Are the Dogs over rated?

[Bokonon_]

Well obviously if there is a thread with the team you support being called overrated most supporters will jump on it...

I actually cringe in the ladder prediction thread, with the number of people having us on top, so I dont think it's predestined. Maybe the problem with this thread is the ambiguity. For me:-
The Bulldogs were the best team of 2016. It's silly to suggest otherwise. They won the flag, end of argument. Supporters fully entitled to be up in arms at any suggestion they weren't. Some could certainly be more civilised in their arguments in my view.

Are they overrated going into 2017, it's a valid argument. Given their not the bookies favourites to me the answer is clearly not, but it's not wrong to have a differring opinion.

 

[Handsome_Jack]

Well obviously if there is a thread with the team you support being called overrated most supporters will jump on it...

It's far from isolated to this thread to be fair.

 

[Tas]

I thought the Dogs were okay during 2016, not fantastic by any stretch, but they have a lot of good solid players, they play a good brand of footy, they win the contested ball at stoppages, spread well, run strongly off half-back.

I think their weaknesses cost them a spot higher on the ladder, no real ruckman to speak of which means they relied on a lot of third man up at ruck contests and a somewhat unconventional forward line with a lack of tall targets. They compensated for that weakness by using the run they had with a much smaller team to have a lot more numbers between the arcs and they choked out a lot of teams playing that way.

I think Bev just did a great job of working with what he had and making the most of it.

But, they played a great finals series, our tanking the last game of 2015 helped them to get a break this year and I think it helped to overcome one of the biggest hurdles for the 5-8th placed teams, that fatigue. All four of their finals games were really good contests, guys like Boyd who was probably having people laugh at him during the season, he was pivotal, especially in the GF.

I don't think it necessarily means they will repeat the performance in 2017, they rely a lot of work rate, if it drops off the lack of conventional strengths will make it harder for them to achieve the same results. It will force clubs to come to terms with their style, I was critical of my own team for not changing the lineup to play them and being too tall, it made us struggle with the number of runners around the stoppages. I think a lot of other clubs had the same issues.

A lot will depend on how clubs structure up and if they can deploy strategies to overcome those weaknesses and what the Dogs do in order to be ahead of the curve, knowing clubs would have done a lot of homework on them over the pre-season.

 

[JP2]

They were kissed on the genitals with luck last year (the bye, the umpiring, the lack of a dominant opposition team etc.) and that won't be repeated this year. They have a list clogged with middling overachievers who just happened to gel at the right time, but I think things will be different this year now they have a target on their back. The idea that they're suddenly made a better team by the inclusion of Travis Cloke is both tragic and hilarious.

Bookmark this post: they will miss the finals, and you can ban me if I'm wrong.

 

[BulldogJake]

You mentioned the thread being embarrassing. The thread being "are the Dogs overrated?". I'm just saying sit back and enjoy the envy. I did mention " so many Dogs fans being touchy", not necessarily you.

It should be shut down because it's not even a debate or a debate about the thread title. It's just a shit fight between both supporters. I can't be bothered reading through the last month or so as a couple of pages is enough trash I can handle from both supporters. I will correct a misleading statement about my club though.

 

[Super Hans]

Shit we got lucky last year.

 

[BulldogJake]

Shit we got lucky last year.

It's about time. Some would say 62 years of waiting for this kind of luck... every premiership side has luck, you can't win one without it. Yes, we got lucky, but any premiership side needs luck to go their way. What's that old saying? You create your own luck? Every 18 teams, then 8 finals teams had their cards, and we played ours better.
I don't care how we did it, we did it. The feeling when Tom Boyd kicked that goal is something many passed on dogs fans and fans of other clubs have never felt, that moment can never be taken away or diminished. Remember that bulldogs fans who sometimes get baited in to needless debates about umpiring and 'the bye', which I may have been guilty of on occasion in the off-season - that moment where you knew we had it won on 1.10.16 can't be removed or diminished.

 

[Luv_our_club]

The Scrays should be better this year, based on list development logic, so they are a very good chance of defending. However logic also says B2B is rare air.

However I really wanted to point out something I noted in the coverage of the WB vs Melb JLT game. The fox commentary team mentioned other clubs complaining to the AFL about WB style of "handball" and suggested am umpire crackdown. Im sure I am not the first on BF to raise this, but actually haven't seen any discussion in my time.

I then rewatched the 2016 GF and I noticed some pattern of half handpass-half ball dislodgement in the tackle. I also noticed the swoop pass where the punching hand seems cosmetic at times.

Even after a close rewatch of the GF I am not sure if my eyes are deceiving me. Perhaps it can be TRUE that the WB outplayed Sydney on GF day AND they chucked it around a bit. I don't think it has to be one or the other exclusively.

 

[Substance]

I also noticed the swoop pass where the punching hand seems cosmetic at times.

This is why people think we throw the ball. Is it still handball if the momentum of the ball comes from the ball hand instead of the punching hand? I think it is as long as the fist still makes contact before the ball leaves the hand. But I understand people thinking it's a touch dodgy.

 

[DelRe]

There's a bit of a mismatch in the thread title and the OP. Overrated is necessarily about a past achievement. Given the Dogs won the flag, which is the highest achievement possible, they can't really be overrated in relation to 2016 and can't be overrated in relation to 2017 because it hasn't happened. The OP though seems more about whether the Dogs can repeat the performance in 2017 so the title might have been better as 'can they do it again?'.

On that question, it seems at one end there's those who think 2016 was entirely a fluke and, at the other, possibly only Dogs supporters! In terms of the fluke aspect, it seems it rests on the bye, playing good footy at the right time, taking advantage of rule 'loopholes' ('throw' and '3rd man up') and there not being a dominant other team. All of these, to me, seem to be overweighted as factors in 2016. Plenty has been said about the bye but whichever way you look at it, it can't really account for 4 consecutive victories. Might be a more relevant factor if the finals was a single championship game but not a series. Playing good footy at the right time is an understatement. The Dogs beat four top 8 sides (obviously) in a row. I don't think any other side did this in 2016 (WCE came close with 3 at the end of the season). The Dogs didn't play good footy at the right time, they played sustained exceptional footy at the hardest time, which suggests they are a reasonable team . On the rules, they are there to be used to any teams advantage, that the Dogs could do this speaks to good strategy and execution (backed up by Bev being two time coach of the year). That suggests the Dogs at least have the capability to adapt again. As for there not being a dominant team, the minor premier (presumably the dominant team) doesn't win that often - maybe 3 in the last 10 years. Three of the top 4 still made the prelims and the finals comprised the 3 sides that won the last 5 flags.

On the flipside there is a GWS list that appears on paper to be on a steep trajectory; a Swans side that seems to perennially finish high, and a couple of other interstate sides that on paper look to almost be a lock to win 12 games+ and therefore be in with a good shot at top 4; and that's before getting into Cats, Hawks etc. The Dogs natural improvement will need to be at least as good as these sides to do it again but there's reason given the age profile to believe that's possible and on paper at least could/should be fielding a better side in Rd1 than they did in the GF (Rough's recent injury notwithstanding). They also have what appears to be a good team chemistry and self belief and a very good coach behind them.

So, Dogs not overrated, in the hunt again but not favourites is how I see it.

 

[LightTower4]

There's a bit of a mismatch in the thread title and the OP. Overrated is necessarily about a past achievement. Given the Dogs won the flag, which is the highest achievement possible, they can't really be overrated in relation to 2016 and can't be overrated in relation to 2017 because it hasn't happened. The OP though seems more about whether the Dogs can repeat the performance in 2017 so the title might have been better as 'can they do it again?'.

On that question, it seems at one end there's those who think 2016 was entirely a fluke and, at the other, possibly only Dogs supporters! In terms of the fluke aspect, it seems it rests on the bye, playing good footy at the right time, taking advantage of rule 'loopholes' ('throw' and '3rd man up') and there not being a dominant other team. All of these, to me, seem to be overweighted as factors in 2016. Plenty has been said about the bye but whichever way you look at it, it can't really account for 4 consecutive victories. Might be a more relevant factor if the finals was a single championship game but not a series. Playing good footy at the right time is an understatement. The Dogs beat four top 8 sides (obviously) in a row. I don't think any other side did this in 2016 (WCE came close with 3 at the end of the season). The Dogs didn't play good footy at the right time, they played sustained exceptional footy at the hardest time, which suggests they are a reasonable team . On the rules, they are there to be used to any teams advantage, that the Dogs could do this speaks to good strategy and execution (backed up by Bev being two time coach of the year). That suggests the Dogs at least have the capability to adapt again. As for there not being a dominant team, the minor premier (presumably the dominant team) doesn't win that often - maybe 3 in the last 10 years. Three of the top 4 still made the prelims and the finals comprised the 3 sides that won the last 5 flags.

On the flipside there is a GWS list that appears on paper to be on a steep trajectory; a Swans side that seems to perennially finish high, and a couple of other interstate sides that on paper look to almost be a lock to win 12 games+ and therefore be in with a good shot at top 4; and that's before getting into Cats, Hawks etc. The Dogs natural improvement will need to be at least as good as these sides to do it again but there's reason given the age profile to believe that's possible and on paper at least could/should be fielding a better side in Rd1 than they did in the GF (Rough's recent injury notwithstanding). They also have what appears to be a good team chemistry and self belief and a very good coach behind them.

So, Dogs not overrated, in the hunt again but not favourites is how I see it.

I don't buy into the 'fluked a premiership' like some are saying.
In the Dogs case, they made the finals and were easily the best side during September.
That GF win was no fluke. They won two finals away from home and also beat the reigning champs.
The odds are against winning two on the trot, but they will certainly challenge again.
I'd just like to add that the last time the Dogs won a flag, Melbourne won 5 of the next 6.

 

[DelRe]

The odds are against winning two on the trot, but they will certainly challenge again.
I'd just like to add that the last time the Dogs won a flag, Melbourne won 5 of the next 6.

I'd agree B2B is undoubtedly difficult and I usually muck up stats but going back to 2000, I think there's only been 3 GFs that didn't feature at least one side from the previous year (I could only think of 2005, 2007 and 2012). Mainly this is attributable to the success of Lions, Cats and Hawks and of course it could also just be a good argument for Swans getting in again! Also I think in that period Dees ('00), Freo ('13) and Dogs ('16) are the only sides that have played in only one GF, so every premier (other than Dogs) has played in at least two. None of that guarantees what happens in the future but hopefully points to a period that Dogs can capitalize on and play in and hopefully win more flags.

 

[_Mike_]

thread running full circle now, digressing to unacceptable insulting between posters.