Round 5 games

[chef]

Re: Round 5 games

Carlton played some very good football today.

Their leg speed is fantastic, and when they can move the ball through the corridor with speed, to the forwards advantage, they look very dangerous.

Would love to have one of Yarren or Gartlett playing for us.

Or Betts.

[mjp]

Re: Round 5 games

It is an interesting result.

For a few years now Geelong have been amazing. Not they they always won (though they mostly did) but just that these results NEVER happened to them. They might lose by a kick every now and then in an upset, but this was their first 'Bulldogs vs WCE 2009 edition' games I can remember since their first premiership season.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: Round 5 games

It is an interesting result.

For a few years now Geelong have been amazing. Not they they always won (though they mostly did) but just that these results NEVER happened to them. They might lose by a kick every now and then in an upset, but this was their first 'Bulldogs vs WCE 2009 edition' games I can remember since their first premiership season.

I was thinking the same thing earlier. Not sure what their heaviest defeat would be of the last 2-3 years, but this is probably up there. At the same time - they proved v Port Adelaide they still have the capacity to blow sides off the park.

Yarran is a special talent and he's starting to hit his strides after a bit of a slow start to his career. He's a smooth mover but is very quick and got under Geelong's guard today. His poise and skill makes him a deadly player if he continues to improve. Starting to see why they picked him over Rich etc.

Highlighted to me that it's almost a must to have a Betts/Yarran/Garlett type.

[comrade]

Re: Round 5 games

It is an interesting result.

For a few years now Geelong have been amazing. Not they they always won (though they mostly did) but just that these results NEVER happened to them. They might lose by a kick every now and then in an upset, but this was their first 'Bulldogs vs WCE 2009 edition' games I can remember since their first premiership season.

The Blues have a quality engine room that matches up well on teams who roll the dice, run in waves and try to go head to head in the midfield, rather than locking down. It's why they can beat us, even when they suck.

How can we combat it when we play them?

[Rocco Jones]

Re: Round 5 games

The Blues have a quality engine room that matches up well on teams who roll the dice, run in waves and try to go head to head in the midfield, rather than locking down. It's why they can beat us, even when they suck.

How can we combat it when we play them?

Without wanting to sound like the fools in the crowd that scream 'man up' every other minute but Cross and Boyd need to show a lot of respect to their respective opponents. Hopefully the new Ryan Griffen punishes them for giving him the space.

No Fev means Betts is their man up forward. Yarran and Garlett are looking good as well so we will probably have to dedicate Shaggy and Morris to the smalls. It should suit Lake to a tee zoning off ordinary tall forwards.

[comrade]

Re: Round 5 games

Without wanting to sound like the fools in the crowd that scream 'man up' every other minute but Cross and Boyd need to show a lot of respect to their respective opponents. Hopefully the new Ryan Griffen punishes them for giving him the space.

No Fev means Betts is their man up forward. Yarran and Garlett are looking good as well so we will probably have to dedicate Shaggy and Morris to the smalls. It should suit Lake to a tee zoning off ordinary tall forwards.

They're forward structure should suit us with Fevola not there:

Henderson - Lake (or Williams)
Sentanta - Williams (or Lake)
Garlett - Harbrow
Yarran - Shaggy
Betts - Morris

As always, it boils down to the midfield, which is where they've gotten us in previous outings and it's where they belted Geelong today. I hate seeing opposition players 'cheat' forward of the play and cut us to ribbons - I'd happily forgo our attacking style and make it a grind if it meant nullifying their attacking options.

[Mantis]

Re: Round 5 games

As always, it boils down to the midfield, which is where they've gotten us in previous outings and it's where they belted Geelong today. I hate seeing opposition players 'cheat' forward of the play and cut us to ribbons - I'd happily forgo our attacking style and make it a grind if it meant nullifying their attacking options.

Messers Gibbs & Simpson usually play good games against us.

[Bulldog4life]

Re: Round 5 games

I was thinking the same thing earlier. Not sure what their heaviest defeat would be of the last 2-3 years, but this is probably up there. At the same time - they proved v Port Adelaide they still have the capacity to blow sides off the park.

I'd say this would be it.

2008 Round 9
Collingwood 6.4 11.6 16.8 20.14 (134) dftd Geelong 2.2 3.3 6.5 7.6 (48)

[Mofra]

Re: Round 5 games

For a few years now Geelong have been amazing. Not they they always won (though they mostly did) but just that these results NEVER happened to them. They might lose by a kick every now and then in an upset, but this was their first 'Bulldogs vs WCE 2009 edition' games I can remember since their first premiership season.

I went to a Collingwood v Geelong game at the MCG where Collingwood smashed Geelong by ~70 points.
Strangely, the feeling from everyone there was "no panic, just a bad night for Geelong". This time there are more questions being asked of the team which is a statement in itself.

[chef]

Re: Round 5 games

I went to a Collingwood v Geelong game at the MCG where Collingwood smashed Geelong by ~70 points.
Strangely, the feeling from everyone there was "no panic, just a bad night for Geelong". This time there are more questions being asked of the team which is a statement in itself.

The Ablett/Thompson tension can't be good for the team either.

[azabob]

Re: Round 5 games

It is an interesting result.

For a few years now Geelong have been amazing. Not they they always won (though they mostly did) but just that these results NEVER happened to them. They might lose by a kick every now and then in an upset, but this was their first 'Bulldogs vs WCE 2009 edition' games I can remember since their first premiership season.

Funnily enough Carlton beat the cats last year also.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Round 5 games

I forgot to congratulate my mate Ben on playing his first game for the Kangaroos, well done, Ben! (Did Princetown proud haha)

[LostDoggy]

Re: Round 5 games

Someone wrote in todays Age a suggestion that the two highest placed Victorian teams play at the G on Anzac day with the two highest placed interstate sides playing a twilight match at the higher finishing teams home ground.

I love the idea.

There's one left-field idea for ANZAC Day that I've been banging on for a while now that I think satisfies the criteria of it being not the same two teams every year, while also ensuring a sell-out:

Have the two Victorian teams (for the sake of the argument that it HAS to be at the 'G) with the highest membership tallies in the previous year play-off.

This way, you're actually rewarding the fans for tangibly supporting their team, creates an immediate, visible incentive for higher membership tallies ("if you want to see the Dogs play on ANZAC Day, sign up to be a member!"), is a transparent method of fixturing rather than just having two teams welded on for perpetuity, and is a reward for work off-the-field (which is a reason some are saying Collingwood and Essendon deserve it in any case -- if they keep doing well off the field they will keep it). Fans of ALL clubs are also more likely to become members if there is such a direct and visible potential reward.

Teams performing well tend to also have higher membership numbers, so it will at least ensure that the game is somewhat competitive, and will also ensure a sell-out as low drawing teams are immediately ineligible.

I imagine it will be Richmond - Collingwood - Carlton - Essendon - Hawthorn for a while, but there is at least a very real incentive for the smaller clubs to get their membership totals up to challenge for an ANZAC Day spot.

[Mantis]

Re: Round 5 games

There's one left-field idea for ANZAC Day that I've been banging on for a while now that I think satisfies the criteria of it being not the same two teams every year, while also ensuring a sell-out:

Have the two Victorian teams (for the sake of the argument that it HAS to be at the 'G) with the highest membership tallies in the previous year play-off.

This way, you're actually rewarding the fans for tangibly supporting their team, creates an immediate, visible incentive for higher membership tallies ("if you want to see the Dogs play on ANZAC Day, sign up to be a member!"), is a transparent method of fixturing rather than just having two teams welded on for perpetuity, and is a reward for work off-the-field (which is a reason some are saying Collingwood and Essendon deserve it in any case -- if they keep doing well off the field they will keep it). Fans of ALL clubs are also more likely to become members if there is such a direct and visible potential reward.

Teams performing well tend to also have higher membership numbers, so it will at least ensure that the game is somewhat competitive, and will also ensure a sell-out as low drawing teams are immediately ineligible.

I imagine it will be Richmond - Collingwood - Carlton - Essendon - Hawthorn for a while, but there is at least a very real incentive for the smaller clubs to get their membership totals up to challenge for an ANZAC Day spot.

Do we get to include dog memberships and 3-day memberships like other clubs do?

[boydogs]

Re: Round 5 games

There's one left-field idea for ANZAC Day that I've been banging on for a while now that I think satisfies the criteria of it being not the same two teams every year, while also ensuring a sell-out

Good, thought provoking post. I disagree though

Teams performing well tend to also have higher membership numbers, so it will at least ensure that the game is somewhat competitive

Geelong have played in the last 3 grand finals, but wouldn't get close to playing as their membership is not near the top. Collingwood are always up there in membership, but haven't won a flag in 52 years. Membership tallies are not as fluid as your theory suggests

and will also ensure a sell-out as low drawing teams are immediately ineligible.

Hawthorn's membership is right up there, partly because of the Tassie experiment, but their attendances wouldn't match those of an Essendon for example

I imagine it will be Richmond - Collingwood - Carlton - Essendon - Hawthorn for a while, but there is at least a very real incentive for the smaller clubs to get their membership totals up to challenge for an ANZAC Day spot.

There is already significant financial incentive for clubs to grow their membership without this game. Having the teams playing based on membership tallies is not going to redress the balance in membership tallies between clubs, the clubs currently ahead would want to stay that way

This concept also goes against the entire argument for ditching the Coll v Ess matchup - it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that if you play the clubs currently drawing the biggest crowds, then they will be the ones to win new fans, sponsorships etc. and continue to grow stronger, making it harder for other clubs to challenge them

---

I like the idea of the grand final replay, it would be a great day to showcase the game with a great level of interest from neutral supporters and a high probability of a quality matchup