The 'No Tagging Policy'

[bulldogtragic]

I understand we've won a lot this year, but I'm still trying to understand why we will not tag under almost all circumstances, especially when we are getting killed by an opposition player. In our close wins & losses this year:

R18 - Steven 39 touches, 1 goal
R16 - D. Martin 38 touches
R15 - Parker 34 touches, 3.2 goals
R13 - Dangerfield 37 touches, 2 goals
R12 - R. Gray 32 touches, 1 goal
R11 - Priddis 27 touches
R10 - Pendles 32 touches, 1 goal
R9 - Shaw 38, Congilio 32 & Ward 30 touches
R3 - Mitchell 29 touches (slowed by Daniel in the second half)

Far be it from to question a club sitting 6th, but I do wonder why we can't work into shutting down a dangerous player who is hurting us during a game. Is utilising one of our players as a tagger that bad of a strategy?

[Hotdog60]

I think Wally was on Steven at times after the first quarter. I think Bevo expects our player to win the ball and it will entail nullify the opposition player.

I think if you are getting beaten by someone you sit on them. Maybe we have and the person doing it isn't a good tagger.
Don't know.

[lemmon]

I think Wally was on Steven at times after the first quarter. I think Bevo expects our player to win the ball and it will entail nullify the opposition player.

I think if you are getting beaten by someone you sit on them. Maybe we have and the person doing it isn't a good tagger.
Don't know.

Jong spent time on him in the second half also and wasn't particularly effective

[Sedat]

Far be it from to question a club sitting 6th, but I do wonder why we can't work into shutting down a dangerous player who is hurting us during a game. Is utilising one of our players as a tagger that bad of a strategy?
I'm not a fan of the negating shut-down player - our midfield needs as many hands on deck as possible in light of our dysfunctional forward line, and whilst the opposition gun mid has had a lot of the ball in the above matches, so has our gun mids and we've come out on top more often than not. Opposition midfields generally run deep enough so that if one player is sweated on then the others pick up the slack, leaving us effectively one short in the midfield.

The only possible time I would consider a negating shut-down mid is against Geelong on Dangerfield. Their midfield doesn't bat deep and Danger is a disproportional influence in their midfield set-up. Seeing as it is retro round next week, I could live with Picko going back to the future and terrorising Danger for fun on Friday night.

[Ozza]

I'm not a fan of the negating shut-down player - our midfield needs as many hands on deck as possible in light of our dysfunctional forward line, and whilst the opposition gun mid has had a lot of the ball in the above matches, so has our gun mids and we've come out on top more often than not. Opposition midfields generally run deep enough so that if one player is sweated on then the others pick up the slack, leaving us effectively one short in the midfield.

The only possible time I would consider a negating shut-down mid is against Geelong on Dangerfield. Their midfield doesn't bat deep and Danger is a disproportional influence in their midfield set-up. Seeing as it is retro round next week, I could live with Picko going back to the future and terrorising Danger for fun on Friday night.

Couldn't agree more re: Danger this week.
But the coach will just stick to his guns and Danger will torch us....and then MAYBE someone will stand next to him in the second half when the game is already done and dusted.