4 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Did we play with the same intensity as the week before, particularly the second half?

I was happy after the Port game, not because we won a practice match but because of the way we attacked the ball, ran with purpose and executed some good passages of play.

Yesterday was a lot of bumbling skill errors and players going half arsed. There may be reasons for that (wind, players taking it easy due to NAB Challenge/nature of opposition meant they thought it would be easier than it was) but the performance was pretty poor overall with a few exceptions. Again, it's only practice games so no one is going all doom and gloom - it's just that we are pointing out the obvious that it wasn't a great performance and with the level of opposition out there we really should have won with ease.

Why???? You miss the point.  And you have basically answered your points in your own post.

Edited March 7, 20169 yr by iv'a worn smith

4 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Why???? You miss the point.  And you have basically answered your points in your own post.

Why??? Because we fielded a near full strength side while they were missing their best dozen players. Quite simple.

I didn't answer my own points, I provided what might be reasons but also stated that's really not an excuse. Our team is known for mentally switching off when they think things will be easy for them, that's the whole point. We've been doing it for decades so it's not a good sign if we went at 3/4 pace yesterday just because we thought we were playing against a bunch of kids and so could afford to.

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

Let's have a look at some games played

Tom Boyd - 14

Lin Jong - 13

Jack Redpath - 12

Caleb Daniel - 10

Bailey Dale - 10

Joel Hamling - 11

Will Minson - 10

Jordan Roughead - 16

Mitch Honeychurch - 11

Fletcher Roberts - 12

Lukas Webb - 10

Tom Campbell - 6

Nathan Hrovat - 7

I've named 13 there, with the bottom 2 who could probably not be regarded as regular starters.  So 11 guys played at least double digit games, which means they got a regular gig last year I would have thought.

Back in your hole now, son.

I'm not entirely sure why you've entered the argument when it was another poster who chose to greatly exaggerate as a means to downplay a really inexperienced bulldogs outfit. Are you speaking on behalf of the the poster? 

They used the words 'better than a dozen' and 'regular starters'. You are the one trying to dig yourself out of a hole and you're now clutching at straws.

Now tell me the total games played for all those players? And ask yourself again if you still think there are 'better than a dozen regular starters' in that list that played on Sunday? If your answer is still yes, then I refuse to continue because you're clearly an Eristic.

Also, thanks for providing your definition of 'regular' starter. I'd say it would be at odds with almost everyone else's on this forum.

 

 

Edited March 7, 20169 yr by stevethemanjordan

56 minutes ago, Curry & Beer said:

So obviously you're trying to argue that our team yesterday is some sort of polished unit of experienced senior leaders. Have you forgotten who you barrack for?

Nahhhhh.... That's an argument you just decided to make up in your head.

Feel free to read over what I was 'arguing'.

1.  We are still a young and developing side.

2.  The wind ...... yes the wind.

3.  In the not too distant past we would have meekly capitulated in games like this.

4.  It was, after all, a NAB challenge game.  We were not playing for 4 points.

5.  All teams experiment, in some form or another in the NAB comp.

6. The bullies were not as undermanned as some on here would have you believe.

7. The bullies now have serious depth in their list.

8. That we could make so many mistakes and still win is a good sign, not necessarily a negative.

9.  Goodwin at the helm in the 2 NAB games thus far, only augurs well for the future.

10.  To state the obvious, for the sake of confidence, winning is always better than an "honourable" loss.

Just now, stevethemanjordan said:

I'm not entirely sure why you've entered the argument when it was another poster who chose to greatly exaggerate as a means to downplay a really inexperienced bulldogs outfit. Are you speaking on behalf of the the poster? 

They used the words 'better than a dozen' and 'regular starters'. You are the one trying to dig yourself out of a hole and you're now clutching at straws.

Now tell me the total games played for all those players? And ask yourself again if you still think there are 'better than a dozen regular starters' in that list that played on Sunday? If your answer is still yes, then I refuse to continue because you're clearly an Eristic.

 

 

 

 

The games they played last season shows they were regular players for the Dogs side in 2015.  I'm not digging myself out of a hole, the point Ralphy made is pretty much spot on.  11 players were regulars last season, which is clearly what he was getting at.  It might not be the dozen he said but you can't get much closer than that.  You, in all your smug and arrogant glory, disregarded it before thinking a little more deeply about it.  

The point is that there were still regular senior players out there on the weekend.  Of course it wasn't their best side, but the players were there.  End of story.

 

1 minute ago, Wiseblood said:

The games they played last season shows they were regular players for the Dogs side in 2015.  I'm not digging myself out of a hole, the point Ralphy made is pretty much spot on.  11 players were regulars last season, which is clearly what he was getting at.  It might not be the dozen he said but you can't get much closer than that.  You, in all your smug and arrogant glory, disregarded it before thinking a little more deeply about it.  

The point is that there were still regular senior players out there on the weekend.  Of course it wasn't their best side, but the players were there.  End of story.

 

 

I repeat: Thanks for providing your definition of 'regular' starter. I'd say it would be at odds with almost everyone else's on this forum.

No-one will remember, but I posted a thread years ago that highlighted how the end of year ladder closely mirrored a team's top 6 players.  It's a team's best 6 players that has the greatest significance on its fortunes (as opposed to the theory that it's the quality of your bottom 6 that determines your output and position on the ladder).

To this end the Dogs had 5 AA squad players missing.  We can talk of 15 best players, or 26+ games experience all we like, but clubs can't cover the loss of their very best players.  They were missing Bontempelli, Stringer, Murphy, Wood, Dahlhaus, Macrae, and Boyd missing.  Throw in Dickson, who kicked 50 goals last year.

We were missing one.

If the Dogs had those players unavailable for the season they would be vying for the wooden spoon.

It's unfathomable to me that some want to play down the difference in personnel between the two teams.

Edited March 7, 20169 yr by ProDee

1 minute ago, ProDee said:

No-one will remember, but I posted a thread years ago that highlighted how the end of year ladder closely mirrored a team's top 6 players.  It's a team's best 6 players that has the greatest significance on its fortunes (as opposed to the theory that it's the quality of your bottom 6 that determines your output and position on the ladder).

To this end the Dogs had 5 AA squad players missing.  We can talk of 15 best players, or 26+ games experience all we like, but clubs can't cover the loss of their very best players.  They were missing Stringer, Murphy, Wood, Dahlhaus, Macrae, and Boyd missing.  Throw in Dickson, who kicked 50 goals last year.

We were missing one.

If the Dogs had those players unavailable for the season they would be vying for the wooden spoon.

It's unfathomable to me that some want to play down the difference in personnel between the two teams.

In the context of a NAB Challenge game and what was clearly not last stake, you as are others, are over egging the omelette.

 

5 minutes ago, ProDee said:

No-one will remember, but I posted a thread years ago that highlighted how the end of year ladder closely mirrored a team's top 6 players.  It's a team's best 6 players that has the greatest significance on its fortunes (as opposed to the theory that it's the quality of your bottom 6 that determines your output and position on the ladder).

To this end the Dogs had 5 AA squad players missing.  We can talk of 15 best players, or 26+ games experience all we like, but clubs can't cover the loss of their very best players.  They were missing Stringer, Murphy, Wood, Dahlhaus, Macrae, and Boyd missing.  Throw in Dickson, who kicked 50 goals last year.

We were missing one.

If the Dogs had those players unavailable for the season they would be vying for the wooden spoon.

It's unfathomable to me that some want to play down the difference in personnel between the two teams.

In the context of a NAB Challenge game and what was clearly not at stake, you as are others, are over egging the omelette.

 

Edited March 7, 20169 yr by iv'a worn smith

I'm getting de'ja' vu'

SWYL's Take

it was a practise game and yes the commentators were watching the game of a TV set. 

Or Backline still leaks badly and needs a lot of work. 

But the Midfield is sharpening up

do not care what Footscray were doing. 

Long as we can practise winning without Jesse its ok

remember these guys do not play competitively in swirly winds so much now

the stadiums are protected

ugly win yes Much practise still needed...

keeps the club phone ringing today. 

Roosy and the coaches now have two wins to pull aprt

better than losing

Edited March 7, 20169 yr by Sir Why You Little

3 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

In the context of a NAB Challenge game and what was clearly not at stake, you as are others, are over egging the omelette.

 

I've already said that too much is being read into a practice match.  Many senior players would "go through the motions".

But I'm not "over egging the omelette" when it comes to the disparity between their team and ours.

2 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

In the context of a NAB Challenge game and what was clearly not last stake, you as are others, are over egging the omelette.

 

People aren't going crazy here, they are just saying it wasn't a great performance and they hoped for and expected better, based partly on the quality the opposition had on the park and partly because of how we played. We over used the handball, had far too many costly turnovers and weren't as direct as we were last week. 

And PD, you can add the Bont to your list.

And I really question this...

10.  To state the obvious, for the sake of confidence, winning is always better than an "honourable" loss.

To draw too much confidence from yesterday would be concerning.

21 hours ago, Nasher said:

I missed the game, but saw we won so I thought I'd better jump on Demonland to see how awful we were.  You guys never fail to disappoint!

But we were. 

1 minute ago, S_T said:

And I really question this...

10.  To state the obvious, for the sake of confidence, winning is always better than an "honourable" loss.

To draw too much confidence from yesterday would be concerning.

On top of a win the week before against Port, over in SA.  I don't care how we win, just win.  Going forward, a win for confidence, it cannot be disputed, is better than any loss.

Without buying into the relative strength of teams debate...  My feel on the game was I was frustrated with the skill and turnovers, and that we would have been beaten by most teams should we carry that level of performance into the regular season.

There are many areas we need to improve on Prior to round 1, such as...

• Slow starts, both games we've taken at least a half to get rolling and played at least one poor quarter in the first half.
• Deliver to leading key forwards, may not be a focus but few opportunities to big forwards on the lead inside 50.
• skill errors (in backline, in midfield handballs being held onto too long, etc)

Still have another 2.5 weeks Rd1 and things are coming together. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4fr9GxUQXQ

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4fr9GxUQXQ

 

At one stage of the game, Jetta was playing on Redpath and in another, Boyd. What was that all about?

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

At one stage of the game, Jetta was playing on Redpath and in another, Boyd. What was that all about?

Possibly a down fall of zone defending. 

Or laziness/lack of awareness to get the match up right. 

If the Dogs were playing Boyd, Redpath, Roughead and 2 rucks they would've had 3 if not 4 talls on the field. With Dunn off that left McDonald, Garland and Wagner as the taller defenders. Maybe at times they were happy for Jetta to take the 3rd tall forward instead of Wagner.

That's one thing I'm happy to let slide during a preseason game. It should be an easy fix come the real stuff. 

8 minutes ago, Redleg said:

At one stage of the game, Jetta was playing on Redpath and in another, Boyd. What was that all about?

I'm not sure we really needed anyone playing on boyd to be honest, he is going to again be the VFL's highest paid player

2 hours ago, mo64 said:

The reality is that you are wrong. They were missing the top 15 from their B&F. Which players of the following aren't clearly in their best 22?

Stringer, Bontempelli, Macrea, Wallis, Boyd, Murphy, Dickson, Dahlhaus, Wood, Morris, Johannisen, Picken, Stevens, Hunter, and replace Crameri with Suckling

So now name the dozen players from Saturday who'd get a game ahead of the above? Apart from Libba, 1 of the ruckman (Minson or Campbell), 1 key defender (Hamling or Roughhead) and 1 key forward (Redpath or Boyd), none of the others are remotely challenging the above players for a spot in the best 22.

I'm not slashing my wrists over our performance, but their second stringers moved the ball better than our senior players, which is a worry.

Terlich finished top five in our B&F once. 

Of the players listed, I have Boyd as past it, Stevens and hunter as generic mids who can be replaced by any of their other generic mids and Picken as probably being phased out if he can't do more than tag.  I rate Stringer, Bontempelli, Wallis, Wood, Dahlhaus and Murphy as being notably better then the others.  That is the core group who's absence was felt yesterday.  The rest?  As I said, they have a hoard of interchangeable mids/flankers who run and use the ball well.  Crameri I am ignoring as he's not an AFL player right now. 

2 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Oh oh. Now you're in a hole...

Name them?

Andddd go.

 

Jed Adcock - 21 Games (with Brisbane)
Jordan Roughhead - 16 Games
Tom Boyd - 14 Games
Lin Jong - 13 Games
Jack Redpath - 12 Games
Fletcher Roberts - 12 Games
Mitch Honeychurch - 11 Games
Joel Hamling - 11 Games
Will Minson - 10 Games
Caleb Daniel - 10 Games
Bailey Dale - 10 Games
Lukas Webb - 10 Games

Plus Libratore who is an automatic selection for their side but didn't play last year. 

These are all players who were a regular part of the side (plus Adcock) and are quite capable of challenging the 15 young Adonises listed above who are apparently Godlike in their abilities when compared to mere mortals like the other players on their list.  Added to this is their likely CHB for the coming season in Adams who is of course a mature recruit and as such does not have games under his belt yet. 

21 minutes ago, Redleg said:

At one stage of the game, Jetta was playing on Redpath and in another, Boyd. What was that all about?

tanking

5 minutes ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

Terlich finished top five in our B&F once. 

Of the players listed, I have Boyd as past it, Stevens and hunter as generic mids who can be replaced by any of their other generic mids and Picken as probably being phased out if he can't do more than tag.  I rate Stringer, Bontempelli, Wallis, Wood, Dahlhaus and Murphy as being notably better then the others.  That is the core group who's absence was felt yesterday.  The rest?  As I said, they have a hoard of interchangeable mids/flankers who run and use the ball well.  Crameri I am ignoring as he's not an AFL player right now. 

 

Jed Adcock - 21 Games (with Brisbane)
Jordan Roughhead - 16 Games
Tom Boyd - 14 Games
Lin Jong - 13 Games
Jack Redpath - 12 Games
Fletcher Roberts - 12 Games
Mitch Honeychurch - 11 Games
Joel Hamling - 11 Games
Will Minson - 10 Games
Caleb Daniel - 10 Games
Bailey Dale - 10 Games
Lukas Webb - 10 Games

Plus Libratore who is an automatic selection for their side but didn't play last year. 

These are all players who were a regular part of the side (plus Adcock) and are quite capable of challenging the 15 young Adonises listed above who are apparently Godlike in their abilities when compared to mere mortals like the other players on their list.  Added to this is their likely CHB for the coming season in Adams who is of course a mature recruit and as such does not have games under his belt yet. 

Morris is their best lockdown defender. Dickson kicked 40 goals last year, but he's interchangeable with one of the fringe players you've listed. Johannisen would walk into our team. Picken isn't a tagger as you mentioned. Hunter was fantastic after he broke into the side. And Suckling was a regular in the powerhouse team of the modern era, yet is interchangeable with no names.

You seriously don't watch opposition teams play.