Our game plan / style / tactics are solid

[FrediKanoute]

Re: Our game plan / style / tactics are solid

No doubt we say we are missing a fit Tom Boyd but we must have known it was a strong chance he might not recover from his injuries and we should have been looking to make a move last year.

I can't agree with this. He had issues yes, but for mine Tom's issues were always less physical and more mental. No team in the game currently has the capacity to assess the extent to which a player is going to be affected by mental health issues.

[1eyedog]

Re: Our game plan / style / tactics are solid

I can't agree with this. He had issues yes, but for mine Tom's issues were always less physical and more mental. No team in the game currently has the capacity to assess the extent to which a player is going to be affected by mental health issues.

I reckon he knew and we did too. Possibly for quite a while. You could tell by the way Bevo reacted during the presser. It had been a long slow burn.

[GVGjr]

Re: Our game plan / style / tactics are solid

I can't agree with this. He had issues yes, but for mine Tom's issues were always less physical and more mental. No team in the game currently has the capacity to assess the extent to which a player is going to be affected by mental health issues.

It was his back injury that stopped him training. We must have know he was doubtful to get into full training before the start of the season.

[Bornadog]

Re: Our game plan / style / tactics are solid

It was his back injury that stopped him training. We must have know he was doubtful to get into full training before the start of the season.

Was the back injury just a mask as the real problem was his mental issues.

[Twodogs]

Re: Our game plan / style / tactics are solid

Was the back injury just a mask as the real problem was his mental issues.

One can feed the other. Maybe the fact that he couldn't train or play fed the anxiety/depression? He could have felt that he was letting everyone down, although he never did.

[Bornadog]

Re: Our game plan / style / tactics are solid

One can feed the other. Maybe the fact that he couldn't train or play fed the anxiety/depression? He could have felt that he was letting everyone down, although he never did.

Good point

[Twodogs]

Re: Our game plan / style / tactics are solid

Good point

Actually I know that for a fact. I've suffered from depression and anxiety ever since I was at school-somedays I cant get out of the house.

[jeemak]

Re: Our game plan / style / tactics are solid

So what I'm reading in this thread is that our game plan and match day tactics are possibly cooked, even though we all acknowledge we're lacking in key personnel, and some of us believe that we should make fringe positional changes around the midfield and half forward area as well as shuffle some talls.

I guess my question is, would any of the peripheral changes in the midfield and around the flanks, and the shuffling of talls have a material impact on the way we would, could or should play?

Would the changes make us defend the ground better, give a consistent effort across four quarters, move the ball slower and more precisely rather than either frantically or laterally by hand and foot to avoid interceptors, or kick straighter in front of the big sticks?

I genuinely think we play the way we do because all of our key position players outside of our full back including the ruck are developing - and that goes for Cordy as well. We can move the deck chairs around, but what we're left with is key position players who are developing, and putting Trengove in the ruck we possibly make an improvement but generate a loss in defence with the inclusion of Young, or weaken the forward line with a shift of Naughton back to where he started his career. We can bring Fletcher Roberts in because he's experienced (and I'd be cool with that) but would that actually change the state of play or look of the side?

So I ask, what should we be doing to materially impact the way we play each week? I don't have the answers, but I have feeling the reason why our leaders on and off the ground talk about effort and execution so bloody often is that with a strong performance across each we can compete well, but without it we get exposed because of our positional deficiencies.

Who's got some ideas outside of some positional changes that have as much downside as they ultimately upside?

[Danjul]

Re: Our game plan / style / tactics are solid

I guess my question is, would any of the peripheral changes in the midfield and around the flanks, and the shuffling of talls have a material impact on the way we would, could or should play?

Would the changes make us defend the ground better, give a consistent effort across four quarters, move the ball slower and more precisely rather than either frantically or laterally by hand and foot to avoid interceptors, or kick straighter in front of the big sticks?

Let’s look at the Gold Coast game. The ruck imbalance was 70 hitouts to 17 , a difference of 53.

The question is would reducing that difference to 23 have made a difference to how Gold Coast scored? Yes!

Would it have made a difference for the Dogs? Yes!

Would those combined effects have been the equivalent of a better shot at goal? Probably.

We lost that game by less than a goal.

So why didn’t we do it?

Trengove was not selected. English was the only ruckman with any experience and Schache helped with 1 hitout.

Was Witts a proven ruckman? Certainly, having had more than 50 hitouts a number of times previously .

So my suggested answer to your question is yes. That’s one of the games we lost before it even started. So many built in deficiencies a win was unlikely. Did we learn from it? The following week was the Collingwood game. Basically a repeat.

[Ghost Dog]

Re: Our game plan / style / tactics are solid

Let’s look at the Gold Coast game. The ruck imbalance was 70 hitouts to 17 , a difference of 53.

The question is would reducing that difference to 23 have made a difference to how Gold Coast scored? Yes!

Would it have made a difference for the Dogs? Yes!

Would those combined effects have been the equivalent of a better shot at goal? Probably.

We lost that game by less than a goal.

So why didn’t we do it?

Trengove was not selected. English was the only ruckman with any experience and Schache helped with 1 hitout.

Was Witts a proven ruckman? Certainly, having had more than 50 hitouts a number of times previously .

So my suggested answer to your question is yes. That’s one of the games we lost before it even started. So many built in deficiencies a win was unlikely. Did we learn from it? The following week was the Collingwood game. Basically a repeat.

Took way, way too long to bring in Trengrove.

[jeemak]

Re: Our game plan / style / tactics are solid

Took way, way too long to bring in Trengrove.

The thread title is game plan, tactics and style related. I agree that we should have brought him in earlier, but as to my post, what can we actually do differently given bringing him in has helped but hasn't stopped the hand wringing over how we play?

[Ghost Dog]

Re: Our game plan / style / tactics are solid

The thread title is game plan, tactics and style related. I agree that we should have brought him in earlier, but as to my post, what can we actually do differently given bringing him in has helped but hasn't stopped the hand wringing over how we play?

Part of bringing in mature players is changing the style. We just lack experienced mature bodies, who can slow things down, slot a goal to put on some pressure, direct traffic on field. But not sure if we have anyone like that to step in. So I guess it's a moot point ( waves at Jordan Roughead ). Suckers has shown glimpses of it. Just looking at the list of guys we have lost. Huge hole in on-field leadership.

[mjp]

Re: Our game plan / style / tactics are solid

Let’s look at the Gold Coast game. The ruck imbalance was 70 hitouts to 17 , a difference of 53.

The question is would reducing that difference to 23 have made a difference to how Gold Coast scored? Yes!

Would it have made a difference for the Dogs? Yes!

This isn't how footy works.

You can talk about hit-outs all you like but we won the clearances 44-30 that day - so who gives a rats about the hit-out numbers?

Rolling up at the game unprepared to play AFL footy after coming from behind in exciting style the week before cost us the win. We allowed GC to have 10 scoring shots in q1...including 6 goals. We kept them to 4-goals for the rest of the day. Whatever you say about English, Witts didn't 'wear him down' that day. That is using a hit-out number to support your narrative...

Our players were actually pretty bloody good against GC - but you cannot give teams a 5 goal start.

Is English perfect? No. Did he cost us the GC game? No. Did he cost us the Pies game (well, apparently GAMES). No.

Back in R#4 Collingwood actually beat us pretty well...last weekend, they were let off the hook by some pretty dodgey conversion in a game that we dominated for large stretches and finished comfortably ahead in i50's, possessions etc...it wasn't like that back in R4 which was an even contest that Collingwood always seemed they would eventually prevail. And sure, Grundy was good back in R4 - but so were Phillips, Pendlebury, Adams, Sidebottom and Howe.

Grundy was awesome last Sunday - but that wasn't the difference on the day. That said, English has no excuse for not being in front at that D50 BTI from which Grundy hit the ball to himself, gathered it and kicked a goal...that isn't experience/body size though...that is concentration and not recognising the moment.

[Danjul]

Re: Our game plan / style / tactics are solid

This isn't how footy works.

You can talk about hit-outs all you like but we won the clearances 44-30 that day - so who gives a rats about the hit-out numbers?
.

You are underestimating the value of ruck work.

On Sunday Collingwood scored 7 goals from it and the Dogs got 1.

A six goal differential when the final result was less than 2.

Their ruck dominance completely negated what should have been the Bulldog’s match winning control in general play.

The club has shown absolute contempt for this critical aspect of the game throughout the last few years and it has correlated strongly with its decline. I don’t expect that to change, it is in their DNA now. You can see it repeatedly. And I suspect that it has thrown a number of players off their game.

Clearances are a meaningless statistic from the viewpoint of winning. The Dogs have won this measure in most of their losses. But they are under enormous pressure and often unable to control where the ball goes.

[jeemak]

Re: Our game plan / style / tactics are solid

You are underestimating the value of ruck work.

On Sunday Collingwood scored 7 goals from it and the Dogs got 1.

A six goal differential when the final result was less than 2.

Their ruck dominance completely negated what should have been the Bulldog’s match winning control in general play.

The club has shown absolute contempt for this critical aspect of the game throughout the last few years and it has correlated strongly with its decline. I don’t expect that to change, it is in their DNA now. You can see it repeatedly. And I suspect that it has thrown a number of players off their game.

Clearances are a meaningless statistic from the viewpoint of winning. The Dogs have won this measure in most of their losses. But they are under enormous pressure and often unable to control where the ball goes.

From ruck work or stoppages?

Why do we assume that Trengove would have had a good day at the office anyway?