Rebuild Restructure and Evolve - Bulldogs 2012

[LostDoggy]

What General Mac is doing is building and teaching the Team from the bottom up like a pyramid , the base is contested possession , he is going to be quite patient with that process a process that is already reaping benefits , effectively the Senior players are an extension of the Coaching staff to help reinforce the key points to the younger players , Brian Lake has already spoken about the mentoring role he's been given and how its helped him focus on the defensive unit as a whole first before his role itself , Brian is now playing with a controlled aggression and good communication and Mark Austin has benefited from that and he has learned more about himself and his role

To pick holes in General Macs plans at this early stage is underestimating the process the Team is undertaking , contested possession is the first stage but it can only evolve and grow if other parts of the game plan grow and evolve at the same rate , the fact that at the moment we are the best contested ball Team in the AFL is a monumental shift in the way the Team thinks and acts , our rate of restructuring rebuilding and evolving is not from the efforts of General Mac himself the players have to commit themselves to learning off field and executing on field

Do we have the best list in the AFL , probably not but we have people who have committed themselves to being the best students and a Coach who has committed himself to provide the best learning environment , the results so far speak for themselves

.

[strebla]

Well said no point the coach selling something if the players aren't buying but they seem to have bought into it big time!!

[LostDoggy]

Great post!

[LostDoggy]

Neeld is saying so much of the same stuff (contested ball as the base for a new beginning) yet the two styles are so different. I don't have enough insight to bag Neeld but it's interesting that a BMac guiding, teaching style is getting so much impact on field and a Neeld dominant, seemingly aggressive, approach is getting less result. How much of this is list related and how much is coach related its hard to say. I do know I'd be reluctant to see us trade for anyone on Melbournes list at years end just in case....

[mjp]

Neeld is saying so much of the same stuff (contested ball as the base for a new beginning) yet the two styles are so different. I don't have enough insight to bag Neeld but it's interesting that a BMac guiding, teaching style is getting so much impact on field and a Neeld dominant, seemingly aggressive, approach is getting less result. How much of this is list related and how much is coach related its hard to say. I do know I'd be reluctant to see us trade for anyone on Melbournes list at years end just in case....

Is the key difference in approach the coach or the professionalism of the senior players which has dictated a different approach?

Do you think Neeld would like to trade Green, Davey et al for Boyd, Cross, Gia etc?

Both are school teachers from Geelong who have come through 3rd tier footy through the development ranks (Neeld in TAC, Macca as a dev coach at AFL level) to assistant, senior assistant and now senior coach.

I am obviously biased - and I am sure Neeldy would like some things back - but do you really think his plan was to take the approach he has or that he would be going this way if he believed there was an alternative. If there is going to be pain, it may as well happen now...no point in propping things up for a season before the drop off comes...may as well force an immediate outcome.

[LongWait]

Nice post West-Dog but I think you have identified only one half of the "base" of the current team style. Contested possession is what everyone is focusing on (and isn't it the new black in footy?) but equally importantly, McCartney has been preaching and teaching defending all over the ground.

We have been ok at contested possession in previous years, although not everyone was expected to contribute and much was left to Boyd, Cross, Hahn, Hudson, Minson (when he got a game) and guys like Eagleton, Higgins, Hill, Everitt were given a free pass. Under McCartney you correctly identified that nobody gets a free pass on contested possession.

We are now so much better at defending all over the ground and, whilst we have a way to go, this will ensure that we don't get split open by good sides as we have in the past.

Winning contested ball is great but we need to address what happens when we get the ball from the contest, and what happens when our opponents get the ball from the contest. Macca has taught us to be much better at pressuring and also closing down sides when they have the ball, although so far we are mainly a one-trick pony in we rely too much on man-on-man. This defensive mindset from every player is in my view the second strand to the game style we are seeing from the Bullies in 2012.

Hopefully the next stage will be further refinement of what happens when we have the ball. As many on this site have pointed out, our disposal efficiency and forward structures and set plays require much work.

I was very excited by McCartney's appointment and nothing I've seen so far has dampened that excitement. I believe we will develop into a special side that is finally capable of achieving that holy grail.

Or perhaps I'm just an old dreamer....

[AndrewP6]

We have been ok at contested possession in previous years, although not everyone was expected to contribute

And you know this how?


and much was left to Boyd, Cross, Hahn, Hudson, Minson (when he got a game) and guys like Eagleton, Higgins, Hill, Everitt were given a free pass. Under McCartney you correctly identified that nobody gets a free pass on contested possession.


Higgins has battled injury. Hill spent considerable time at Williamstown before being traded out and Everitt was kicked to the curb (well, to Sydney). I wouldn't call any of those circumstances "a free pass".

[LongWait]

And you know this how?



Higgins has battled injury. Hill spent considerable time at Williamstown before being traded out and Everitt was kicked to the curb (well, to Sydney). I wouldn't call any of those circumstances "a free pass".

Let's just agree to disagree Andrew.

[AndrewP6]

Let's just agree to disagree Andrew.

On the fact that Hill and Everitt both languished in the magoos before being traded? OK then.

[LostDoggy]

Nice post West-Dog but I think you have identified only one half of the "base" of the current team style. Contested possession is what everyone is focusing on (and isn't it the new black in footy?) but equally importantly, McCartney has been preaching and teaching defending all over the ground.


Yes , I could have gone into a lot more detail , I was mainly addressing some of the negative comments that General Mac was making us or seemed to be making us too one dimensional

Your right about the defensive zoning , General Mac is teaching the players that each person has a zone and the ground has zones and that each player has an equal responsibility for their own zone and the zones that they are moving into and out of ,for example Minson has really tightened his understanding of his defensive role his body positioning is very good to block ,push or tackle and while he has given away 7 free kicks none of them have come from a lack of discipline ( maybe once ) and if anything he is enjoying throwing his weight around and he,s a very happy unit

.

[w3design]

Ahh Mac. Thank God for the return to 1 on 1, beat your own opponent football. The 'zone' finally looks as though it is about to go the way of the flick pass, the drop kick and the dodo. And from my perspective it will be missed a darn sight less than any of them.
Leaving half the opposition free to roam the ground unattended was always going to come unstuck once the tactic was worked out.
Now perhaps we can get back to playing football AFL style rather than a poor man's version of thugby.

[LostDoggy]

Ahh Mac. Thank God for the return to 1 on 1, beat your own opponent football. The 'zone' finally looks as though it is about to go the way of the flick pass, the drop kick and the dodo. And from my perspective it will be missed a darn sight less than any of them.
Leaving half the opposition free to roam the ground unattended was always going to come unstuck once the tactic was worked out.
Now perhaps we can get back to playing football AFL style rather than a poor man's version of thugby.

Is this a joke post? Because Thugby, as you call it, is far more man-on-man than AFL can ever be. There's no 'zoning' in any form of rugby.

Zoning comes from basketball and soccer, if from anywhere. Also it's not about leaving people unattended, it's marking space, not specific players, which can be very efficient in terms of ground coverage (and conserving energy). Brian Lake, for one, prospers in a zone defence as he can read the play better than most. There is a place for both man-on-man and zonal defence (or more often a mix of the two) in all free-form invasion sports like soccer, basketball, hockey and footy -- sometimes man-on-man can be inefficient against certain types of teams, and conversely zonal defence can be exposed against certain types of teams. They are just different tools.

I suppose we all have our aesthetic preferences. In soccer I certainly prefer to watch a team playing zonal defence even though I've always coached a predominantly man-on-man style (which is easier to implement for amateur/junior teams).

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Is the key difference in approach the coach or the professionalism of the senior players which has dictated a different approach?

Do you think Neeld would like to trade Green, Davey et al for Boyd, Cross, Gia etc?

Both are school teachers from Geelong who have come through 3rd tier footy through the development ranks (Neeld in TAC, Macca as a dev coach at AFL level) to assistant, senior assistant and now senior coach.

I am obviously biased - and I am sure Neeldy would like some things back - but do you really think his plan was to take the approach he has or that he would be going this way if he believed there was an alternative. If there is going to be pain, it may as well happen now...no point in propping things up for a season before the drop off comes...may as well force an immediate outcome.

I know you're a big fan of Neeld, but I don't think he has handled himself particularly well. Especially in comparison to McCartney. You're right that he doesn't have the senior players to work with, but even with the 2 he has in Moloney and Jamar, they appear to want out at season's end.

The way he reacted after the loss to Brisbane in round one left him nowhere else to go. As supporters, irritation and emotion always come first, but coaches need to convey a calm logic - eg. McCartney after our loss to St. Kilda. Neeld let everything out of the bag after one match.

Additionally, their game plan is horrible. They kick it long to the boundary almost every single time. It's a clear gameplan instruction and it's not surprising they rarely have possession of the ball, because they simply cannot win these contests consistently. Then again, nobody is going to have success when every kick is a long one to a contest.

Let's not forget that Melbourne won 7? games last season and at times have looked OK in the last 2-3 years. Moloney and Jamar were the best ruck/mid combo for much of last year, but both are disinterested footballers at the moment.

Sorry for turning this into a Melbourne thread, but I think it's interesting to compare Neeld with McCartney. I know who I'd rather.

[FrediKanoute]

On the fact that Hill and Everitt both languished in the magoos before being traded? OK then.

We could also agree that the 2 guys were given ample opportunities to prove themselves at senior level and refused/weren't capable of taking it. Both guys were talented footballers, but attitude wise? I'm not convinced.

Getting back to the topic, I am excited by what I am seeing. I like the constested possession and the work rate I'm seeing. I like the way the young guys have really come on. I like the way guys like Vez, Wood, Higgins and DJ are reinventing themselves. Its thumbs up from me.

[LostDoggy]

Neeld is saying so much of the same stuff (contested ball as the base for a new beginning) yet the two styles are so different. I don't have enough insight to bag Neeld but it's interesting that a BMac guiding, teaching style is getting so much impact on field and a Neeld dominant, seemingly aggressive, approach is getting less result. How much of this is list related and how much is coach related its hard to say. I do know I'd be reluctant to see us trade for anyone on Melbournes list at years end just in case....

BMac's style is much more acceptable to Gen-Y footballers than Neeld's. Players are professionals, and probably want to be treated as such. I think Neeld's approach reeks of a reluctance to take equal responsibility for what's going on, instead placing the blame squarely on the playing group. He could be 100% right, but it's the wrong avenue to take unless your desired result is the playing group getting it's back up against the wall. Guiding is always better than poking a bloke in the chest. Once you have that respect, your disciplinary measures — tough training sessions, dropping players for poor form, etc —*!is much better received, and even appreciated.


I was very excited by McCartney's appointment and nothing I've seen so far has dampened that excitement. I believe we will develop into a special side that is finally capable of achieving that holy grail.

Or perhaps I'm just an old dreamer....

But you're “not the only one…” :D

The tough part is going to be patience once we hit our first hurdles. Is BMac going to be given the 6-7 years it could take to deliver?


I know you're a big fan of Neeld, but I don't think he has handled himself particularly well. Especially in comparison to McCartney. You're right that he doesn't have the senior players to work with, but even with the 2 he has in Moloney and Jamar, they appear to want out at season's end.

The way he reacted after the loss to Brisbane in round one left him nowhere else to go. As supporters, irritation and emotion always come first, but coaches need to convey a calm logic - eg. McCartney after our loss to St. Kilda. Neeld let everything out of the bag after one match.

Spot on. Once you've yelled and screamed, what do you do when that doesn't work?

[The Pie Man]

I know you're a big fan of Neeld, but I don't think he has handled himself particularly well. Especially in comparison to McCartney. You're right that he doesn't have the senior players to work with, but even with the 2 he has in Moloney and Jamar, they appear to want out at season's end.

The way he reacted after the loss to Brisbane in round one left him nowhere else to go. As supporters, irritation and emotion always come first, but coaches need to convey a calm logic - eg. McCartney after our loss to St. Kilda. Neeld let everything out of the bag after one match.

Additionally, their game plan is horrible. They kick it long to the boundary almost every single time. It's a clear gameplan instruction and it's not surprising they rarely have possession of the ball, because they simply cannot win these contests consistently. Then again, nobody is going to have success when every kick is a long one to a contest.

Let's not forget that Melbourne won 7? games last season and at times have looked OK in the last 2-3 years. Moloney and Jamar were the best ruck/mid combo for much of last year, but both are disinterested footballers at the moment.

Sorry for turning this into a Melbourne thread, but I think it's interesting to compare Neeld with McCartney. I know who I'd rather.

Sorry to continue the Melbourne theme, but this reminded me of something I heard on Saturday - one of the rare times these days I listen to SEN and a caller rang through (Melb fan) to say how happy she was with Neeld, that the senior core there had been too comfortable being AFL footballers for years and that Neeld needs to turn the place over to make it harder.

I was thinking if I was a Melbourne supporter I'd feel the exact same way - I get the feeling they're better long term for Neeld's appointment.

On the Dogs, I'm very happy with B-Mac. Presents well, is honest without shedding too much with the media, and seems to have a good relationship with some as well.

[Cyberdoggie]

The way he reacted after the loss to Brisbane in round one left him nowhere else to go. As supporters, irritation and emotion always come first, but coaches need to convey a calm logic - eg. McCartney after our loss to St. Kilda. Neeld let everything out of the bag after one match.

.

This is a key point,

Regardless of coaching ability, to the outside eye, Neeld has given the impression that he's a bit of a hot head in the box, and his actions have lost the faith of the players (at least the senior ones).

Whether this is true exactly i don't know but it certainly appears that way.

I can't help but think that if McCartney acted the same way, then we may not be in as strong a position.

Listening to him speak after games he is very calm, always puts faith in his players and is prepared to back them in all the time, even when supporters are after blood.

Some of his game day matchups, team and sub selection confuse me but the players are clearly playing for him and trust in his vision.

[Mofra]

Listening to him speak after games he is very calm, always puts faith in his players and is prepared to back them in all the time, even when supporters are after blood.

Some of his game day matchups, team and sub selection confuse me but the players are clearly playing for him and trust in his vision.
It seems the players have really bought into the message too which indicates his communication behind the scenes is quite good. It's raised by almost every player whenever there is an interview.

[LostDoggy]

Sorry to continue the Melbourne theme, but this reminded me of something I heard on Saturday - one of the rare times these days I listen to SEN and a caller rang through (Melb fan) to say how happy she was with Neeld, that the senior core there had been too comfortable being AFL footballers for years and that Neeld needs to turn the place over to make it harder.

I was thinking if I was a Melbourne supporter I'd feel the exact same way - I get the feeling they're better long term for Neeld's appointment.

On the Dogs, I'm very happy with B-Mac. Presents well, is honest without shedding too much with the media, and seems to have a good relationship with some as well.

I was discussing the two coaches (and this thread) wih our RGM today as I'm going through a MFC type situation at work. I took on a new team of 10 a few months ago and, having given them some time to impress, there is clearly just some dead wood. I'm naturally a developing/teaching type manager. I love seeing people excel and I love training and developing but the team I've inherited is resistant, obstructive and two of them simply won't buy into the new game plan - crusty old tarts that they are. So.... I gotta lose them. I really dislike it but you gotta do it. Point being:

I love BMac's style as I use alot of the same techniques.
I find myself forced to use Neeld type tactics as we need new blood to move forward.
I'm just glad we have the list AND the coach we've got.

As an aside, I'm also really glad the real Brian Lake is back and saying all the right things to help develop the younger guys as well.

[The Pie Man]

I was discussing the two coaches (and this thread) wih our RGM today as I'm going through a MFC type situation at work. I took on a new team of 10 a few months ago and, having given them some time to impress, there is clearly just some dead wood. I'm naturally a developing/teaching type manager. I love seeing people excel and I love training and developing but the team I've inherited is resistant, obstructive and two of them simply won't buy into the new game plan - crusty old tarts that they are. So.... I gotta lose them. I really dislike it but you gotta do it. Point being:

I love BMac's style as I use alot of the same techniques.
I find myself forced to use Neeld type tactics as we need new blood to move forward.
I'm just glad we have the list AND the coach we've got.

As an aside, I'm also really glad the real Brian Lake is back and saying all the right things to help develop the younger guys as well.

This touches on part of a point mjp raised earlier - you go to war with the army you've got, and how you motivate/manage can be dependant on the cattle at your disposal. I heard B-Mac talk openly about Ryan Griffen recently, how when he got there he said 'you do something's great, but you need to work harder defensively, and to his credit he took everything on board and wanted to be helped, and he's turning into a terrific player'

He wasn't resistant to change (or new cheese - forgive me for the corporate speak!) and I get the sense many on the Dogs list are receptive to the new direction. Melbourne's senior core perhaps aren't, and a different approach - as you've decided to employ - is necessary.

I read an article once headlined 'Change or die' and I believe it's never more true when applied to football.

[LostDoggy]

This touches on part of a point mjp raised earlier - you go to war with the army you've got, and how you motivate/manage can be dependant on the cattle at your disposal. I heard B-Mac talk openly about Ryan Griffen recently, how when he got there he said 'you do something's great, but you need to work harder defensively, and to his credit he took everything on board and wanted to be helped, and he's turning into a terrific player'

He wasn't resistant to change (or new cheese - forgive me for the corporate speak!) and I get the sense many on the Dogs list are receptive to the new direction. Melbourne's senior core perhaps aren't, and a different approach - as you've decided to employ - is necessary.

I read an article once headlined 'Change or die' and I believe it's never more true when applied to football.

This is great teaching — tell the bloke what to do, not how to do it. Applies to any leadership situation.

[w3design]

Is this a joke post? Because Thugby, as you call it, is far more man-on-man than AFL can ever be. There's no 'zoning' in any form of rugby.

Zoning comes from basketball and soccer, if from anywhere. Also it's not about leaving people unattended, it's marking space, not specific players, which can be very efficient in terms of ground coverage (and conserving energy). Brian Lake, for one, prospers in a zone defence as he can read the play better than most. There is a place for both man-on-man and zonal defence (or more often a mix of the two) in all free-form invasion sports like soccer, basketball, hockey and footy -- sometimes man-on-man can be inefficient against certain types of teams, and conversely zonal defence can be exposed against certain types of teams. They are just different tools.

I suppose we all have our aesthetic preferences. In soccer I certainly prefer to watch a team playing zonal defence even though I've always coached a predominantly man-on-man style (which is easier to implement for amateur/junior teams).


Sorry Lantern, afraid we are just going to have to agree to disagree on Thugby. From my perspective it is about as man-on-man as some thing you would see in a chick flick.

Having played basketball to College level myself, and my sons having played soccer for many years [ one to premiership captain in his league], and having watched the game, supporting the same team myself for 40 years, I am reasonably conversant with zoning in both sports.
Zoning on a 15 X 28 metre court is rather a different kettle of fish than on an oval c 170 x 145 metres .

Just what would you describe the kind of zoning used at the restart kick in, if that is not leaving your opponent unattended? It was that kind of pattern, rather than an individual 'zoning off' instead of standing shoulder to shoulder with his man, that I was referring to.
Agreed there can be times when man on man can prove to be inefficient, but I personally think that would happen far less often, than for a zone in Aussie Rules So long as players are not simply totally outclassed by their immediate opponent.

How frustrating is it to watch players trying to form a zone in anticipation, taking their attention away from the guy with the ball, only to have it passed directly to the man they were meant to be on, and have him clear the ball off down the ground totally unopposed, while he zoner lags 20-30 metres in his wake .
Now I wont argue with you that there may be the odd time were a bit of zoning might have a place in a particular play. However since zoning became all the rage a few years back, the best coaches and smartest players have already rendered it completely passée in my opinion.
And I for one will smile and dance at it's funeral.

[LostDoggy]

Sorry Lantern, afraid we are just going to have to agree to disagree on Thugby. From my perspective it is about as man-on-man as some thing you would see in a chick flick.

Having played basketball to College level myself, and my sons having played soccer for many years [ one to premiership captain in his league], and having watched the game, supporting the same team myself for 40 years, I am reasonably conversant with zoning in both sports.
Zoning on a 15 X 28 metre court is rather a different kettle of fish than on an oval c 170 x 145 metres .

Just what would you describe the kind of zoning used at the restart kick in, if that is not leaving your opponent unattended? It was that kind of pattern, rather than an individual 'zoning off' instead of standing shoulder to shoulder with his man, that I was referring to.
Agreed there can be times when man on man can prove to be inefficient, but I personally think that would happen far less often, than for a zone in Aussie Rules So long as players are not simply totally outclassed by their immediate opponent.

How frustrating is it to watch players trying to form a zone in anticipation, taking their attention away from the guy with the ball, only to have it passed directly to the man they were meant to be on, and have him clear the ball off down the ground totally unopposed, while he zoner lags 20-30 metres in his wake .
Now I wont argue with you that there may be the odd time were a bit of zoning might have a place in a particular play. However since zoning became all the rage a few years back, the best coaches and smartest players have already rendered it completely passée in my opinion.
And I for one will smile and dance at it's funeral.

Not sure how “correct” you are, but this is a great response, well thought out and debated.