2019 Western Bulldogs Membership Thread

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Sorry, the problem is deeper than that and the selection committee is making a serious mistake by not recognising it.

(Many) Members are angry. When they don’t believe the selected team is the best possible, and they are stunned by the dramatic decline over the last 30 games, the bond is weakened.

If I ever had an inkling that our selection committee made any decisions based on the dissatisfaction of ANYONE outside the inner sanctum of the club, much less a group of disgruntled supporters.. that would cause me to question the direction our club was going.

[Danjul]

If I ever had an inkling that our selection committee made any decisions based on the dissatisfaction of ANYONE outside the inner sanctum of the club, much less a group of disgruntled supporters.. that would cause me to question the direction our club was going.

That’s the best summary of the problem I have seen. The club exists for the inner sanctum who have sent the team to the bottom of the ladder. If the inner sanctum thought the selected team was going to defeat Carlton they should get out more.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

That’s the best summary of the problem I have seen. The club exists for the inner sanctum who have sent the team to the bottom of the ladder. If the inner sanctum thought the selected team was going to defeat Carlton they should get out more.

Anyone outside of the club, has absolutely no access to knowledge about the players, other than some stats. You have zero idea as to team strategy, zero input on player KPI's.
If you walked into a team selection meeting at any club and said 'OK Fella's Player A had 5 kicks more than Player B...therefore player A 100% was better than player B and should not get dropped..they'd call security on you.
The fact is we can debate, offer opinions as to who should be in and the structure of the team. It's fun. But it is the height of arrogance to presume match committee should take their cues from anyone outside of the internal professional domain.

[Bulldog4life]

Recent big losses

2017 after the bye: 46 57 59 48
2018: 82 51 54 49 57 63 50 54 44
2019: 50

14 big losses- this is what kills membership.

The team has not been competitive and that is now the expectation.

I feel depressed.

[Danjul]

Anyone outside of the club, has absolutely no access to knowledge about the players, other than some stats. You have zero idea as to team strategy, zero input on player KPI's.
If you walked into a team selection meeting at any club and said 'OK Fella's Player A had 5 kicks more than Player B...therefore player A 100% was better than player B and should not get dropped..they'd call security on you.
The fact is we can debate, offer opinions as to who should be in and the structure of the team. It's fun. But it is the height of arrogance to presume match committee should take their cues from anyone outside of the internal professional domain.

The key word is professional. That implies responsibility.

14 big losses in 30 games. They own them.

Occasional wins are usually against teams at the bottom of the ladder.

That’s not going to grow the membership. It is not a product that ordinary people usually buy.

Time to start acting differently, that is what a professional would do.

[Danjul]

Anyone outside of the club, has absolutely no access to knowledge about the players, other than some stats. You have zero idea as to team strategy, zero input on player KPI's.
If you walked into a team selection meeting at any club and said 'OK Fella's Player A had 5 kicks more than Player B...therefore player A 100% was better than player B and should not get dropped..they'd call security on you.
The fact is we can debate, offer opinions as to who should be in and the structure of the team. It's fun. But it is the height of arrogance to presume match committee should take their cues from anyone outside of the internal professional domain.

I like your example “had 5 kicks more “.

Against Carlton one quarter of the team had 5 kicks or less.

Eight other players had 6,7 or 8.

Maybe the professionals might like to spend some time thinking about this.

Non-professionals have concluded that kicking is a relevant KPI when the game is football.

[hujsh]

I like your example “had 5 kicks more “.

Against Carlton one quarter of the team had 5 kicks or less.

Eight other players had 6,7 or 8.

Maybe the professionals might like to spend some time thinking about this.

Non-professionals have concluded that kicking is a relevant KPI when the game is football.

Sounds like Ed Barlow>Dale Morris then

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

The key word is professional. That implies responsibility.

14 big losses in 30 games. They own them.

Occasional wins are usually against teams at the bottom of the ladder.

That’s not going to grow the membership. It is not a product that ordinary people usually buy.

Time to start acting differently, that is what a professional would do.

Danjul I wholeheartedly agree that the club needs to be accountable.
Just not to fans or armchair experts.
Any professional organisation that doesn't demand accountability I'd have grave concerns about.
I think its fair to have concerns, and to articulate those concerns and to debate those concerns.
But producing a list of the thumpings we've had and holding that up as, evidence that the club is losing the plot, that's crazy. That is a noutcome, not cause.
There are a number of cogent pieces of data that mitigate or explain those poor resultst especially last year.

And again that's not to let them off the hook. We should expect better and at a certain point if there is no change then that accountability needs to come into play.
But using number of kicks per game as proof of a match committee playing favourites, or listing our beltings as proof our match committee is out of touch is actually mischevious at best.

[bornadog]

In the modern era the club is selling a product - success.

Therein lies the issue with Westernbulldogs supporters not wanting to be a member of THE CLUB

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

I like your example “had 5 kicks more “.

Against Carlton one quarter of the team had 5 kicks or less.

Eight other players had 6,7 or 8.

Maybe the professionals might like to spend some time thinking about this.

Non-professionals have concluded that kicking is a relevant KPI when the game is football.

Yes, its important.. but in any endeavour where multiple variables are at plsy, you can't just assume primacy for just one bloody piece of data to the exclusion of the other pieces of data.
Even your kicks example, you're attributing causality, when its not, its a correlation...

[Danjul]

Yes, its important.. but in any endeavour where multiple variables are at plsy, you can't just assume primacy for just one bloody piece of data to the exclusion of the other pieces of data.
Even your kicks example, you're attributing causality, when its not, its a correlation...

Many non-mathematicians use correlation to distract from causation.

Riewoldt kicks 2 goals for every behind. Dickson might be better.

The kicking the dogs supporters see week after week is terrible and shows no sign of improvement.

Bad technique is causing bad scoring.

ThatÂ’s why, in 30 games, the team had scored more than 12 goals on only 8 occasions.

And bad scoring causes losing.

And bad field kicking is causing turnovers. Which also cause losing.

I humbly suggest that KPIs are not all created equal. And quality kicking is 90% of what causes wins in football.

And winning causes bigger memberships, which is the whole point of having the club.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Many non-mathematicians use correlation to distract from causation.

Riewoldt kicks 2 goals for every behind. Dickson might be better.

The kicking the dogs supporters see week after week is terrible and shows no sign of improvement.

Bad technique is causing bad scoring.

ThatÂ’s why, in 30 games, the team had scored more than 12 goals on only 8 occasions.

And bad scoring causes losing.

And bad field kicking is causing turnovers. Which also cause losing.

I humbly suggest that KPIs are not all created equal. And quality kicking is 90% of what causes wins in football.

And winning causes bigger memberships, which is the whole point of having the club.

Don't disagree with any of your observations about bad technique, bad scoring, bad kicking etc. None at all.
I just disagree with some of your conclusions you are extrapolating from those.

And again whilst some KPI's may be more important, they aren't to the total exclusion of others, and that is how you presented the Fletcher situation.
Fletcher Roberts gets kicks, kicks are the best. Therefore he should be in the side over someone else who has less kicks.

Or we have had x huge losses over 2 years therefore our club has no idea what its doing.
I disagree strongly with you, but I am absolutely thrilled that you're making your voice heard on WOOF and creating conversation.

[hujsh]

Many non-mathematicians use correlation to distract from causation.

Riewoldt kicks 2 goals for every behind. Dickson might be better.

The kicking the dogs supporters see week after week is terrible and shows no sign of improvement.

Bad technique is causing bad scoring.

ThatÂ’s why, in 30 games, the team had scored more than 12 goals on only 8 occasions.

And bad scoring causes losing.

And bad field kicking is causing turnovers. Which also cause losing.

I humbly suggest that KPIs are not all created equal. And quality kicking is 90% of what causes wins in football.

And winning causes bigger memberships, which is the whole point of having the club.

You’ve failed to address the first part of that equation though. You keep bringing up the number of kicks but that doesn’t address the quality of them. I’d take 5 kicks from Gilbee over 20 from Dunkley. Then there’s the fact that you’ve mostly talked about defenders who have many other defensive metrics they need to satisfy

[Danjul]

Don't disagree with any of your observations about bad technique, bad scoring, bad kicking etc. None at all.
I just disagree with some of your conclusions you are extrapolating from those.

And again whilst some KPI's may be more important, they aren't to the total exclusion of others, and that is how you presented the Fletcher situation.
Fletcher Roberts gets kicks, kicks are the best. Therefore he should be in the side over someone else who has less kicks.

Or we have had x huge losses over 2 years therefore our club has no idea what its doing.

I disagree strongly with you, but I am absolutely thrilled that you're making your voice heard on WOOF and creating conversation.

My comments have been directed towards the membership decline but I will broaden it to include Roberts (another thread).

A friend of mine went to a vfl game (last year I think) and he was at the fence. One of the Footscray players had the ball and went to handball to Roberts. My friend was close enough to hear Roberts shout “ kick it downfield “. He could have taken a cheap possession, many would.

[Danjul]

You’ve failed to address the first part of that equation though. You keep bringing up the number of kicks but that doesn’t address the quality of them. I’d take 5 kicks from Gilbee over 20 from Dunkley. Then there’s the fact that you’ve mostly talked about defenders who have many other defensive metrics they need to satisfy

Here I have been talking about the kicking skills not being displayed by our forwards and midfielders.

And Dunkley is the perfect example of what I am saying. The closer he gets to goal the worse his kicking becomes. Now he (and some others) try to avoid kicking a set shot at goal when they are 40metres out. I have seen him handball 20 backwards to avoid the shot.

Get Barry Hall to give him 10 hours of one one coaching and he will become a match winner. He could kick like Gilbee 20+ times a game with targeted help. That would give the members a reason to go to the footy.