Sharp Axes

[GVGjr]

I get where you're coming from (also a BA) but I imagine your reviews are post project or post sprint and more about iterative improvement. Maybe the club feels that iterative improvement is exactly what they need (add a goal or two to each game and we are top 4) but for a lot of supporters it feels more like something is broken on a sub and now water is leaking in and we need to find and fix it or drown (and to some that broken piece is Bevo).

The fact we supposedly had a big review last year and the main change we made (bringing in Lade) seems to be the same thing we're doing now (bringing in Dew) so the likelyhood that the club needs external feedback feels higher. If your team was delivering over budget or producing a broken product and made changes to make sure that didn't happen after review but then failed to deliver in the exact same manner (actually worse) next time I imagine someone outside the team would be getting pretty interested in what's going on.

The findings of the review last year were never made public which is okay because the club might not have wanted some things shared. It coincided with Maples departure who we never replaced but I get the sense that we will later this year albeit with a different title. I'm guessing here but did we make the position redundant blaming soft cap restrictions so we could move Maple on?

Now we have another review and hopefully we will see some more changes and a substantial change to our footy department set-up

[hujsh]

Perhaps the issues we find are the issues we found last year, or are at least very similar and our fixes were insufficient or couldn't be executed last year.

With coaches on multi-year contracts and resources limited, it's not as if you can always find the right person and secure them at a reasonable cost. Perhaps bringing in Lade was one piece of the same puzzle and Dew is another.

It's not unusual in an operation to find that the fixes you put in didn't go far enough, in fact it happens all the time.

The findings of the review last year were never made public which is okay because the club might not have wanted some things shared. It coincided with Maples departure who we never replaced but I get the sense that we will later this year albeit with a different title. I'm guessing here but did we make the position redundant blaming soft cap restrictions so we could move Maple on?

Now we have another review and hopefully we will see some more changes and a substantial change to our footy department set-up

I hope both these takes prove accurate. Definitely looking forward to the off field signings this year

[macca]

I get where you're coming from (also a BA) but I imagine your reviews are post project or post sprint and more about iterative improvement. Maybe the club feels that iterative improvement is exactly what they need (add a goal or two to each game and we are top 4) but for a lot of supporters it feels more like something is broken on a sub and now water is leaking in and we need to find and fix it or drown (and to some that broken piece is Bevo).

The fact we supposedly had a big review last year and the main change we made (bringing in Lade) seems to be the same thing we're doing now (bringing in Dew) so the likelyhood that the club needs external feedback feels higher. If your team was delivering over budget or producing a broken product and made changes to make sure that didn't happen after review but then failed to deliver in the exact same manner (actually worse) next time I imagine someone outside the team would be getting pretty interested in what's going on.

Since your talking about agile concepts may they should just keep it simple and have a retrospective?

stop
start
continue doing ( things do well) .

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Since your talking about agile concepts may they should just keep it simple and have a retrospective?

stop
start
continue doing ( things do well) .

Oh God we need to shut this thread down. I don't wanna see this sh*t on a footy forum where I go to get away from work!

[Grantysghost]

Oh God we need to shut this thread down. I don't wanna see this sh*t on a footy forum where I go to get away from work!

Make sure you put a DoD and update your story points please BTT.

[Danjul]

Agree we are not at 2014 crisis stage, however some external input I think would not only have better optics, it is more likely to lay bare decisions the club made that with benefit of hindsight we can learn from, and less likely to be
We will probably end up with similar recommendations either way (having seen consultants deliver recommendations for companies I?ve us.

Actually not much different as far as supporters go.

In 2014 the Dogs won 4 of the last 11 games. In 2023 they won 4 of the last 11 games. But that was helped by Geelong fielding a VFL team.

In late 2014 they defeated the bottom team, St Kilda, by 23 points. In 2023 the bottom team defeated the Dogs.

Yep, looks like a crisis.

[bornadog]

The findings of the review last year were never made public which is okay because the club might not have wanted some things shared. It coincided with Maples departure who we never replaced but I get the sense that we will later this year albeit with a different title. I'm guessing here but did we make the position redundant blaming soft cap restrictions so we could move Maple on?

Now we have another review and hopefully we will see some more changes and a substantial change to our footy department set-up

My gut tells me the review last year was not as extensive as what will happen this year.

From what we know, last year we identified Bevo needs a senior assistant so we got one (Lade), and we needed to change our game plan - which we did and it failed miserably in the first two rounds, so we switched again. Maybe the Maple one as you say, was also a change that was identified, who knows the reasoning. Doesn't sound like much else happened last year.

This year the club is actually under pressure for the dismissal display on field, and the pressure is from not only media, but supporters as well and seems the review will be more far reaching.

[mjp]

Actually not much different as far as supporters go.

In 2014 the Dogs won 4 of the last 11 games. In 2023 they won 4 of the last 11 games. But that was helped by Geelong fielding a VFL team.

Really?

In 2014 we played 5 of our last 6 at home.

We also LOST 5 of our last 6. 3 of those losses were by > 50 points.

I mean...this isn't 2014 for goodness sakes. Our last 5 losses were by a TOTAL of 29 points combined.

I'm unhappy as well but why exactly are we invoking the ghosts of that dire season?

[Topdog]

7 wins with 82% vs 11 wins with 108%. Ridiculous to compare.

[Topdog]

The moving on of Smith gives me some hope that the review will be exhaustive as they have shown already that they are wiling to make some hard decisions.

[G-Mo77]

Really?

In 2014 we played 5 of our last 6 at home.

We also LOST 5 of our last 6. 3 of those losses were by > 50 points.

I mean...this isn't 2014 for goodness sakes. Our last 5 losses were by a TOTAL of 29 points combined.

I'm unhappy as well but why exactly are we invoking the ghosts of that dire season?

Much harder for supporters to stomach. In 2014 we weren't expected to be any good. 2023 we were expected to be a finals team with a comfortable run home. I think they're on par with each other.

[MrMahatma]

The moving on of Smith gives me some hope that the review will be exhaustive as they have shown already that they are wiling to make some hard decisions.

Was that change the result of last season's review? Or just cause he was out of contract we made a change for change's sake?

[G-Mo77]

Was that change the result of last season's review? Or just cause he was out of contract we made a change for change's sake?

Probably the latter. I don't believe there was any review, well nothing worthy of calling it that anyway.

[Danjul]

Really?

In 2014 we played 5 of our last 6 at home.

We also LOST 5 of our last 6. 3 of those losses were by > 50 points.

I mean...this isn't 2014 for goodness sakes. Our last 5 losses were by a TOTAL of 29 points combined.

I'm unhappy as well but why exactly are we invoking the ghosts of that dire season?

4 out of 11 is 4 out of 11.

In 2014 we did not have Bont in All Australian form. English inAA form. Who was our Naughton in those days? The team was rebuilding not declining.

Those 3 big losses were against the ladder leader at the time. They were beating everyone. The only team close on the ladder that defeated the Dogs was GWS , where they still had 35 scoring shots and lost because of poor accuracy and not poor effort.

Our five losses this year were exactly that, 5 losses, but you could include the word unnecessary. But I would use Inexcusable.

Who did we lose to?

A depleted Sydney who couldn?t field a complete team. GWS without Green, their best midfielder, and their full forward. Hawthorn who has totally worked out our game plan. West coast who was beaten by 100+ by multiple teams. Basically a far inferior group of opponents than in late 2014.

I understand the need for positive propaganda, but 2014 had some signs that the rebuild might be leading somewhere. from the same seat a couple of weeks ago I saw nothing to be positive about.

[jeemak]

Really?

In 2014 we played 5 of our last 6 at home.

We also LOST 5 of our last 6. 3 of those losses were by > 50 points.

I mean...this isn't 2014 for goodness sakes. Our last 5 losses were by a TOTAL of 29 points combined.

I'm unhappy as well but why exactly are we invoking the ghosts of that dire season?

It's WOOF's version of corporal mortification.