Dogs a class above.  Harder inside, better outside and cleaner. Margin flattered us.

32 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

 

We were never going to win coming from behind.

Not to take anything away from the rest of oyur post, as I in the main  agree wholeheartedly but this line stuck out fo rme...coming from behind..Totally summed up today both in reality and metaphorically

2 hours ago, Pennant St Dee said:

Really disappointed today, the boys needed to be on early and make a statement.  Big Maxy was off and we needed him to dominate, whilst we lost we are definitely on the improve because the effort was there, where as a couple of years ago we would have copped a 10 goal loss.  Viney just oozes leadership and I love the way Jetta goes about it.  Tyson finding a bit of form and as part of our development we really need to start putting 2 or 3 solid performances together.

Big play needed for Hurley IMO which along with resigning of Tmac will set us up well down the spine.  Bernie will cop a week and it is just dumb, whilst Pedersen will also face a holiday, not sure about Jetta should be okay but you never know

 

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but rather than another defender we need to fix our skill level and goal kicking.

As in if we had of been able to find more targets with the pill by hand and foot it is a different story, so let's find 1 or 2 more really classy ball users.

If we had of been able to finish (you know who) In front of goal maybe a different outcome. 

Think we do need work down back but now we have some other areas to polish. 

2 hours ago, Peter Griffen said:

The difference was just a little bit of polish, we fought hard but they Bulldogs are a very good side. 

Jetta is easily our best defender

Hogan played a good game but needs help with his kicking, he's letting the side down with it.

Really impressed with the young mids today, thought Tyson, Viney, Petracca, Oliver and Stretch showed a lot today! the future is very bright. 

I would rather see us give Frost or Omac an extended run down back than Garland, he's totally out of form and not best 22.

we missed the pressure Dean Kent puts on today! hopefully welcome him and H back next week for some more speed 

It's not Garland's fault! The fault lies with selectors who picked a defence which was simply too short. To see Redpath marking over Michie or Roughead over Jetta is just absurd.

i said last week that a defence including all of Jetta, Hunt, Wagner and Salem is just too small. Don't tell me Redpath would gave taken all those marks against Dunn who would have played him body to body.

47 minutes ago, drdrake said:

Garbage, we were lazy one way footballers.  It reminds me of the Dean Bailey era again, when it goes our way we look unbeatable as soon as it gets hard we dont work.  The bulldogs would have had 6 to 8 goals kick inside the goal square getting us out the back.  That is lazy running we didnt run to defend.

Tom McDonald needs to have a good hard look at himself, he was woeful he is number 1 on the lazy list or we need to accept he isnt a smart footballer and needs a job rather than zone.

What's concerning is, we spent the previous two years serving up garbage dressed as 'learning how to defend'. Now that we've added some attack (which in the AFL pretty much means being prepared to play through the corridor) our defence looks awful. Our players individually don't seem to be great defensively and we are generally poor in 50/50 contests.

It is very similar to the Dean Bailey era right now (nobody would run back to help out in that group). I guess it's better than the last few years but if we want to be able to play with the big boys we are going to need to get far better in the real contests.

6 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Dogs a class above.  Harder inside, better outside and cleaner. Margin flattered us.

And that is not a bad thing, they are a good side. We're learning. 

I cant believe people are accepted of today, outside around the contest, we wouldnt run to defend.  We have massive issues getting opened up out the back and that is the work rate to run back so often it was Jetta and Hunt cover 4 to 5 Dogs players working hard forward.  Our other defenders and mids were jogging through the middle.

Jones was bad today

The worry was a failure of so many blokes to win the footy. Watts, Michie, Garland, Wagner, Harmes had three or less contested possessions. A quarter of the team. Not good enough.. 

9 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Dogs a class above.  Harder inside, better outside and cleaner. Margin flattered us.

 

Why do you think that?  We were ordinary today, but I can't see where they should have scored anymore than they did, where am I wrong?

I thought the margin was about right.

 

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

  Harder inside, better outside and cleaner. 

Sums it up.

6 minutes ago, rufus said:

What's concerning is, we spent the previous two years serving up garbage dressed as 'learning how to defend'. Now that we've added some attack (which in the AFL pretty much means being prepared to play through the corridor) our defence looks awful. Our players individually don't seem to be great defensively and we are generally poor in 50/50 contests.

It is very similar to the Dean Bailey era right now (nobody would run back to help out in that group). I guess it's better than the last few years but if we want to be able to play with the big boys we are going to need to get far better in the real contests.

It is concerning that a team that developed into a keen defender and miserly of opponents suddenly forgets how to do the basics

1 minute ago, dee-tox said:

The worry was a failure of so many blokes to win the footy. Watts, Michie, Garland, Wagner, Harmes had three or less contested possessions. A quarter of the team. Not good enough.. 

I will stand up for Watts, he isnt about contested footy he leads up.  Fealt for him today, he worked harc to get into the right spots to be ignored.  Watts puts himself into dangerous spots, high risk spots but high reward, a lot of the side are to slow to hit him or to safe

5 hours ago, picket fence said:

Nup similar to this forum all are entiltled to an opinion! Yours , Mine, Mr Sqiggle, Linda Lovelace whoever you like!

None of whom are AFL coaches.

What our Luke says in private to his assistants over a beer at the end of the day is one thing. What he says at a Press Conference where he's wearing a big hat that says "I'm speaking to you in my capacity as an AFL Coach", is something else.

Disappointing result but we remain in the thick of the finals race.

Glad to see Billy Stretch picking up the pace of AFL footy, thought he was very solid and his mate ANB will surely be in vs the Lions to join him.

The bibble and bobble of the footy did not go our way but their tackling pressure and ball movement was too good yesterday.  

On another point

What is it with boundary umpires not being able to throw the ball in correctly.  I have seen 3 games this year where their short thrown incompetence has had an impact on the game. Surely a coloured line set in from the boundary would set a datum point for them to reach.  If it doesn't get there; recall and try again.

12 hours ago, loges said:

Our decision making and execution by hand was terrible, young side will learn though. Posted a couple of weeks ago dogs north game most throws i've ever seen

You would have thought it was the Canterbury bulldogs we were playing yesterday 

13 hours ago, Chook said:

I think the worst thing to take out of this is that the Bulldogs are better coached than we are. They always get to the right positions. Surely our coaching staff is being payed enough to be able to tell our players where to stand.

It is nothing to do with the coaches they are not the ones chasing the contested ball and getting beaten to it

15 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

It is nothing to do with the coaches they are not the ones chasing the contested ball and getting beaten to it

 

Thats a bit simplistic - the Doggies coaches definitely got the better of ours.  They nullified Gawn superbly with their average ruck brigade.

27 minutes ago, Salems Lot said:

The bibble and bobble of the footy did not go our way but their tackling pressure and ball movement was too good yesterday.  

On another point

What is it with boundary umpires not being able to throw the ball in correctly.  I have seen 3 games this year where their short thrown incompetence has had an impact on the game. Surely a coloured line set in from the boundary would set a datum point for them to reach.  If it doesn't get there; recall and try again.

Yes just one of those days when the bounce of the ball just didn't go our way. Always thought we were in the game just couldn't string the goals together and gain momentum. If Hogan had his kicking boots on and MacDonald didn't give away his weekly 2 to 3 goals in turnovers this game could have been really close in the end.

From an umpiring perspective the thing taht annoys me is just how many times the doggies threw the ball instead of handballing and not get penalised.

6 minutes ago, Optimus D said:

Yes just one of those days when the bounce of the ball just didn't go our way. Always thought we were in the game just couldn't string the goals together and gain momentum. If Hogan had his kicking boots on and MacDonald didn't give away his weekly 2 to 3 goals in turnovers this game could have been really close in the end.

From an umpiring perspective the thing taht annoys me is just how many times the doggies threw the ball instead of handballing and not get penalised.

My feelings on the game similar to yours OD.  Seemed like they got some 50:50 balls to bounce their way.  

I think it was really lost in the first 5-10 minutes of the 3rd Quarter. We were pushing hard but didn't get the reward for our effort.  Watts dropped mark, Hogan missed 1 (maybe 2) in that period and I think there was another where we fluffed an opportunity from the goal square.  The Dogs transitioned and scored easy goals.  The margin could have been back to near level but was out over 30.  

Overal as others said the Dogs were better but not by a huge magnitude.  To be honest while it didn't feel like we could win after quarter time, I always felt that if we could string a few goals together we would push them.  We have improved hugely.  Think about it this way, we didn't play that well and lost by 5 goals to a premiership chance.  

I Felt most of the Doggies were on! We had too many who were of. 50/50 Balls went their way and the Umpires interpretation and rulings were shizen!

They are a very very good team. I am predicting a Cats v Doggies GF! or Perhaps Hawks Vs Doggies I reckon they can beat anyone!

12 hours ago, loges said:

Worst decision of the day 50 meter against Garland jogging downfield, well off the player with the ball, not interfering with play at all

Jogged straight through the 10 metre exclusion zone  - it had no impact but it was dumb - the rule is what the rule is  - It was a 100% correct decision. 

12 hours ago, picket fence said:

Why "Massively Concerning"?

Nup similar to this forum all are entiltled to an opinion!

Yours , Mine, Mr Sqiggle, Linda Lovelace whoever you like!

 

personally, I found Linda Lovelace's opinions hard to swallow

14 minutes ago, nutbean said:

Jogged straight through the 10 metre exclusion zone  - it had no impact but it was dumb - the rule is what the rule is  - It was a 100% correct decision. 

I want it measured

13 hours ago, Forest Demon said:

We were so sloppy, whereas they are just clinical and composed with the ball in tight, and clear it to a running player with relative ease.

Our team defence was exposed again early. Half personell, half game plan, but whatever it is, it needs to be tweaked.

 

Yep - couldn't lock the ball in our forward line and couldn't lock the ball in to the tackle. I lost count of how many times we had them wrapped up in a pack then a couple of seconds later the ball was flying around out the back and side for them to clear it away