On 4/7/2016 at 8:16 AM, praha said:

2014. Petracca, Brayshaw, ANB, Stretch.

Anyway, these comparisons are useless. The Dogs aren't coming back from anywhere near as far back as we were. They played in three straight Prelims don't forget only a few years ago. Plenty of finals experience and guidance there that Melbourne lacks. I think we are realistically 2-3 years behind where the club *wants* to be. I can't see us turning a corner anytime soon. I think we'll just continue this slow upwards climb until we break through. It won't be the revolutionary breakthrough and change that we saw with the Dogs and Port a few years ago. They were polishing a dusty old antique with a bit left in it yet. We're polishing a turd.

Finals in 2016 is a possibility but unlikely. Too tight between 5th and 12th and we're most definitely closer to 12th. 2017 would be a "scrape into finals" year, but even then, we can't understate just how far back we're coming from. I don't think the club wants to admit that. I think they're doing a great job of selling hope and selling our list as being better than what it is.

I think half the battle Praha is that we still have a number of players from the horror years that fall back into the ugly footy ways/decision making/poor execution skills that we displayed pre Roos and and in Roosy's first year or so.

Can't teach an old dog syndrome. As much as i appreciate their endeavor and contribution they have given (and are giving) the club, in some cases, they are a chain around the "Roos" picked newcomers necks.

We also lack "Vocal" leaders on each line who can show the way to our new blokes and try and lift them, guide them, show them how it should be done when the going gets a little tough which it's going to during most matches.

As you say, coming from a long way back. Might be the next generation of players that comes behind Roosy's picks (ie., Goody's) before we finally see something that resembles a competitive AFL season that most clubs put up (during a reasonable year) rather than just the odd game here or there.

My other concern is the lack of intensity/effort/2nd efforts/ferocity that other teams seem to bring more often than not, especially at the start of matches (Port last night). This surely has to derive from inner motivation (player character...are we selecting the right character traits for individual leadership when drafting? Maybe we have been latterly) and surely the coach has to take some responsibility here also in terms of motivating the boys and getting them up pre-match.

If we brought this to most matches i think we might improve further and snatch a few more games we are expected to win (like last week) and maybe a few we aren't!

Edited April 9, 20169 yr by Rusty Nails

On 4/7/2016 at 9:42 AM, america de cali said:

Hang on, wearn't the Bulldogs in disarray 2 seasons ago? Top players walked, coach sacked, management flapping about like headless chooks and many predicted here they were in for a big slide. Enter Beveridge and they have risen like the Phoenix. I would give him full credit for what has happened because it would have been far easier to continue the downward spiral. Their players perform with a passion and energy we can only dream about. If we had  that, we would have been on the up with them. Macca did bugger all IMO. 

Bontempelli was on the Marngrook Footy Show and went out of his way to contradict Grant Hansen who was busily singing the praises of Beverdidge and denigrating previous coaches, Bontempelli said the ground work for the success today on the field was laid by Macca.......good enough for you?

43 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Bontempelli was on the Marngrook Footy Show and went out of his way to contradict Grant Hansen who was busily singing the praises of Beverdidge and denigrating previous coaches, Bontempelli said the ground work for the success today on the field was laid by Macca.......good enough for you?

As I said in my post. No coach can come in with a crap list and immediately turn it into a superstar team. It takes time to trade and draft correctly and then develop.

 

50 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Bontempelli was on the Marngrook Footy Show and went out of his way to contradict Grant Hansen who was busily singing the praises of Beverdidge and denigrating previous coaches, Bontempelli said the ground work for the success today on the field was laid by Macca.......good enough for you?

I don't take much credence at what players say on footy shows. They never tell the complete truth and fob off prickly questions with a straight bat.  I doubt if Macca stayed they would have improved as much if at all even if their recruiting was astute. He was Neeld lite.

Edited April 9, 20169 yr by america de cali

4 minutes ago, america de cali said:

I don't take much credence at what players say on footy shows. I doubt if Macca stayed they would have improved as much if at all. 

Hansen, as is his want, was singing the praises of Beveridge and denigrating past coaches, he was one in the media who drove Macca out the door, a vociferous Dogs supporter, Bontempelli stopped him mid sentence to correct him, bloody good of him to actually say it, considering that Macca is now at another club...if it is not good enough for you.....who gives a flying....I give very little credence to what a lot of posters on here post

Edited April 9, 20169 yr by Satyriconhome

2 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Hansen, as is his want, was singing the praises of Beveridge and denigrating past coaches, he was one in the media who drove Macca out the door, a vociferous Dogs supporter, Bontempelli stopped him mid sentence to correct him, bloody good of him to actually say it, considering that Macca is now at another club...if it is not good enough for you.....who gives a flying

Good on the kid. Looks a future Captain of the Dogs. Wish he was ours.

8 minutes ago, Redleg said:

As I said in my post. No coach can come in with a crap list and immediately turn it into a superstar team. It takes time to trade and draft correctly and then develop.

 

Interesting though that the Bulldogs who were tipped to finish last in 2014 ended up going on to make the finals in 2015 and may very well finish top 4 or even top 2 this year on current form. Port went from being a shocking team losing matches by 120+ points to playing finals the next season.

I think we have drafted enough and have enough talent and structure that we should at the very least be playing decent football over consistent periods. Last weekend was as colossal a breakdown of fundamentals week-on-week that you're ever going to see.  

I have been vocal here since Roos was appointed that so long as the likes of Garland and Dunn, and Nate Jones to a degree, are the ones "leading" the club and team, we will struggle to take the next step. These are prolific losers who literally have no experience in winning teams, and were also part and parcel, front and center of arguably the club's worst ever era.

I heard on the radio murmurs that there was "unrest" amongst the playing group. Some didn't like the stuff Roos had them doing. Sound familiar? Remember Neeld? Pampered players complaining that their coach makes them do the hard yards...oh, but they aren't actually doing the hard yards. Roos wants them to do meditation. OH THE HORROR! I bet I could pick from a lineup the players bitching and moaning. You won't like me for the players I name.

I don't think Roos has really made the tough calls yet. He's made *some* kind of tough calls, but not really the ones that need to be made. I don't know what those calls are or when he needs to make them, but there is something eerie about how the mental demons hovering above this team and club. I actually found myself laughing out loud, literally, at the game last Saturday. There's bad, but then there's mindboggingly bad. How can new players, new players to the club and team, suddenly become so incredibly, shockingly bad? 

Interesting take.

If in fact Roos is the problem, which I doubt, he will be gone next year.

I cant believe knowing that, that players would sabotage their success, because they don't like the Coach.

Yes they might like Goodwin better, but he will be Coach next year and they know it.

Reality is that we are not a mentally strong side, who can lift when needed, other than an occasional comeback in a game and we have weaknesses in our lineup, in addition to a lack of skill and pace. 

Edited April 9, 20169 yr by Redleg

8 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Interesting take.

If in fact Roos is the problem, which I doubt, he will be gone next year.

I cant believe knowing that, that players would sabotage their success, because they don't like the Coach.

Yes they might like Goodwin better, but he will be Coach next year and they know it.

Reality is that we are not a mentally strong side, who can lift when needed, other than an occasional comeback in a game and we have weaknesses in our lineup, in addition to a lack of skill and pace. 

I don't think it's Roos. He was out-coached last weekend but I think he has let desperation take over his coaching. He was desperate to have Brayshaw in the side. They were obviously over-trained during the week so guys like Kent, Oliver were stuffed. Hopefully he doesn't make the same mistake. 

I think it is 90% a mental issue. You can adjust and restructure to address weakness, but you absolutely, 100% need to play the match on your terms and control the game. We don't have the leaders nor the mental strength as you said across the pitch to do this. I also don't accept that we don't have the skill.

1 minute ago, praha said:

 I also don't accept that we don't have the skill.

Well we have a major disagreement on this point. 

The majority of our players can't be relied on to execute at any given passage of play. Our turnovers are awful.

Guys like Lumumba, Grimes, T Mac, Garland, M. Jones, Tyson, Bugg, etc, mis kick so often, it is mind numbing that they are experienced AFL players. I have said before, that  if they were rubbish men, the streets would be strewn with rubbish. Our hand ball is also often butchered.

Games today are won by controlling the ball and limiting turnovers, that is our main weakness.

24 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Hansen, as is his want, was singing the praises of Beveridge and denigrating past coaches, he was one in the media who drove Macca out the door, a vociferous Dogs supporter, Bontempelli stopped him mid sentence to correct him, bloody good of him to actually say it, considering that Macca is now at another club...if it is not good enough for you.....who gives a flying....I give very little credence to what a lot of posters on here post

Yeah right. 

McCartney is well respected as a development coach wherever he's been, so it's understable that he would have had a good relationship with young players like Bont. But that doesn't make him a good senior coach. There's a huge gulf between the 2 roles, and people are selling Beveridge short if you think that McCartney would have had the same level of success if he remained in the job.

It's not too dissimilar to the Barassi/Northey era at Melbourne. Whilst we had some good player development by Slug Jordan in the Under 19's, Northey deserves all the credit for our finals appearances.

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

Well we have a major disagreement on this point. 

The majority of our players can't be relied on to execute at any given passage of play. Our turnovers are awful.

Guys like Lumumba, Grimes, T Mac, Garland, M. Jones, Tyson, Bugg, etc, mis kick so often, it is mind numbing that they are experienced AFL players. I have said before, that  if they were rubbish men, the streets would be strewn with rubbish. Our hand ball is also often butchered.

Games today are won by controlling the ball and limiting turnovers, that is our main weakness.

Agreed the skill level of the modern player (with some notable exceptions) is deplorable under pressure in games, Port had a comfortable win last night but some of the kicking and handballing was atrocious

20 hours ago, praha said:

Still, you can't understate the influence it has on talent coming in and the feeling around the place. They played finals in recent memory. And consistently. 

You are really stretching it now.

And remind me how St Kilda is doing at the moment? 3 GFs in 2 years?

 

Edited April 9, 20169 yr by jnrmac

Just now, mo64 said:

Yeah right. 

McCartney is well respected as a development coach wherever he's been, so it's understable that he would have had a good relationship with young players like Bont. But that doesn't make him a good senior coach. There's a huge gulf between the 2 roles, and people are selling Beveridge short if you think that McCartney would have had the same level of success if he remained in the job.

It's not too dissimilar to the Barassi/Northey era at Melbourne. Whilst we had some good player development by Slug Jordan in the Under 19's, Northey deserves all the credit for our finals appearances.

It is not selling Beveridge short, if you read the posts properly, it is the fact that footy watchers assume that Beveridge came in, waved a magic wand and hey presto.....also you have no idea whether McCartney could have made a go of it as senior coach, he wasn't given the chance

Just now, Satyriconhome said:

It is not selling Beveridge short, if you read the posts properly, it is the fact that footy watchers assume that Beveridge came in, waved a magic wand and hey presto.....also you have no idea whether McCartney could have made a go of it as senior coach, he wasn't given the chance

He wasn't given a chance because he was perceived as a failure. It happens all the time in sport, whether your a player or a coach.

It's funny how you defend any actions of the MFC to the hilt, yet when another club axes their coach and achieves immediate success, you still manage to defend the new MFC employee. Your views on football are blinkered by blue and red.

 

4 minutes ago, mo64 said:

He wasn't given a chance because he was perceived as a failure. It happens all the time in sport, whether your a player or a coach.

It's funny how you defend any actions of the MFC to the hilt, yet when another club axes their coach and achieves immediate success, you still manage to defend the new MFC employee. Your views on football are blinkered by blue and red.

 

I am not defending, just disagreeing, which of course a lot of the sheep on here don't have the gonads to do, how long was Bomber Thompson or Al Clarkson given to become a good senior coach, and how close did they both come to being given the elbow, difference being the clubs stood strong and ignored the media....reaping the success that brought

 

I know comprehension is not a strong suit of yours, but the point I was making was Beveridge has 'instant success' because of the groundwork laid down by McCartney, acknowledged by Bontempelli, who had the gonads to do it on tv

 

Edited April 9, 20169 yr by Satyriconhome

 

2 hours ago, Redleg said:

Well we have a major disagreement on this point. 

The majority of our players can't be relied on to execute at any given passage of play. Our turnovers are awful.

Guys like Lumumba, Grimes, T Mac, Garland, M. Jones, Tyson, Bugg, etc, mis kick so often, it is mind numbing that they are experienced AFL players. I have said before, that  if they were rubbish men, the streets would be strewn with rubbish. Our hand ball is also often butchered.

Games today are won by controlling the ball and limiting turnovers, that is our main weakness.

Experienced? Tyson's played 52 games. TMac 84, Bugg 67, M Jones 53. Even Grimes hasn't yet played 100 games.

And as for our main weakness, I wouldn't say it's controlling the ball or even limiting turnovers. It's intensity. When we're "on", we showed vs GWS and many times last year we can play finals-quality football against good, even great sides. But we're not "on" for 100% of matches, or from week to week. We just spend too much time ambling through games, complacent, lacking desire, and not focusing. Those things lead to turnovers, or being out-positioned, etc.

3 hours ago, america de cali said:

I don't take much credence at what players say on footy shows. They never tell the complete truth and fob off prickly questions with a straight bat.  I doubt if Macca stayed they would have improved as much if at all even if their recruiting was astute. He was Neeld lite.

2 hours ago, mo64 said:

Yeah right. 

McCartney is well respected as a development coach wherever he's been, so it's understable that he would have had a good relationship with young players like Bont. But that doesn't make him a good senior coach. There's a huge gulf between the 2 roles, and people are selling Beveridge short if you think that McCartney would have had the same level of success if he remained in the job.

It's not too dissimilar to the Barassi/Northey era at Melbourne. Whilst we had some good player development by Slug Jordan in the Under 19's, Northey deserves all the credit for our finals appearances.

I don't think anyone really thinks the Dogs would definitely be where they are now if they had have kept McCartney as coach. It just wasn't how they were playing or trending.

But just like we'll never know whether that's true or not, we also will never know how important McCartney's time was on Beveridge's plan.

IMO, McCartney laid the necessary defensive groundwork. I'm not sure he could have turned them into the offensive team they are now but I also strongly believe Beveridge was only able to do so because of the way McCartney had trained them in his three years.

49 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

 

Experienced? Tyson's played 52 games. TMac 84, Bugg 67, M Jones 53. Even Grimes hasn't yet played 100 games.

And as for our main weakness, I wouldn't say it's controlling the ball or even limiting turnovers. It's intensity. When we're "on", we showed vs GWS and many times last year we can play finals-quality football against good, even great sides. But we're not "on" for 100% of matches, or from week to week. We just spend too much time ambling through games, complacent, lacking desire, and not focusing. Those things lead to turnovers, or being out-positioned, etc.

 

Yes 52 games plus is experienced. Guys like Oliver, Brayshaw and Oscar are not and allowances can be made for them. 

Disagree on the intensity. You can be hard at the ball and then turn it over, something we have done often.

I am sure most would agree we are not a highly skilled team.

3 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

 

Experienced? Tyson's played 52 games. TMac 84, Bugg 67, M Jones 53. Even Grimes hasn't yet played 100 games.

Grimes could play another 200 games and still wouldn't be able to hit a target.

New comparison update Dees v Dogs v Saints (after beating pies)

19 minutes ago, ENYAW said:

New comparison update Dees v Dogs v Saints (after beating pies)

The Saints have some promising forwards and flankers, but not convinced they've got the depth of young midfield talent we have. Gee, that sounds ridiculous saying that about our mob after last week...