Backing off the mark... the worst tactic ever employed by a Bulldogs coach?

Remove this Banner Ad

Interesting footage and stats from TSFS.

Seeing we’re one of the better teams Re conceding inside 50’s, it would suggest the 5m thing isn’t as much of an issue as some make it out to be. If it was the all time worst minor tactic, surely the negative result is identified in how opposition teams gain territory? We don’t concede inside 50’s at the rate of most other teams, that there suggests we’re pretty good at defending the ground up until the point the balls inside our defensive 50. Sydney (first time) and Cats games (2nd and 3rd quarters) come to mind, both were master classes in full ground defensive zoning. Neither team got a look at their fwd 50 for long periods of time.

Wasn’t us standing off the mark meant to be allowing teams to go coast to coast with ease and causing our defensive issues? The stats don’t really back that up? Maybe we’re over exaggerating it? Could be more Mandela Effect going on. We’ve got history of that in here lol.

Those stats show our issues, along with the examples Loyd showed and what we’ve all see this season is our clusterfark defensive structure in the back half of the ground and general lack of defensive work rate amongst our mids and effort and cohesion amongst our defenders. We all know and see that though. Although pinpointing exactly where it’s going wrong is harder to identify from the stands or the couch.
Pretty alarming that we leak scores so easily from limited inside 50’s. Will be an off season focus no doubt. Both list wise and system tweak or overhaul.
 
Charlie Bucket said:
Interesting footage.

Seeing we’re one of the better teams Re conceding inside 50’s, it would suggest the 5m thing isn’t as much of an issue as some make it out to be. If it was the all time worst minor tactic, surely the negative result is identified in how opposition teams gain territory? We don’t concede inside 50’s at the rate of most other teams, that there suggests we’re pretty good at defending the ground up until the point the balls inside our defensive 50. Sydney (first time) and Cats games (2nd and 3rd quarters) come to mind, both were master classes in full ground defensive zoning. Neither team got a look at their fwd 50 for long periods of time.

Wasn’t us standing off the mark meant to be allowing teams to go coast to coast with ease and causing our defensive issues? The stats don’t really back that up? Maybe we’re over exaggerating it? Could be more Mandela Effect going on. We’ve got history of that in here lol.

Those stats show our issues, along with the examples Loyd showed and what we’ve all see this season is our clusterfark defensive structure in the back half of the ground and general lack of defensive work rate amongst our mids and effort and cohesion amongst our defenders. We all know and see that though. Although pinpointing exactly where it’s going wrong is harder to identify from the stands or the couch.
Pretty alarming that we leak scores so easily from limited inside 50’s. Will be an off season focus no doubt. Both list wise and system tweak or overhaul.
Click to expand...
No it shows we allow easy and deep entries
 
doggies ftw said:
No it shows we allow easy and deep entries
Click to expand...

Any long high entry is a win for a teams defence because it’s easier to defend. Defending balls on the lead or in to space, not so much. So I don’t buy that.

And what constitutes an easy entry? There’s so many variables to consider when making that statement. Is the inside 50 from a turnover mark fwd of centre not allowing our defenders to set up regardless? Was it a slow play from the oppositions back half allowing us to set up? Was it a fast play? Every inside 50 from a mark, or free kick that has our player standing off the mark isn’t the same each time. Because you have to consider what our defenders set up is and what oppositions look like in there too. To suggest they allow easy and deep inside 50’s is pretty wishy washy.

If there’s stats around how exactly it effects out inside 50’s, on a decent scale, I’ll be all ears. If you can find something, send it my way.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Charlie Bucket said:
Any long high entry is a win for a teams defence because it’s easier to defend. Defending balls on the lead or in to space, not so much. So I don’t buy that.

And what constitutes an easy entry? There’s so many variables to consider when making that statement. Is the inside 50 from a turnover mark fwd of centre not allowing our defenders to set up regardless? Was it a slow play from the oppositions back half allowing us to set up? Was it a fast play? Every inside 50 from a mark, or free kick that has our player standing off the mark isn’t the same each time. To suggest they allow easy and deep inside 50’s is pretty wishy washy.

If there’s stats around how exactly it effects out inside 50’s, on a decent scale, I’ll be all ears. If you can find something, send it my way.
Click to expand...
Not exactly a stat for everything though is there? Pretty easy to see with your own eyes though.

Marks inside 50 against would probably show whether teams are entering too easily if you want to dig them up - teams have all the time in the world to assess their options heading inside 50 against us as we don’t put any pressure on them, and they’re faster as we don’t force them to back up - meaning our defence gets caught out of position more easily

Also long deep entries are always much better and easier to lock in then shallow entries, we give them that on a platter by allowing them 10m more on their entries

Our defence is poor but the ease of which we allow it in makes it unnecessarily harder
 
doggies ftw said:
Not exactly a stat for everything though is there? Pretty easy to see with your own eyes though.

Marks inside 50 against would probably show whether teams are entering too easily if you want to dig them up - teams have all the time in the world to assess their options heading inside 50 against us as we don’t put any pressure on them, and they’re faster as we don’t force them to back up - meaning our defence gets caught out of position more easily

Also long deep entries are always much better and easier to lock in then shallow entries, we give them that on a platter by allowing them 10m more on their entries

Our defence is poor but the ease of which we allow it in makes it unnecessarily harder
Click to expand...

Firstly, I appreciate the calm response doggies lol. Kudo to you.

I think OG has shown us this year that there’s stats for most things. I’m sure there’s something out there.

I think uncontested marks inside 50 would give a better indication if opposition teams are getting easy entries. Marks in general leave to much wiggle room for poor defending by individual players.

You’d also need to look at how many inside 50’s are conceded from marks within the 60-70m mark and the result of those because all the others are irrelevant.

Personally, the eye test doesn’t show enough for me. I see a lot of shitty defending, a lot of poor work rate from too many players and a massive lack of cohesion inside def 50. I’ve also seen some quick entries, no doubt assisted by the extra couple of metres gained by our opponets, but i don’t see it as the foundations for our shitty back half performance. And as mentioned before, some of the stats suggest it’s not causing the massive issues being discussed in here.

Having said all that, I’m not 100% sure what standing off the mark achieves so close to goal. But they obviously do it for a reason.
 
doggies ftw said:
Not exactly a stat for everything though is there? Pretty easy to see with your own eyes though.

Marks inside 50 against would probably show whether teams are entering too easily if you want to dig them up - teams have all the time in the world to assess their options heading inside 50 against us as we don’t put any pressure on them, and they’re faster as we don’t force them to back up - meaning our defence gets caught out of position more easily

Also long deep entries are always much better and easier to lock in then shallow entries, we give them that on a platter by allowing them 10m more on their entries

Our defence is poor but the ease of which we allow it in makes it unnecessarily harder
Click to expand...

Percentage Of Targets Inside 50 That Result In A Score (Against)
I50T.png

Marks Inside 50 (Against)
MI50.png

Contested Marks Inside 50 (Against)
CMI50.png

One On One Contests - Lose Percentage (D50)
ONO.png
 
Last edited:
Oliver Gigacz said:
Percentage Of Targets Inside 50 That Result In A Score (Against)
View attachment 1444079

Marks Inside 50 (Against)
View attachment 1444080

Contested Marks Inside 50 (Against)
View attachment 1444081

One On One Contests - Lose Percentage (D50)
View attachment 1444087
Click to expand...

Oliver Gigacz said:
Percentage Of Targets Inside 50 That Result In A Score (Against)
View attachment 1444079

Marks Inside 50 (Against)
View attachment 1444080

Contested Marks Inside 50 (Against)
View attachment 1444081

One On One Contests - Lose Percentage (D50)
View attachment 1444087
Click to expand...

Going by these stats, our uncontested marks conceded is pretty good. That’s suggests we defend the inside 50 ok, we just get our arses handed to us once we have to contest it.

Our defending inside def 50 in general is horrendous.
 
Charlie Bucket said:
Going by these stats, our uncontested marks conceded is pretty good. That’s suggests we defend the inside 50 ok, we just get our arses handed to us once we have to contest it.

Our defending inside def 50 in general is horrendous.
Click to expand...
You look at Friday nights game. Sydney were taking contested mark after contested mark in our D50 early on. I’m sure the coaching staff would generally be okay with an opposition inside 50 that resulted in a contest. Our KPD and backs in general were simply hopeless in bringing the ball to ground.

I wonder how much Woody’s retirement has impacted the group. He was a shadow of his former self as a player but he was a leader of the club. You don’t lose your defensive instincts and ability to organise a defence. We have no general down there and feels like a bunch of random players being asked to play as defenders.
 
Golden_6 said:
You look at Friday nights game. Sydney were taking contested mark after contested mark in our D50 early on. I’m sure the coaching staff would generally be okay with an opposition inside 50 that resulted in a contest. Our KPD and backs in general were simply hopeless in bringing the ball to ground.

I wonder how much Woody’s retirement has impacted the group. He was a shadow of his former self as a player but he was a leader of the club. You don’t lose your defensive instincts and ability to organise a defence. We have no general down there and feels like a bunch of random players being asked to play as defenders.
Click to expand...

We basically have the same cattle, but for most of last season we had the fewest points conceded. That’s probably the worst thing about it all.
 
Its the exact same defense as last year, yet the stats are horrendous. I wonder what has significantly changed to produce that? We all know the answer!
How many times against Sydney did we back off from the 100 to 50 metres out which allowed them to just run 5 and hit someone up. Our defense is rubbish 1 on 1 yet its also the structure and backing off which is just the wrong mindset for players to be in. Backing off to sit in no mans land! Watched Freo torch the Saints, no back off the mark there. Geelong vs Melb, no back off the mark there either. Were are they sitting on the Ladder. 1, 2 and 3. That's enough for me, p*ss it off as soon as possible.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

LondonBulldog said:
Its the exact same defense as last year, yet the stats are horrendous. I wonder what has significantly changed to produce that?
Click to expand...

We had Cordy playing ahead of Gardner for some of the season IIRC, TÓB is new and was brought in as an intercept mark which hasnt worked out either.

Our SF backline against the Brions

FB [10] Easton Wood, [42] Alex Keath, [34] Bailey Williams
HB [35] Caleb Daniel, [43] Ryan Gardner, [31] Bailey Dale

Our PF backline against Port

FB [10] Easton Wood, [43] Ryan Gardner, [15] Taylor Duryea
HB [35] Caleb Daniel, [12] Zaine Cordy, [31] Bailey Dale

Our EF backline against Dons

FB [15] Taylor Duryea, [42] Alex Keath, [34] Bailey Williams
HB [10] Easton Wood, [43] Ryan Gardner, [31] Bailey Dale

Backline against Dees in GF

HB [35] Caleb Daniel, [12] Zaine Cordy, [31] Bailey Dale
FB [10] Easton Wood, [42] Alex Keath, [15] Taylor Duryea
 
_Mike_ said:
We had Cordy playing ahead of Gardner for some of the season IIRC, TÓB is new and was brought in as an intercept mark which hasnt worked out either.

Our SF backline against the Brions

FB [10] Easton Wood, [42] Alex Keath, [34] Bailey Williams
HB [35] Caleb Daniel, [43] Ryan Gardner, [31] Bailey Dale

Our PF backline against Port

FB [10] Easton Wood, [43] Ryan Gardner, [15] Taylor Duryea
HB [35] Caleb Daniel, [12] Zaine Cordy, [31] Bailey Dale

Our EF backline against Dons

FB [15] Taylor Duryea, [42] Alex Keath, [34] Bailey Williams
HB [10] Easton Wood, [43] Ryan Gardner, [31] Bailey Dale

Backline against Dees in GF

HB [35] Caleb Daniel, [12] Zaine Cordy, [31] Bailey Dale
FB [10] Easton Wood, [42] Alex Keath, [15] Taylor Duryea
Click to expand...
TOB has been awful to be honest. Rarely takes an intercept mark but his actual defensive work is horrendous.
 
Charlie Bucket said:
Interesting footage and stats from TSFS.

Seeing we’re one of the better teams Re conceding inside 50’s, it would suggest the 5m thing isn’t as much of an issue as some make it out to be. If it was the all time worst minor tactic, surely the negative result is identified in how opposition teams gain territory? We don’t concede inside 50’s at the rate of most other teams, that there suggests we’re pretty good at defending the ground up until the point the balls inside our defensive 50. Sydney (first time) and Cats games (2nd and 3rd quarters) come to mind, both were master classes in full ground defensive zoning. Neither team got a look at their fwd 50 for long periods of time.

Wasn’t us standing off the mark meant to be allowing teams to go coast to coast with ease and causing our defensive issues? The stats don’t really back that up? Maybe we’re over exaggerating it? Could be more Mandela Effect going on. We’ve got history of that in here lol.

Those stats show our issues, along with the examples Loyd showed and what we’ve all see this season is our clusterfark defensive structure in the back half of the ground and general lack of defensive work rate amongst our mids and effort and cohesion amongst our defenders. We all know and see that though. Although pinpointing exactly where it’s going wrong is harder to identify from the stands or the couch.
Pretty alarming that we leak scores so easily from limited inside 50’s. Will be an off season focus no doubt. Both list wise and system tweak or overhaul.
Click to expand...
Conceding the Territory on the mark anywhere from 70-odd metres out gives the kicker the ability to move forward without having to retreat behind their mark, and achieve more depth with their kick. Players also generate more distance with kicks with greater momentum, so if our man on the mark peels off at 70 out, the offensive player starts moving forward immediately instead of having to retreat to kick. So us conceding 5-10 on the mark, plus potential 5-10 gained by kicking while immediately moving forward lands the ball in the most dangerous part of F50, in the vicinity of the goal square. Where we also happen to be sh1t at rushing behinds or killing the ball.
 
Golden_6 said:
You look at Friday nights game. Sydney were taking contested mark after contested mark in our D50 early on. I’m sure the coaching staff would generally be okay with an opposition inside 50 that resulted in a contest. Our KPD and backs in general were simply hopeless in bringing the ball to ground.

I wonder how much Woody’s retirement has impacted the group. He was a shadow of his former self as a player but he was a leader of the club. You don’t lose your defensive instincts and ability to organise a defence. We have no general down there and feels like a bunch of random players being asked to play as defenders.
Click to expand...

If a player is down in confidence, they can look like a pretty ordinary footballer regardless of how good they are.
I think that is a major factor with our defenders. Confidence is shot. They look like shadows of themselves.

I mentioned in a different thread about the responsibility of coaches on game day to motivate, build confidence and ensure the players are ready to go. It’s not a good look for Smith how badly they are playing. Bevo either, but that’s more so the game day role for a line coach.

The other lines have been down at times this season, but our defence keeps finding rock bottom. It’s concerning.
 
footscray1973 said:
Conceding the Territory on the mark anywhere from 70-odd metres out gives the kicker the ability to move forward without having to retreat behind their mark, and achieve more depth with their kick. Players also generate more distance with kicks with greater momentum, so if our man on the mark peels off at 70 out, the offensive player starts moving forward immediately instead of having to retreat to kick. So us conceding 5-10 on the mark, plus potential 5-10 gained by kicking while immediately moving forward lands the ball in the most dangerous part of F50, in the vicinity of the goal square. Where we also happen to be sh1t at rushing behinds or killing the ball.
Click to expand...

I understand how that works. Although I don’t agree we concede 30m of territory when we stand off the mark. Most of the time we barely move 2-3m off the mark and the umps give us the thumbs up. It happens a lot. And I don’t agree players find an extra 15m just because they can take a couple more steps.

I posted above, you’d concede a long high ball inside 50 over any other, so I don’t buy the fact the long entries are hurting us. We’re also contesting a lot of them, suggesting our shit 1v1 defending whether in air or on ground is a massive culprit.

It keeps getting done to death, but I just don’t see enough evidence to lay blame for our defensive woes on us conceding a few metres on the mark for the inside 50 kicks.
 
Last edited:
The other thing is that players can just run around the guy standing the mark to get the same distance we give up by going outside 5. The fact the stander is stuck in place until ump calls play on (always too late) is basically the same IMO.

I'm still dubious on the strategy as a whole as to a) whether it's the correct strategy to employ and b) whether it's effective at its intention (which none of us know), but I do think the outside 5 thing is having much less of an impact than the structure of the zone in general. The bigger issue is how we're setting up behind the ball as well as our work rate to get into position for the zone. Teams are now just chipping the ball until they break the zone, it's not really related to the outside 5 thing.
 
Golden_6 said:
TOB has been awful to be honest. Rarely takes an intercept mark but his actual defensive work is horrendous.
Click to expand...

I think it was probably worth a try, but time to just move him forward and give us another marking target. Competing with Schache & JUH for a spot, but one thing about him is that he’s always been a good mark. Just don’t think he’s got enough on his defensive game as our setup now means all defenders need to be accountable, we can’t have a floating interceptor any more like we had with Wood for years.

Put him in the VFL up forward and go from there
 
I’ve said numerous times lately, even if we had prime Rance and Silvagni in our back line, they’d still be in horrible positions to defend. Our setup is a complete mess.

There was even footage for the lions game. Ah Chee marked a deep ball in our forward line about 15m out. The camera then cut and showed the full ground from behind the goals. Our zone was completely chaotic. The most alarming was seeing Hayden Crozier who was playing back was zoning IN OUR FORWARD 50. He was about 45 out in the middle of the ground. And then there was absolutely no one behind him and nobody on the wing. Brisbane kicked all the way to the other end for an easy goal.

I have NEVER ever ever ever seen a zone in that disarray and push up that high in my life.
 
The number one clearance team and we are still in this mess is damming. Wasting this precious window of opportunity.
Bevo pushing Dalrymple out the door was bad enough. But all picks from other clubs come from senior coach not recruiting. Suckling and Duryea have been good, Crozier, Hannan, Bruce and Keith were ok, O’Brien has been exactly what he was at Hawthorn. All our talent, which is immense is from the recruiting department, so Bevo has the keys to the Ferrari not Leon Cameron.
 
Golden_6 said:
TOB has been awful to be honest. Rarely takes an intercept mark but his actual defensive work is horrend
Click to expand...

Charlie Bucket said:
I understand how that works. Although I don’t agree we concede 30m of territory when we stand off the mark. Most of the time we barely move 2-3m off the mark and the umps give us the thumbs up. It happens a lot. And I don’t agree players find an extra 15m just because they can take a couple more steps.

I posted above, you’d concede a long high ball inside 50 over any other, so I don’t buy the fact the long entries are hurting us. We’re also contesting a lot of them, suggesting our s**t 1v1 defending whether in air or on ground is a massive culprit.

It keeps getting done to death, but I just don’t see enough evidence to lay blame for our defensive woes on us conceding a few metres on the mark for the inside 50 kicks.
Click to expand...
Why not Charlie. What more damming stats or evidence do you need?

What stat can you show me that its working? All the stats point to the fact we should be in the 8. Contested ball, clearances, scores etc. Like I said, we have only changed Easton Wood out of a backline which performed well last year. Something is putting them under enormous sustained pressure and has been like this all year. The defensive structure is clearly broken (All the stats back this up) and backing off the mark is part of it. There are times we just forget to even man the mark which happened a few times on friday, so that makes it even harder for our defenders. There are plenty of reason why we are having a bad year, yet this is something which should be changed immediately.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Backing off the mark... the worst tactic ever employed by a Bulldogs coach?

Similar threads

Testekill
#62 Welcome to the Bulldogs Luke Kennedy
2 3 4
Replies
85
Views
8K
Dry Rot
Dry Rot
Testekill
#51- Welcome to the Bulldogs Sam Davidson
2 3
Replies
50
Views
5K
gohardorgohome
gohardorgohome
Testekill
#31 Welcome to the Bulldogs Josh Dolan
2 3
Replies
70
Views
6K
Hoges64
Hoges64
Testekill
#29 Welcome to the Bulldogs Lachie Jaques
2 3
Replies
61
Views
5K
Mojorisin
Mojorisin
Eastdog
Western Bulldogs and the MCG factor
2 3
Replies
72
Views
3K
Dogs_r_barking
Dogs_r_barking
Testekill
Welcome to the Bulldogs Matthew Kennedy
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
7K
Hoges64
Hoges64
Testekill
Pick 20# Welcome to the Bulldogs Cooper Hynes
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
146
Views
8K
Golden_6
Golden_6

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top