WB Game Day V Geelong R12 2022

[bornadog]

Looking at the positive side of the game, we held them to just 1 goal in the 2nd quarter and 2 points in the 3rd. We didn't take our chances with McComb missing a shot to put us within a goal going into the last, and the umpires making a huge mistake with the Ed down field not allowed was plain disgusting. We were within 5 points for most of the last quarter, but just couldn't crack that extra goal.

In the end we didn't have good enough tall backman to stop an inform Cameron kicking 6 goals.

The biggest negative was that 1st quarter. Overall very disappointing.

[Grantysghost]

Looking at the positive side of the game, we held them to just 1 goal in the 2nd quarter and 2 points in the 3rd. We didn't take our chances with McComb missing a shot to put us within a goal going into the last, and the umpires making a huge mistake with the Ed down field not a loud was plain disgusting. We were within 5 points for most of the last quarter, but just couldn't crack that extra goal.

In the end we didn't have good enough tall backman to stop an inform Cameron kicking 6 goals.

The biggest negative was that 1st quarter. Overall very disappointing.

When the intensity came we matched them as we should with the talent on the list.

Also the Cats being so for up early could sit back and soak up the pressure. If they had to score more we might’ve opened them up on the turnover but it rarely happened.

It seems a theme in a lot of our losses, if only we executed this better or kicked this goal which to me all just means not good enough. This is (with my terrible memory) going back to the Tigers game at the G last year when someone hit the post late…if only we didn’t hit the post.

[soupman]

That had huge shades of the ear of the Dogs game where Wallace makes the vomit comment. Great effort, but that gets you nothing, when you have such an insipid and disastrous first quarter.

Is this the least trustworthy Bulldogs side we have seen? Since 2016 we frequently have games that we don't turn up in. Important ones and irrelevant ones alike. This was typical Beveridge era ame after quarter time, maximum effort, dominant for multiple quarters, but horrifically inefficient. We make it so hard for ourselves, it's honestly just exhausting watching how hard we have to work to score goals. I'm sorry to harp on about list management and the like but the players we have in our squad mean we do everything on hard mode. Half our forwardline aren't forwards and are trying to manufacture something instead of it coming naturally, half our defence are undersized or effort based players (and certainly not natural one on one players), and the way we set up means maximum effort is required maximum time. To then frequently see the opposition kick the easiest of goals (how many times did we see some variation of energy sapping plays like kickout-Blicavs-Hawkins-Cameron?) is just flat out demoralising.

I was surprised Gardner went to Hawkins and Keath to Cameron. I would have thought the other way round made more sense.

I too thought the other way around made more sense. Gardner struggled with Hawkins physicality early (thought he was pretty good for most of the game though, but a few crucial early contests helped set the tone for them), and Keath never really managed to impact Cameron one on one so his physicality was wasted (of which he had plenty of opportunities, Cameron runs so well). I thought we would have been playing to obth players strengths much ore if we flipped them around.

Maybe the thinking was that Keath is a physical player but not as good as Hawkins and Gardner covers the ground well but not as good as Cameron, so flipping them meant they both retained those advantages in those areas and could hopefully break even in the other.

I liked Bukus ruckwork and dont think having Sweet in would have made a difference.

Agree in part, Khamis actually did great in the ruck contests. By my count he was involved in 8 and we won the clearance in all of them (often with Khamis involved in the chain) bar one (and that one involved about a minute of scrappy contests in the vicinity before Geelong eventually won it so I'd say it was a draw).

Would Sweet have made a bigger difference though? I think yes. Khamis played just 53% gametime (uninjured), had no impact at all outside of those ruck contests and a lucky goal, and never seemed to be in the play up forward. Yes I think he did well in the ruck but 8 contests is a blip and we couldn't have expected him to do that well in the ruck. So what was our plan for him?

We did well in the clearances particular after quarter time, but I'm not sure that was due to English's ruckwork. He rarely to my eye got a hitout to advantage, even when he did win it, but his follow up work as usual was great. There were a few instances where we would have a clear player in perfect position to be tapped to and English would go for the neutral tap to the side option. From what I've seen of Sweet he would've hit up more of those options, and possibly given us that advantage out of the middle. I also thought we struggled in the first quarter in the middle and Sweet would have helped give us a different look there. Importantly Sweet in the ruck would've allowed English to play proper forward, as Naughton needed help and it would've put us in a position to truly take an advantage out of Stewarts absence.

To be clear I was happy with Sweet being dropped and us running with Khamis as the forward/ruck, but when I see what I presume was the plan eventuate and it's Khamis spending half the game on the bench for the sake of 8 ruck contests and no obvious impact up forward I struggle to think how the MC thought that was a better option than what Sweet could offer, especially considering Khamis' form leading into this has been thoroughly droppable.

We did not play to our forward set up at all - we knew we were short, so needed to use our hit up players. It is hard to believe that the players willingly ignored instructions, so I can only assume those instructions weren't given and 'bomb it to Cody in a 3 on 1' was a team rule.

Typical us though. This could be written after virtually any game we play against even half decent key defenders. We made Billy Frampton look like a god doing this.

Again so many comments in here are bemoaning that it wasn't tactics but execution and effort that let us down, but virtually all of the big issues on display last night (including the slow start) have been frequently on display during Beveridges reign and i struggle to think of any we have been able to consistently work out of our game.

[soupman]

Looking at the positive side of the game, we held them to just 1 goal in the 2nd quarter and 2 points in the 3rd. We didn't take our chances with McComb missing a shot to put us within a goal going into the last, and the umpires making a huge mistake with the Ed down field not a loud was plain disgusting. We were within 5 points for most of the last quarter, but just couldn't crack that extra goal.

It seems a theme in a lot of our losses, if only we executed this better or kicked this goal which to me all just means not good enough. This is (with my terrible memory) going back to the Tigers game at the G last year when someone hit the post late…if only we didn’t hit the post.

It's classic Bulldogs. In every important game the game seems to hinge on one or two moments. We know that if we don't take them it's a huge blow to our chances, but conversely when the opposition misses they often get another look in or opportunity.

I know a lot of it is just the bias I watch games through, but i do think it is compounded by how difficult it is for us to generate actual good opportunities at goal vs how easy it is for the opposition.

This is compounded by us having so few players that seem to want that opportunity to kick that important goal, and our inability to get the ball into any forwards hands consistently enough for them to be the guy (Naughton is the exception to this).

Looking at Geelong for example, the 4 most likely players to have an important shot for them in the last quarter are Cameron, Hawkins, Close and Rohan. All of them would be odds on to kick it from anywhere possibly including the boundary. They all seem bred to take those shots. They also aren't relying on a Rhys Stanley to be taking those shots like we would.

Conversely who in our lineup would you consider better than a 60% chance of hitting that McComb shot at that junction of the game? Weightman, Libba, Treloar and Dale? Would you trust any of the most likely players to get it to exceed that 60% chance? Bont, Naughton, Dunkley, English? I wouldn't.

To me it feels like in those important moments it's almost inevitable that the opposition have someone who will kick that goal get the chance eventually, while we feel like we play musical chairs with a bunch of players that do not want that shot.

[jeemak]

Well....without Premier League to watch I decided to put myself through the pain of the first quarter again.

Not meaning to harp on a point, but if you watched that again and didn't think the issues came down to execution and commitment from the players then I don't really know what to say.

Not running both ways, missing targets, kicking to them, and bees to a honey pot killed us. Clear as day.

Cameron was running up and down the ground and that should be taken care of by defenders being organised to deal with it. If that happens match ups don't mean a lot with two teams playing a systems based game. Our defenders need to be better, communicate better and get their shit together.

[merantau]

I'm as frustrated as anyone re our failure to win big games against, in particular, Geelong. It's pretty galling when you come to the realisation that having followed the Dogs for 66 years it's not too difficult to dial up our wins against Geelong.

The first I recall is Round 18, 1961 when we beat them at the Western Oval, knocked them out of the 4 and went on to reach the GF.

I can remember a game in the early 80s when the Pieman booted 12 at the Western Oval and another game in the same era at Kardinia Park when Les Bamblett took a few bounces and kicked a marvellous running goal.

I remember winning a really close one at Docklands about 14 years ago and the more recent one when we put 15 blokes on the mark and Hawkins??? had a shot after the siren - and missed. But that's all I can recall.

The defeats - especially the close ones - let's not go there.

So what is the solution? Keep doing the same thing and we'll get the same result. I would like to see us go as big and tall as possible. We haven't tried that yet. Play all of Sweet, JUH, Schache, Cordy and Khamis. Thus, McComb, Scott, McNeil and West make way.

English needs to spend more time forward. Schache and Cordy can play both forward and back. O'Brien also has that ability. JUH and Khamis can play on the wings or forward. With a tall forward line Weightman should be forbidden to fly for pack marks. He must crumb or lead into space only - either as a fair dinkum lead or as a decoy.

As people have pointed out we do have some issues in defence but these are more to do with skill errors, positioning and lack of communication.- too many players flying for the same ball.

The one thing I do know is this is yet another season, since 2016, when we have not delivered when we should have delivered with the personnel we have on hand. Yes, we have had injuries galore but we had those in 2016 and overcame them.

The season is only half over. We have a tough draw but that is based on the assumption that we don't turn up to play in the big games AGAIN!

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE LIKE THAT!!!

[Bulldog4life]

Don't you go flaunting your youthful age in front of the old farts. How dare you sir
He was a fairly limited player and played as a defender for us. His two boys are going along OK and should have long careers.

I saw Terry's wiki page. For best position is bench.

[Bulldog4life]

After half time I would have liked Bevo to try O'Brien in the forward line. We couldn't have gone any worse and he has kicked goals and taken marks there in the past with Hawthorn. Plus we needed another tall in there. Surely the coaches could have seen this.

[bornadog]

After half time I would have liked Bevo to try O'Brien in the forward line. We couldn't have gone any worse and he has kicked goals and taken marks there in the past with Hawthorn. Plus we needed another tall in there. Surely the coaches could have seen this.

who would then pick up Rohan? Do you send Williams back, or maybe Buku?

[Bulldog4life]

who would then pick up Rohan? Do you send Williams back, or maybe Buku?

Maybe Williams and back to the wing next match. Something had to change.

[kruder]

One thing I found interesting at the ground is that Geelong man the mark a lot different to the way do and it seemed a lot more effective.

They actually hang back a bit and then at the last minute they move forward and man the spot, it actually put our players off and put them on the back foot on occasions which stopped us from playing on.

It was in stark contrast to our method which has 0 benefit make no mistake, I can't believe we are still doing it. Giving players space to wheel around and execute a kick with no pressure makes no sense. It's not like we have interceptors sitting back ready to take long bomb inside 50.

[Grantysghost]

One thing I found interesting at the ground is that Geelong man the mark a lot different to the way do and it seemed a lot more effective.

They actually hang back a bit and then at the last minute they move forward and man the spot, it actually put our players off and put them on the back foot on occasions which stopped us from playing on.

It was in stark contrast to our method which has 0 benefit make no mistake, I can't believe we are still doing it. Giving players space to wheel around and execute a kick with no pressure makes no sense. It's not like we have interceptors sitting back ready to take long bomb inside 50.

Im still trying to work out why we do that ! I guess it stops them running around the player on the mark which takes them out of the defence?
However it gifts so much space to good ball users I’m yet to see the benefit.

[Mantis]

After half time I would have liked Bevo to try O'Brien in the forward line. We couldn't have gone any worse and he has kicked goals and taken marks there in the past with Hawthorn. Plus we needed another tall in there. Surely the coaches could have seen this.

This should've been addressed during the week at selection and not at 1/2 time. Bevo's refusal to play height in our team costs us wins... it's as simples as that.

[Bulldog4life]

This should've been addressed during the week at selection and not at 1/2 time. Bevo's refusal to play height in our team costs us wins... it's as simples as that.

Agree entirely.

[bornadog]

This should've been addressed during the week at selection and not at 1/2 time. Bevo's refusal to play height in our team costs us wins... it's as simples as that.

Who should have come in for extra height?