Are the Dogs over rated?

[Golden_6]

Ward and Franklin went down early in the games but I think you know that.

Roughead also went down at a similar time. I also believe that Buddy's early injury was overplayed. He played out the game seemingly with no issues (the camera's would've been all over him if he was showing anything) and despite not having his usual impact, still influenced the game and showed his explosiveness. It's entirely within the realms of possibility that our defence just played him well?

 

[hoianbulldog]

Slightly off topic but I am super interested in watching how the teams who finish top 4 this year and win the first round of the playoffs go. Both took the second bye in three weeks and then lost the week after. If that happens again we know the last round bye (or the winner gets a bye) is a bad idea.

Teams will adjust i suspect. It didn't appear to have impacted GWS as they played well in the prelim.
People are vocal about the impact of the bye on first week top 4 winners because Geelong got panced.

 

[hoianbulldog]

yet don't accept that injuries/suspensions gifted you a prelim and the GF.

Please explain.

 

[Ant_]

Heh... Saints better hope they have as a good a run of injuries in '17 as they did '16.

2016 AFL INJURY LADDER

(Total cost in terms of Ranking Points)

1 — Fremantle (689)

2 — Western Bulldogs (428)

3 — Brisbane (419)

4 — Collingwood (417)

5 — Hawthorn (362)

6 — Gold Coast (335)

7 — Richmond (328)

8 — North Melbourne (304)

9 — Port Adelaide (291)

10 — GWS (288)

11 — Geelong (258)

12 — Sydney (210)

13 — West Coast (181)

14 — Carlton (180)

15 — Essendon (179)

16 — St Kilda (123)

17 — Melbourne (103)

18 — Adelaide (91)

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/the...g/news-story/52cdac4a138c47bff1638ed75343c0c8

 

[Sentinel]

Heh... Saints better hope they have as a good a run of injuries in '17 as they did '16.

2016 AFL INJURY LADDER

(Total cost in terms of Ranking Points)

1 — Fremantle (689)

2 — Western Bulldogs (428)

3 — Brisbane (419)

4 — Collingwood (417)

5 — Hawthorn (362)

6 — Gold Coast (335)

7 — Richmond (328)

8 — North Melbourne (304)

9 — Port Adelaide (291)

10 — GWS (288)

11 — Geelong (258)

12 — Sydney (210)

13 — West Coast (181)

14 — Carlton (180)

15 — Essendon (179)

16 — St Kilda (123)

17 — Melbourne (103)

18 — Adelaide (91)

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/the...g/news-story/52cdac4a138c47bff1638ed75343c0c8

Does that ranking include Crameri as well, or is he separate from it?

Of all the things to have been said about our flag, 'injuries/suspensions gifted it' is far and away the most outlandish and uninformed.

 

[BRWB]

Heh... Saints better hope they have as a good a run of injuries in '17 as they did '16.

2016 AFL INJURY LADDER

(Total cost in terms of Ranking Points)

1 — Fremantle (689)

2 — Western Bulldogs (428)

3 — Brisbane (419)

4 — Collingwood (417)

5 — Hawthorn (362)

6 — Gold Coast (335)

7 — Richmond (328)

8 — North Melbourne (304)

9 — Port Adelaide (291)

10 — GWS (288)

11 — Geelong (258)

12 — Sydney (210)

13 — West Coast (181)

14 — Carlton (180)

15 — Essendon (179)

16 — St Kilda (123)

17 — Melbourne (103)

18 — Adelaide (91)

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/the...g/news-story/52cdac4a138c47bff1638ed75343c0c8

Gee it was brutal at Freo. In the second last H & A game our 'outs' would probably have beaten the team we put on the park.

So according g to CD, Freo were more than 50% worse again.

Freo could surprise a few this year - might even have a punt on them for the 8.

 

[LittleG]

Does that ranking include Crameri as well, or is he separate from it?

Of all the things to have been said about our flag, 'injuries/suspensions gifted it' is far and away the most outlandish and uninformed.

Crameri and other banned players are not included. Bombers would have topped the ladder if they were.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Injuries again. If not for injuries you would never have lost a game yet don't accept that injuries/suspensions gifted you a prelim and the GF.

It's been posted in here before, but I think you need to go through it again:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/the...g/news-story/52cdac4a138c47bff1638ed75343c0c8

It doesn't mention Dale Morris playing on with 2 broken vertebrae for the whole finals series, either. Hurt himself in round 23.

After all that, I know you're just having a crack, but I'd have thought we were the least likely to be called Bradbury.

The real "Bradburys" should have flown past us!

 

[LittleG]

Gee it was brutal at Freo. In the second last H & A game our 'outs' would probably have beaten the team we put on the park.

So according g to CD, Freo were more than 50% worse again.

Freo could surprise a few this year - might even have a punt on them for the 8.

Freo currently have great odds to make the 8 for a strong team decimated by injuries. They do have KPP issues but have a great midfield.

 

[BRWB]

Freo currently have great odds to make the 8 for a strong team decimated by injuries. They do have KPP issues but have a great midfield.

KPP wise McCarthy and Hamling in help. Johnson back helps. Freo are my smokie for the 8. Out of them and the Dees IMO.

Saints had a blessed run with injury last year - interesting to see if they can improve. Carlisle and a couple of big mids in will help if they can all stay fit.

 

[LittleG]

KPP wise McCarthy and Hamling in help. Johnson back helps. Freo are my smokie for the 8. Out of them and the Dees IMO.

Saints had a blessed run with injury last year - interesting to see if they can improve. Carlisle and a couple of big mids in will help if they can all stay fit.

Dees had a blessed run with injuries too. So did the Crows.
Freo IF they can get to end of preseason without losing a good player, will get elevated to my predicted top 8.

 

[Substance]

It's been posted in here before, but I think you need to go through it again:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/the...g/news-story/52cdac4a138c47bff1638ed75343c0c8

It doesn't mention Dale Morris playing on with 2 broken vertebrae for the whole finals series, either. Hurt himself in round 23.

After all that, I know you're just having a crack, but I'd have thought we were the least likely to be called Bradbury.

The real "Bradburys" should have flown past us!

easton wood also played finals with an ankle well below 100%...

 

[vozzon]

Does that ranking include Crameri as well, or is he separate from it?

Of all the things to have been said about our flag, 'injuries/suspensions gifted it' is far and away the most outlandish and uninformed.

No doesn't include suspended players like Crameri, Ryder etc.

 

[TheFourPillars]

Every team that wins a grand final has injuries of some sort going into and from the grand final.
This is not new its always been that way.

 

[Bulldogs Legend]

easton wood also played finals with an ankle well below 100%...

That looks worse than my reaction at Spotless when they ran out of beer at halftime!!

 

[Draft Pick]

Every team that wins a grand final has injuries of some sort going into and from the grand final.
This is not new its always been that way.

Sure, Dogs supporters are just responding to comments that it was just our opponents who had injuries in prelim and grand final.

 

[Sentinel]

Every team that wins a grand final has injuries of some sort going into and from the grand final.
This is not new its always been that way.

Absolutely, I would be surprised if there'd ever been a grand final played with either team's complete best 22 on the park.

It's more in response to a post trying to argue that injuries and suspensions gifted us a premiership, when if anything it hindered us.

But regardless, I think a good reason why the Bulldogs were so successful is that Beveridge plays a system where the loss of individuals can be covered by the rest of the team - ie the 'team defence' mantle makes blokes like Roberts, Cordy and Hamling look like stars at times, when they clearly aren't. Because of that, when injuries mounted up at several times over the season, it didn't have much of an affect. On the flipside, I also don't think the return of blokes like Murphy, Adams, Wallis etc will make much difference next year on the whole, I think team improvement from that aspect will be very minimal.

 

[Benny78]

A lot of cats fans don't rate us and that is fair enough. Most times we play them we get towelled up. Human nature.

Bulldogs are actually my second side lol (half the family goes for them used to always go to cats v dogs games back in the 90's). Like cat's they've hardly ever bottomed out and always been competitive, without being financially privileged big 4 clubs. When I see threads like "is the dogs premiership win the best of all time" I get annoyed. I haven't been wowed by a team since Geelong, Collingwood and St Kilda. Since then only Port (who didn't make it). Doggies look like they have the ingredients needed for a dominant side that may one day have all Australians on all lines. But seeing so many early calls post premeirship and it's rather irritating.

 

[Benny78]

Can I ask who is the best team then? Dogs couldn't beat Geelong ... Geelong couldn't beat Sydney and were nowhere near it in the Prelim ... GWS couldn't win their Prelim at home

Probably GWS, Sydney, Dangerwood but they all choked during their finals campaigns whereas doggies hit their peak form.

 

[The_Flying_Egg]

Probably GWS, Sydney, Dangerwood but they all choked during their finals campaigns whereas doggies hit their peak form.

So a team that embarrasses itself by being down 9 goals at half time of a Prelim is better than the Premiers?

This thread makes me think the Dogs are anything but over-rated

 

[loki04]

Absolutely, I would be surprised if there'd ever been a grand final played with either team's complete best 22 on the park.

It's more in response to a post trying to argue that injuries and suspensions gifted us a premiership, when if anything it hindered us.

But regardless, I think a good reason why the Bulldogs were so successful is that Beveridge plays a system where the loss of individuals can be covered by the rest of the team - ie the 'team defence' mantle makes blokes like Roberts, Cordy and Hamling look like stars at times, when they clearly aren't. Because of that, when injuries mounted up at several times over the season, it didn't have much of an affect. On the flipside, I also don't think the return of blokes like Murphy, Adams, Wallis etc will make much difference next year on the whole, I think team improvement from that aspect will be very minimal.

Your team got a raft of players back over the bye weekend before finals.

The timing of your teams injuries only effected the ladder position but you had a decent enough run at it with most key players to get enough wins to make the 8.

Also there is another article on AFL.com.au that has you further down with a differing ratings system, timing of injuries, multiple injuries in the same part of ground, length of injuries, who is injured and role etc all play a part and when you look at all that the dogs injury list doesn't look as bad as that list makes it.

 

[Sentinel]

Your team got a raft of players back over the bye weekend before finals.

The timing of your teams injuries only effected the ladder position but you had a decent enough run at it with most key players to get enough wins to make the 8.

Also there is another article on AFL.com.au that has you further down with a differing ratings system, timing of injuries, multiple injuries in the same part of ground, length of injuries, who is injured and role etc all play a part and when you look at all that the dogs injury list doesn't look as bad as that list makes it.

I don't really understand your point. We did get a couple of players back from injury for the West Coast game, yes, but why is that relevant to my post?

At different stages of the season we missed more players than at other times, but we comfortably made the 8 regardless of that - 3 games and % ahead of 9th. Fortunately enough, our game style was suitable enough to cover key injuries without us falling off a cliff like some other teams might. By finals time, we had most of our best 22 back in (excluding 3 injured - Murphy, Adams, Wallis - plus Crameri).

In the end, we played well enough over the 22 rounds to sit 2 games off first position (you could also argue we didn't quite go full throttle in the Freo dead rubber, but that's not really relevant), and improved enough in September with some extra players available to have the month that we did. Given our finals were probably played when the list was close to its' healthiest for the year, perhaps that's more of an indicator of how we'll go next year than our pre-finals form when we were missing more, although there'll always be injuries of some sort next year too so it's really guesswork.

There is no embellishment there, it's fact.

 

[Coaster2012]

I don't really understand your point. We did get a couple of players back from injury for the West Coast game, yes, but why is that relevant to my post?

At different stages of the season we missed more players than at other times, but we comfortably made the 8 regardless of that - 3 games and % ahead of 9th. Fortunately enough, our game style was suitable enough to cover key injuries without us falling off a cliff like some other teams might. By finals time, we had most of our best 22 back in (excluding 3 injured - Murphy, Adams, Wallis - plus Crameri).

In the end, we played well enough over the 22 rounds to sit 2 games off first position (you could also argue we didn't quite go full throttle in the Freo dead rubber, but that's not really relevant), and improved enough in September with some extra players available to have the month that we did. Given our finals were probably played when the list was close to its' healthiest for the year, perhaps that's more of an indicator of how we'll go next year than our pre-finals form when we were missing more, although there'll always be injuries of some sort next year too so it's really guesswork.

There is no embellishment there, it's fact.

From the thread, the against argument seems to be: If it was any other year, when there was no bye, you wouldn't have got those players back and would have been out in the first round and the Dogs would just go down in history as an okay team in 2016 and a 7th finish. The dogs wouldn't be rated at all, if it wasn't for a change of schedule.

No one would have said "Doggies with a full strength squad would have won the flag," but now Dogs fans are saying they "we were the best team all along, just had too many injuries."

One change in the schedule, and everything changed. Were the Dogs always the best team in 2016 and it was just a matter of getting their players back? No one had this view though. No one thought they were going to win it, even with a full team.

 

[hoianbulldog]

Your team got a raft of players back over the bye weekend before finals.

That is just not true. Tell me who would not have played in the Elim Final without the bye, remembering that it gave us an extra 4 days. One of those extra days being spent travelling back to Perth.

 

[Ok Boomer]

I personally think that 2016 was a very even year and they were in the best form at the right time. Full credit to them for that, but ratings should consider that fact.

As for the comments saying the OP is a bitter West Coast supporter, please show me one example of an Eagles fan saying we were up to it, or that we were a "great" team through 2016. We literally played only 3 weeks of great football. Mind you, we still finished 6th or w/e so that shows how bad the teams below were.