What They're Saying - The Bulldogs Media Thread - Part 4

[Foxman98]

One thing I have been thinking about is over the preseason we brought in Egan, Geary, Johnson and Pratt (is this correct? not sure if we appointed any others )

Most of these apart from Pratt seem to be to support Bev in areas off the field and work in the development space.

Not sure much changed in terms of providing things on the following front

• tactics
• ball movement
• game plan
• general connection of the backs mids and forwards
• etc etc

Yes Bev has more support but support in what area?

Oher clubs seem to have an abundance of resources on the actual areas of what happens on the football field.

The majority of our issues come from the players more then anything,

Think it was something like 11 of their 14 goals came from turnovers on the weekend,

Realistically we have all seen that we aren't as big of a liability defensiviley this year compared to previous so we have worked on that it is our lack of forward structure that is hurting us.

Our VFL team is also top and undefeated suggests the developmental coaches are doing what is required

 

[CarnTheScray]

Genuinely struggling to tell if this was just a “full support of the board” moment or if the club seriously holds up that premiership almost 8-9 years ago as the reason why Bevo is the right man as he is evidently a great coach.

Is anyone with an opinion of significance actually saying he is a terrible coach? It’s clear his time is just up.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Not sure much changed in terms of providing things on the following front

• tactics
• ball movement
• game plan
• general connection of the backs mids and forwards
• etc etc

Yes Bev has more support but support in what area?

I'd say a lot has changed in large part the likes of Vanderemeer, Gallagher, Bramble and Khamis, fringe players, have been selected for every game this year, in place of players who were getting games last year, remain on our list, but not getting games. Our defence has faltered more than this year but the statistics do indicate that the increased pace has helped our attack (a bit).

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Realistically we have all seen that we aren't as big of a liability defensiviley this year compared to previous so we have worked on that it is our lack of forward structure that is hurting us.

We conceded 30+ shots from merely conceding 49 inside 50s so I would say that both the pure defensive stopping work and the quality of the defenders themselves moving the ball out of the defensive half was extremely poor. Our forward structure could always be better, but that wasn't he fundamental reason for the last loss and some of our recent losses.

 

[Foxman98]

We conceded 30+ shots from merely conceding 49 inside 50s so I would say that both the pure defensive stopping work and the quality of the defenders themselves moving the ball out of the defensive half was extremely poor. Our forward structure could always be better, but that wasn't he fundamental reason for the last loss and some of our recent losses.

Did you miss the part where the majority of them were from turnovers?

 

[lachy]

We conceded 30+ shots from merely conceding 49 inside 50s so I would say that both the pure defensive stopping work and the quality of the defenders themselves moving the ball out of the defensive half was extremely poor. Our forward structure could always be better, but that wasn't he fundamental reason for the last loss and some of our recent losses.

When it was 11 plus goals to 1 from turnovers, not much to do with pure defending there

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Did you miss the part where the majority of them were from turnovers?

The opposition generating 2 shots on goal for every 3 inside 50's, because that is such an extreme and rare number, cannot be entirely (indeed is only minimally) due to our own quality of ball use. It surely has to come down to the simple act of defenders defending - spoiling, intercepting, bodying, reading play, blocking space, defensive marking contests.

Teams have had games where they've used the ball far worse out of defence and have not conceded 30 shots at goals becasue their defenders did the defensive stuff not poorly.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Beveridge will know when the party’s over

Beveridge will know when the party’s over

todayspaper.theaustralian.com.au

 

[Foxman98]

The opposition generating 2 shots on goal for every 3 inside 50's, because that is such an extreme and rare number, cannot be entirely (indeed is only minimally) due to our own quality of ball use. It surely has to come down to the simple act of defenders defending - spoiling, intercepting, bodying, reading play, blocking space, defensive marking contests.

Teams have had games where they've used the ball far worse out of defence and have not conceded 30 shots at goals becasue their defenders did the defensive stuff not poorly.

When 11/14 goals come from turnovers how is it defensive structure that is the issue?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

When it was 11 plus goals to 1 from turnovers, not much to do with pure defending there

Do you understand what this means though?

By definition, any score the opposition gets has to be from one of three sources - a clearance win, an opposition turnover, a kick-in. There is no other way to get possession.

Kick-in goals from continuous possession are rare ie teams average less than one per game.

The fact that we won clearances 44-28 means that we were always likely going to outscore the opposition from clearances.

Therefore by definition all of their remaining goals have to be from turnovers.

The issue was partially our quality of ball use and turnovers, of course, not denying that, if your back pocket kicks the ball to the opposition, it's a goal from turnover. But it can't have been all that bad, given that Hawks only generated 49 inside 50s (when their season average was in the mid 50's before this game). The defenders failing to prevent those inside 50s from being shots (30+ of them) was an issue, and that is largely due to simple defensive skills I outlined above.

It seems strange that I have to explain it like this. Our defence can control and influence the quality of the opposition ball movement once they already have possession and its efficiency, too.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

When 11/14 goals come from turnovers how is it defensive structure that is the issue?

I never said anything about structure - just the basics of executing defensive skills, such as intercepting, spoiling, defensive positioning, marking contests, etc.

 

[lachy]

When 11/14 goals come from turnovers how is it defensive structure that is the issue?

And we got 1.

From stoppages it was the opposite way around

 

[Foxman98]

I never said anything about structure - just the basics of executing defensive skills, such as intercepting, spoiling, defensive positioning, marking contests, etc.

Which are all very difficult to do when you turn the ball over and everyone is out of position

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Which are all very difficult to do when you turn the ball over and everyone is out of position

So you think the fact that Hawks got among the most amount of shots at goal per inside 50 as basically any game in modern history, has nothing to do with the defensive acts of the players invovled, and entirely about the own quality of defense?

Even though we can visually see with our own eyes the instances in which our players lost defensive marking contests etc?

I'm done.

 

[lachy]

Do you understand what this means though?

By definition, any score the opposition gets has to be from one of three sources - a clearance win, an opposition turnover, a kick-in. There is no other way to get possession.

Kick-in goals from continuous possession are rare ie teams average less than one per game.

The fact that we won clearances 44-28 means that we were always likely going to outscore the opposition from clearances.

Therefore by definition all of their remaining goals have to be from turnovers.

The issue was partially our quality of ball use and turnovers, of course, not denying that, if your back pocket kicks the ball to the opposition, it's a goal from turnover. But it can't have been all that bad, given that Hawks only generated 49 inside 50s (when their season average was in the mid 50's before this game). The defenders failing to prevent those inside 50s from being shots (30+ of them) was an issue, and that is largely due to simple defensive skills I outlined above.

It seems strange that I have to explain it like this. Our defence can control and influence the quality of the opposition ball movement once they already have possession and its efficiency, too.

Have you ever tried to reset a defense from an appalling turnover outside 50? All defenders are out of position as part of the offensive transition. A forward 50 entry is inevitable as they are out of position. It is literally impossible to set a defensive structure against a poor turnover. So your last statement is blatantly incorrect

 

[Foxman98]

So you think the fact that Hawks got among the most amount of shots at goal per inside 50 as basically any game in modern history, has nothing to do with the defensive acts of the players invovled, and entirely about the own quality of defense?

Even though we can visually see with our own eyes the instances in which our players lost defensive marking contests etc?

I'm done.

Again they scored 11/14 goals from turnovers that isn't a defensive issue

 

[Yesterday Dog]

Again they scored 11/14 goals from turnovers that isn't a defensive issue

It is when your defenders are the ones turning it over

 

[Foxman98]

It is when your defenders are the ones turning it over

It isn't a defensive structure issue at all though no matter who is the one turning it over,

Ball movement sure

 

[geoffjennings79]

So you think the fact that Hawks got among the most amount of shots at goal per inside 50 as basically any game in modern history, has nothing to do with the defensive acts of the players invovled, and entirely about the own quality of defense?

Even though we can visually see with our own eyes the instances in which our players lost defensive marking contests etc?

I'm done.

We can also visually see the glaring examples, just taking JJ alone, of atrocious kicks straight to oppo players, setting up turnover goals, in the same instantaneous action. That's not a defensive act.

I'm happy to read your opinions, but more often than not it's an absolute position from you, where you don't engage with others who have opposing/varying, but equally valid points. It's always the inference that "I'm right, you're wrong". Maybe you don't intend it that way, but the majority of your posts certainly read that way.

Just some constructive feedback, not trying to generate an argument, but given your last line,
I'm happy for you to just ignore my post.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

We can also visually see the glaring examples, just taking JJ alone, of atrocious kicks straight to oppo players, setting up turnover goals, in the same instantaneous action. That's not a defensive act.

I'm happy to read your opinions, but more often than not it's an absolute position from you, where you don't engage with others who have opposing/varying, but equally valid points. It's always the inference that "I'm right, you're wrong". Maybe you don't intend it that way, but the majority of your posts certainly read that way.

Just some constructive feedback, not trying to generate an argument, but given your last line,
I'm happy for you to just ignore my post.

That's fair, I'm too belligerant.

The broad point I'm making is that the shots per inside 50 was such an extreme that it can't be solely explained by our own ball movement (or indeed the quality of Hawthorn's attacking ball movement). Every round has a team or two that moves the ball just as badly as we did, and if that was the sole cause of conceding shots, North would concede 40+ shots every week (they don't).

Which are all very difficult to do when you turn the ball over and everyone is out of position

Of course it's difficult, but the opposition shots can still be minimised even from difficult positions through defensive work

Hawthorn had 33 shots from 49 inside 50's. (67.3%)

League average is 24.6 shots per game from 52.5 inside 50.s (46.8%)

For a sake of comparison, in 2023, North Melbourne conceded 29.4 shots per game per for 58.4 I50s conceded per game and West Coast conceded 33.2 shots per game for 58.9 inside 50s. (50.3% and 56.3% on season averages).

My point is that it just can't be the ball movement, otherwise, other games where teams moved the ball awfully, like individual games that North and West Coast played last year, should have naturally led to 60, 70+ shots from inside 50's. It has to be both - the pure defensive work and the movement out of defense as well.

They were terrible in how they turned the ball over, but they were also terrible (even more so in my eyes) not minimisng the damage from an already-bad situation in doing what they could - accepting that they were already out of position etc. - in the pure defensive.

 

[ossie_21]

I thought Egan was good. He was matter of fact and frank in his responses. He was glowing about Bev’s relationship with/care for the playing group. Thought it was interesting the footy department when off-site yesterday for a higher level conversation about where they’re at and headed. He and the club are right to point out that it isn’t season over at 3-5.

Did they then ask him if it’s season over once we are 4-10?

 

[Yesterday Dog]

Did they then ask him if it’s season over once we are 4-10?

We have 5 at most winnable games (generous) in our fixture. As you say the season is over.

 

[Bulldog rick]

'Aggressive and personal': Bulldogs boss baffled by attacks on Beveridge

Luke Beveridge has come under increasing pressure from outside the club with each loss, and the Bulldogs football boss has come to his defence.

www.abc.net.au

 

[yebach]

The opposition generating 2 shots on goal for every 3 inside 50's, because that is such an extreme and rare number, cannot be entirely (indeed is only minimally) due to our own quality of ball use. It surely has to come down to the simple act of defenders defending - spoiling, intercepting, bodying, reading play, blocking space, defensive marking contests.

Teams have had games where they've used the ball far worse out of defence and have not conceded 30 shots at goals becasue their defenders did the defensive stuff not poorly.

It's hard to defend your man when you're instructed to play 10-15 metres off him.

 

[wayniac]

Have you ever tried to reset a defense from an appalling turnover outside 50? All defenders are out of position as part of the offensive transition. A forward 50 entry is inevitable as they are out of position. It is literally impossible to set a defensive structure against a poor turnover. So your last statement is blatantly incorrect

Disagree. Not all turnovers are the same. The turnover when we were running through the corridor when Garcia dropped the handball receive was inside our F50. He just jogged instead of flat tack running back and putting pressure on the ball carrier.

Our defensive 6 don't need to press up so high on a drive up the field. If they do, more fool them.

Plenty of other turnovers will result in a goal but not that one.