, and one of those guys has a huge tank and can still run all day to be an option in an offensive chain or to shut down space in a zone. And the other should spend the majority of his time in the ruck contest and around the stoppage where he is very good (most tackles for a ruckman in his two games).

English would be freed up to drop back a bit more like Blicavs does for Geelong - meaning we could get away with two talls in defence.

At the worst we would not be any worse than we already are, at best we could be very very good. What’s to lose now? Do it for the rest of the year and see what happens

 

[Mutt]

English isn’t demanding anything. He is our best ruckman

That doesn't mean he should be the first ruck or that he should ruck 80% of the game.

 

[BEaston]

The worst moment of the game was Caleb shitting his pants and refusing to pick up the ball, tapping it to the goal square for an easy Cameron goal

If it was anyone else, it would be a stoppable offence

That was horrendous

 

[Some Idiot]

The worst moment of the game was Caleb shitting his pants and refusing to pick up the ball, tapping it to the goal square for an easy Cameron goal

If it was anyone else, it would be a droppable offence

I hated it, but he was probably worried about getting pinged for deliberate (which was never a chance, but it does still make players panic in that situation)

 

[immortalmike]

You know what makes me so angry? I see someone like Libba, someone who tried his guts out last night (even in the first), I see the best years of Bont being frittered away, I see Naughton having the struggle, our (coaching driven) inept ruck set up, our game day tactics, our hare-brained selection, our 'bottom six' who are barely VFL level, our backline (with one or two exceptions) which s**** the bed against any side with a hack KPF let alone Hawkins and Cameron.

Urgh...I need a drink.

I don't even get angry anymore. I've gone to acceptance. We won't win another flag with this core. Maybe might jag one when Smith, Marra, and Darcy hit their prime. Hopefully by then we have a more professional football department.

 

[Mantis Toboggan]

Pretty much has summed up how I have felt about this year also. It’s terrible that something I used to get so much enjoyment from is now just a weekly dose of depression and when we play on a Friday it’s even worse, because you have to deal with it for the whole weekend.

Other than beating the Swans, we haven’t won any games that were 50/50 games, we have lost lots of games we should have won and been uncompetitive for large chunks of games and generally played extremely dumb football.

Very hard team to watch at the moment

You are definitely not alone. My wife and I were just saying we’re not sure we’ll go to the next Friday night game. Rushing home from work and getting on the train for what is not an enjoyable evening. Why do we do it?

It’s really sad I’m thinking like this because a few years ago it would have been the highlight of my week, win or lose.

 

[Sentinel]

Love this post.

I was at the game and also felt the umpiring was deplorable. Everything seemed to be going their way. The unpaid downfield free kick to Richards was the worst of the night. If you’re not going to pay the downfield then why not at least allow the advantage. I can’t bring myself to re-watch it but I’m sure we should have had a mark or a free for an arm chop on whoever the ball went to.

I consider myself able to be pretty objective when it comes to these things but last night had me convinced they were out to get us.

Forced to drown my sorrows at the game and continue at home, the umpires, coaching team and players have conspired to give me a monstrous hangover today. Everyone’s to blame but me.

The Richards decision looked poor, and did cost us, but it was actually the correct call. Stanley got him right at the point his boot was making contact with the ball, so technically it was in the action of kicking rather than after it (which leads to a downfield free). And there's no advantage call possible because the ball was mid air to a contest when the whistle blew.

With 9 seconds on the clock, someone on the bench next to him should have told Richards to boot it forward rather than attempt to switch, instead he chipped it sideways and the quarter was over. Dumb.

 

[BEaston]

English vs. Stanley (40 contests)
Hitouts: 13 / 19
To Advantage: 2 / 6
Clearances: 14 / 18
Score: 1.1 (7) / 4.3 (27)

Thanks Oliver. Do you have a breakdown of this per quarter?
I'd guess that most of those scores from clearances came in the first quarter but would be good to confirm/deny that guess.

 

[Lex22]

Genuine lover of the Doggies here. It is mind boggling how Beveridge does not adapt game styles or adapt defensive structures for different teams. He is one of the best developing coaches in the game for midfielder. He teaches how to win contested ball and move it around and through traffic beautifully.

As far as defenders go, you have one actual decent one on one defender in Keath. He hasn't developed a good one himself since he has been there. More interested in having more ball winners and ball users off half back.

To me, it's a lack of good, experienced assistant coaches willing to challenge him and put more emphasis on defence. I guess this extends to drafting and trading too.

The efficiency is all off, you win so much midfield ball, but opponents know this and can stack the backline, so a lot of the time you are kicking inside 50 to a crowd. Last night, to allow so many slow down short defensive kicks with no pressure from Geelong clearly took the momentum away and allowed Geelong to steady. Your teams inability to lock down hard on this and keep the pressure on says a lot about a lack of focus on defence, from the coach all the way through.

Absolutely spot on.

Please apply for an assistant coaching role with us.

 

[doggies ftw]

Full stats breakdown…

Expected Score / Actual Score (Expected Accuracy / Actual Accuracy)
WB: 65 / 70 (47% / 53%)
GE: 74 / 83 (46% / 52%)

Expected Margin / Actual Margin: -9 / -7

Centre Bounce Attendance
23 - English
18 - Bontemelli
14 - Liberatore
14 - Macrae
12 - B. Smith, Treloar
8 - Dunkley
2 - Khamis

Ruck Contests (Hitouts / To Advantage)
57 - English (17 / 3)
13 - Khamis (2 / 2)
12 - Naughton (4 / 2)
3 - Bontempelli (0 / 0)

Hitouts To Advantage
WB: 7
GE: 12

English attended 23 centre bounces with the team winning the clearance 14 times (61%), losing it 6 times (26%) and bringing it to a secondary stoppage 3 times (13%)

Khamis attended 3 centre bounces with the team winning the clearance 1 time (33%), losing it 2 times (67%) and never bringing it to a secondary stoppage.

English vs. Stanley (40 contests)
Hitouts: 13 / 19
To Advantage: 2 / 6
Clearances: 14 / 18
Score: 1.1 (7) / 4.3 (27)

English vs. Blicavs (9 contests)
Hitouts: 2 / 7
To Advantage: 0 / 2
Clearances: 2 / 5
Score: 0.0 (0) / 0.0 (0)

Khamis vs. Stanley (6 contests)
Hitouts: 1 / 2
To Advantage: 1 / 0
Clearances: 2 / 3
Score: 0.1 (1) / 0.0 (0)

Khamis vs. Blicavs (5 contests)
Hitouts: 1 / 3
To Advantage: 1 / 1
Clearances: 4 / 1
Score: 0.0 (0) / 0.0 (0)

First Possessions
WB: 40

GE: 36

Clearances / Effective Clearances
WB: 35 / 27
GE: 32 / 27

Tackle Efficiency
WB: 65%
GE: 56%

Spoil Efficiency
WB: 67%
GE: 75%

Smothers
WB: 10

GE: 7

Forward Half Kicking Efficiency
WB: 60%
GE: 56%

Defensive Half Kicking Efficiency
WB: 75%
GE: 80%

Forward Half Contested Marks
WB: 3
GE: 5

Defensive Half Contested Marks
WB: 6
GE: 9

Score Launches
3 - Macrae, Treloar
2 - Bontempelli, Dale, Daniel, Williams
1 - English, Keath, Liberatore, O’Brien, Richards, West

Shots At Goal
WB: 19 (53%)
GE: 23 (52%)

Scoring Profile (Western Bulldogs / Geelong)
Set Shot: 4.4 / 7.6
Snap: 2.2 / 3.2
On Run: 4.0 / 0.1
Mark Play On: 0.0 / 1.0
Ground Kick: 0.0 / 1.0

0M-15M: 1.0 / 2.0
15M-30M: 2.2 / 3.2
31M-40M: 3.2 / 2.2
41M-50M: 2.2 / 5.1
51M+: 2.0 / 0.4

Scores Directly From FK/50MP: 1.1 / 1.1
Scores In Time-On: 3.2 / 6.2

Targets Inside 50

16 - No target
12 - Naughton
6 - Weightman, West
3 - Dunkley
2 - Bontempelli, English, McComb
1 - Khamis, Liberatore, McNeil, Scott,

Defensive 50 Marks
WB: 21
GE: 37

Defensive 50 Intercept Marks
WB: 6

GE: 13

Defensive Half Turnovers
WB: 19
GE: 21

Forward Half Turnovers
WB: 47

GE: 43

Unforced Turnovers
WB: 11
GE: 14

Unforced Turnovers By Player
2 - Dale
1 - Daniel, Dunkley, English, Keath, Liberatore, Macrae, O’Brien, Treloar, West

Dropped Marks (Uncontested Only)
WB: 1

GE: 2

No Pressure Errors
WB: 3

GE: 5

Turnovers/Frees/50M Penalties Punished By Goals
1 - Bontempelli, Dale, English, Keath, Richards, Treloar

Champion Data Ranking Points (Supercoach)
123 - Liberatore
113 - Dale
109 - Bontempelli
94 - Daniel
82 - Treloar
82 - Naughton
80 - English
79 - Keath
78 - Williams
72 - O’Brien
67 - B. Smith
66 - Dunkley
64 - Richards
57 - Weightman
56 - Gardner
54 - Khamis
46 - Scott
43 - McComb
40 - Duryea
38 - West
26 - McNeil
DNP - Wallis

AFL Player Rating Points
20.1 - Bontempelli
18.8 - Liberatore
14.1 - Dale
13.3 - Williams
12.9 - Treloar
11.3 - Macrae
11.1 - Daniel
10.6 - Khamis
10.4 - English
10.1 - O’Brien
10.1 - Weightman
8.6 - B. Smith
8.0 - Keath
7.5 - Naughton
7.4 - Richards
5.6 - West
5.5 - Dunkley
5.5 - Gardner
5.4 - Duryea
5.2 - Scott
3.9 - McComb
2.6 - McNeil
DNP - Wallis

Time In Forward Half
Q1
WB: 51%
GE: 49%

Q2
WB: 59%
GE: 41%

Q3
WB: 63%
GE: 37%

Q4
WB: 53%
GE: 47%

Match
WB: 57%
GE: 43%

Pressure Gauge
Q1
WB: 149 (Poor)
GE: 170 (Below Average)

Q2
WB: 179 (Below Average)
GE: 191 (Above Average)

Q3
WB: 171 (Below Average)
GE: 159 (Poor)

Q4
WB: 157 (Poor)
GE: 193 (Above Average)

Match
WB: 163 (Poor)
GE: 179 (Below Average)

Free Kick Summary
View attachment 1416054

Score Sources
View attachment 1416055

English getting butchered by two shitcampaigners at this stage of his career was the biggest disappointment for mine

 

[immortalmike]

Dale will probably cop the brunt of anger but I can live with his mistakes. He tries to hit the impossible and bites off too much. But at least he doesn't go into his shell he just keeps going.

Daniel is my problem. He's there for drive and his ground ball skills. He played the first half shell shocked, allowing kpfs to beat him to ground balls and going safe with his disposal. He can't defend or tackle. Something is desperately wrong with him.

I will say I didn't mind McComb last night although his miss was diabolical. McNeil doesn't give enough when things aren't going his way and Scott is terrified of body contact. Only McNeil has a realistic future but I'd prefer JJ to all of them.

West quietly had another good game but I fully expect that he'll be dropped regardless.

 

[immortalmike]

English getting butchered by two shitcampaigners at this stage of his career was the biggest disappointment for mine

English is still a pretty s**t ruckman. Excellent around the ground though.

 

[dergert]

Have sides finally worked out that if you shut down our half backline you will go a long way in killing our game

 

[BEaston]

Bevo’s press conference so infuriating. Geelong had ‘more vigour’ in the first quarter which led to 7-1 goal difference. No talk of structure. Also complained about our lack of inside 50 efficiency. All good, we’ve only had that issue for 7 years. I’m sure going out and getting a plodder defender as our forward coach is the best solution to that

Did the structure change when we outscored them the rest of the game following the poor start?

Was the structure to blame for going 7-1 goals down or was it the reason we got back into the game?

Maybe it was another factor. Call it vigour or effort or intensity or whatever but nobody can tell me it was the same in q1 to the rest of the game.

 

[doggies ftw]

Did the structure change when we outscored them the rest of the game following the poor start?

Was the structure to blame for going 7-1 goals down or was it the reason we got back into the game?

Maybe it was another factor. Call it vigour or effort or intensity or whatever but nobody can tell me it was the same in q1 to the rest of the game.

I get what you’re saying but I’d say structure was a big reason we went 7-1 down when we were playing poorly yet only managed 9-5 for the rest of the game yet we dominated possession and the play for large parts of the next 3 quarters

 

[immortalmike]

Did the structure change when we outscored them the rest of the game following the poor start?

Was the structure to blame for going 7-1 goals down or was it the reason we got back into the game?

Maybe it was another factor. Call it vigour or effort or intensity or whatever but nobody can tell me it was the same in q1 to the rest of the game.

Our structure was the reason we couldn't score when we had all the ascendancy.
Intensity and effort varies throughout a game.

The only thing that saves a team with low intensity is structure and predictability. With that you shave two goals off that first quarter lead (either through scoring yourself or stopping the other team) and punish the other team when it's your turn.

The lack of intensity in the first was unforgivable but a great and well coached team limits the damage and punishes when they wake up. We could do neither.

 

[BEaston]

I get what you’re saying but I’d say structure was a big reason we went 7-1 down when we were playing poorly yet only managed 9-5 for the rest of the game yet we dominated possession and the play for large parts of the next 3 quarters

The structure and personnel available are not perfect but by far the biggest impact on the outcome of the game was our effort in the first quarter.

If the structure was good enough to get us back into the game, it should have been good enough for us to not go down 7-1 goals. The difference was the intensity.

 

[Sentinel]

Went to the game last night, drove over 4 hour round trip getting home close to 1am - to watch that sh1t.

My hatred of that opposition and everyone associated with them grows exponentially each time we play them.

Not much I can add that hasn't been covered, other than to say I'm less of a fan of the coach than I've ever been.

A couple of other quick points. And I'll preface them by saying the umpiring had no bearing on the outcome, just highlighting how sh1tful it is, in general.

Approx 19 minute mark 3rd quarter. Bailey Dale has the ball on our right HBF, Selwood on the mark. Selwood steps on the mark, does it constantly btw, Dale DOES NOT MOVE. Dale has has had the ball for a few seconds - umpire calls play on. Late in the game, Stanley has the ball after a mark, steps of his line, then back again. Seconds pass. Stanley still deciding where to kick - only then does the umpire call play on.

Guthrie - every time his opponent took a mark, he takes 2-3 steps over the mark, one against Williams where the umpire was 15m away and failed to tell him to step back. That one pushed Williams from about 55 out and possible scoring range, to close to 60 out.

I'm sure Cats fans can find similar instances the other way.

Then there's the Richards one that should have been downfield and a shot on goal, but was called back.

The AFL and Brad Scott are setting up a circumstance where umpires will be assaulted by fan/s. Personally if that happens, I'll have no sympathy for anyone involved.

And the goal umpire who called for a review of a ball that had no player within 20m when it went through - you've got one job, get back to under age footy, you Muppet.

Polly Farmer was so right. Umpires are an indictment on the game, not good enough to play the game, yet somehow even more incompetent adjudicating it.

I get we need umpires coming through from juniors, but the umpiring directives and application at AFL level are fully deserving of all the opprobrium directed at them.

Anyway, I'll take Leon's hatted of North and raise it x1000. I will never feel compassion for any Geelong player who suffers serious injury or other misfortune in their life. GAGF you inbred goat-f***ers.

Other than that, I think I've moved on from last night's game.

Cheerio

Whilst we're on the topic of the stand rule and umpire incompetence, this one really stood out to me:

12.04 to go in the 4th, Mitch Duncan takes a clean mark running backwards, about 1 metre to the defensive side of the centre circle line. His momentum takes him back but Bailey Dale retreats like we always do. The umpire in his wisdom then calls for him to stand - about 8 metres behind where the mark was actually taken. It's minor but a basic mistake from the umpire which prevented Dale from being able to utilise our tactic to move and defend the guy running past to receive the handball (which fortunately they fumbled up anyway), and a free advancement for Geelong.

 

[The Inbetweener]

Dale will probably cop the brunt of anger but I can live with his mistakes. He tries to hit the impossible and bites off too much. But at least he doesn't go into his shell he just keeps going.

Daniel is my problem. He's there for drive and his ground ball skills. He played the first half shell shocked, allowing kpfs to beat him to ground balls and going safe with his disposal. He can't defend or tackle. Something is desperately wrong with him.

I will say I didn't mind McComb last night although his miss was diabolical. McNeil doesn't give enough when things aren't going his way and Scott is terrified of body contact. Only McNeil has a realistic future but I'd prefer JJ to all of them.

West quietly had another good game but I fully expect that he'll be dropped regardless.

You’ve summed up all my thoughts as well, particularly Daniel. He’s had a poor year and I don’t believe we can play him and Dale in the same backline

 

[dergert]

You’ve summed up all my thoughts as well, particularly Daniel. He’s had a poor year and I don’t believe we can play him and Dale in the same backline

Daniel out, Cleary in imo.

 

[BIG_BONTS]

The structure and personnel available are not perfect but by far the biggest impact on the outcome of the game was our effort in the first quarter.

If the structure was good enough to get us back into the game, it should have been good enough for us to not go down 7-1 goals. The difference was the intensity.

100% agree. It was lack of Q1 intensity as the 90% reason we lost.

The fact we had more running players meant we had the capability to claw the margin back more easily.

It shouldn’t have happened so bad in the first place though