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

[ScragCity]

Have any commentators discussed it on panel shows?

Who cares? Why do you need dimwits to tell you what to think?

 

[DognBones]

Who cares? Why do you need dimwits to tell you what to think?

I think you've taken the wrong angle. I was more alluding to whether Beveridge has been asked to explain the tactic. Surely not all the ex-coaches, ex-players and journalists are dimwits? Perhaps some of their opinions are even more astute than many expressed in this thread.

 

[jdz101]

Has Beveridge actually been asked about this by anyone in the media? Have any commentators discussed it on panel shows? If so, what was his response?
Need some clarification.

The members and fans should ask him.

It's made a large portion of our games borderline unwatchable for me. Not sure about others. It's immensely frustrating to watch a lot of young players get taught horrible football habits.

 

[Struggle]

Has Beveridge actually been asked about this by anyone in the media? Have any commentators discussed it on panel shows? If so, what was his response?
Need some clarification.

You're asking if the football media do their job and analyse/question in game tactics?

Of course they haven't, there's more important things to discuss like who's had a photo taken at a nightclub or which coach to target to get sacked next

 

[ScragCity]

I think you've taken the wrong angle. I was more alluding to whether Beveridge has been asked to explain the tactic. Surely not all the ex-coaches, ex-players and journalists are dimwits? Perhaps some of their opinions are even more astute than many expressed in this thread.

If anyone did ask him then he would obviously give a vague response, such as "we believe it gives us an edge in certain aspects of the game." He's not exactly going to share club IP on tactics and strategy...

 

[WAbulldog]

It’s the worst tactic conceived by man in history of this great game.

 

[BeMoreBont]

If anyone did ask him then he would obviously give a vague response, such as "we believe it gives us an edge in certain aspects of the game." He's not exactly going to share club IP on tactics and strategy...

Nah... He would get narky and refer to Round 3 when we kept the rampaging Swans to 60 points. Clearly works.

 

[hutchy31]

I think you've taken the wrong angle. I was more alluding to whether Beveridge has been asked to explain the tactic. Surely not all the ex-coaches, ex-players and journalists are dimwits? Perhaps some of their opinions are even more astute than many expressed in this thread.

It’s been alluded to more than outright questioned I believe, more in the mix with all our defensive frailties rather than specifically this tactic. I’m a sporadic watcher of a couple of the fox shows and it’s come up there once or twice.

There are some opinions that are worthwhile imo, but the problem is there is a lot of rubbish that hides the odd decent insight.

 

[Mr. Walker]

The only game I saw this weekend apart from ours was Geelong v Blues. I noted both these teams stand the mark. Not sure if it was the reason Blues lost ( or Cats won). Not even sure if it is the reason both teams are in the top 5. But it does show the brains trusts of at least two top teams believe standing the mark is a better tactic than the alternative.

 

[my plums]

What if the plan is to scrape into the finals employing this tactic, and then we'll flick the standing on the mark switch thus bamboozling all and sundry on our way to the flag?

 

[BBBaz]

It’s been alluded to more than outright questioned I believe, more in the mix with all our defensive frailties rather than specifically this tactic. I’m a sporadic watcher of a couple of the fox shows and it’s come up there once or twice.

There are some opinions that are worthwhile imo, but the problem is there is a lot of rubbish that hides the odd decent insight.

You could easily also be talking about Big Footy in the second paragraph to be fair.

 

[BEaston]

It's not worse than "goals taking care of themselves" as I'm sure at least some thought has gone into it.

It's also not worse than everything Rhode did.

But it doesn't seem very good.

 

[Mahama]

Was interesting watching the Fremantle v Sydney game on the weekend. Freo were absolutely dominated after quarter time, losing the inside 50 count by 17, having 14 scoring shots to 25 and just 51 marks to 115 for the Swans. Everything the Swans did against us - dominating possession, kicking through the zone and being equally comfortable going fast or slow - they did against Freo, who don't have the outside 5 tactic to blame.

Sydney also once again had no trouble building momentum for easy long kicks, despite the pressure standing on the mark is supposed to add - they'd just kick slightly around them, or play on around them, or handball to a teammate running by - you're not short on options when the guy on the mark is glued to the spot. At least once, the umpire let them stand a good 3 metres to the side of the player on the mark without calling play on!

Anyway, still not convinced the outside 5 tactic has a more than negligible impact, positive or negative, compared to what's happening in the rest of the zone.

 

[Ash1337]

Was interesting watching the Fremantle v Sydney game on the weekend. Freo were absolutely dominated after quarter time, losing the inside 50 count by 17, having 14 scoring shots to 25 and just 51 marks to 115 for the Swans. Everything the Swans did against us - dominating possession, kicking through the zone and being equally comfortable going fast or slow - they did against Freo, who don't have the outside 5 tactic to blame.

Sydney also once again had no trouble building momentum for easy long kicks, despite the pressure standing on the mark is supposed to add - they'd just kick slightly around them, or play on around them, or handball to a teammate running by - you're not short on options when the guy on the mark is glued to the spot. At least once, the umpire let them stand a good 3 metres to the side of the player on the mark without calling play on!

Anyway, still not convinced the outside 5 tactic has a more than negligible impact, positive or negative, compared to what's happening in the rest of the zone.

There is no pressure for standing on the mark. It's why the AFL introduced the stand rule. To take pressure off the kicker.

 

[doggies ftw]

Was interesting watching the Fremantle v Sydney game on the weekend. Freo were absolutely dominated after quarter time, losing the inside 50 count by 17, having 14 scoring shots to 25 and just 51 marks to 115 for the Swans. Everything the Swans did against us - dominating possession, kicking through the zone and being equally comfortable going fast or slow - they did against Freo, who don't have the outside 5 tactic to blame.

Sydney also once again had no trouble building momentum for easy long kicks, despite the pressure standing on the mark is supposed to add - they'd just kick slightly around them, or play on around them, or handball to a teammate running by - you're not short on options when the guy on the mark is glued to the spot. At least once, the umpire let them stand a good 3 metres to the side of the player on the mark without calling play on!

Anyway, still not convinced the outside 5 tactic has a more than negligible impact, positive or negative, compared to what's happening in the rest of the zone.

The easiest comparison is to us last year, pretty much an unchanged line up through the back half of the ground, the same defensive system in place literally the only difference is the stand the mark tactic and we’ve gone from mid table in defending scores from fwd 50 to dead last by a mile, our defence has gone from 6th least goals allowed last year to 6th most. We still kick one of the highest scores each week, our midfields still dominant, our ruck situation has improved.

I’m sure there’s more factors to our defence being worse than last year but there’s one clear change, surely that would be the starting point?

 

[Ash1337]

The easiest comparison is to us last year, pretty much an unchanged line up through the back half of the ground, the same defensive system in place literally the only difference is the stand the mark tactic and we’ve gone from mid table in defending scores from fwd 50 to dead last by a mile, our defence has gone from 6th least goals allowed last year to 6th most. We still kick one of the highest scores each week, our midfields still dominant, our ruck situation has improved.

I’m sure there’s more factors to our defence being worse than last year but there’s one clear change, surely that would be the starting point?

If you watched the grand final it was there too. The tactic wasn't employed then. I believe the GF exposed something about the team that now other teams exploit. I believe the tactic was employed to try to solve that didn't work out.

 

[doggies ftw]

If you watched the grand final it was there too. The tactic wasn't employed then. I believe the GF exposed something about the team that now other teams exploit. I believe the tactic was employed to try to solve that didn't work out.

I’ll take being cut up by the best team in the comp, I can’t take being carved up by every team in the comp, including one of the worst teams in modern history who still managed a 5 goal run on us in a 70 odd point thrashing

 

[DognBones]

Watching Richmond V Freo, two teams better than us this season and neither is giving an inch on the mark. Their whole intent is not to concede ground and force the kicker to step backwards. Quite a contrast to our tactics.

 

[BEaston]

What? Richmond did it plenty tonight

 

[DognBones]

What? Richmond did it plenty tonight

Well no they didn't. In the 1st half Richmond players didn't guard the mark twice, one of which was a lazy effort by Pickett. Freo stood the mark 100% of the time. You are welcome to watch the 2nd half to try to prove your point.

 

[doggies ftw]

Well no they didn't. In the 1st half Richmond players didn't guard the mark twice, one of which was a lazy effort by Pickett. Freo stood the mark 100% of the time. You are welcome to watch the 2nd half to try to prove your point.

This. There’s plenty of occasions when other teams do it but it’s not by design. Just for example the player takes an uncontested mark and the nearest opposition never makes it to the mark so stands outside 5.

The problem with us is we can be in a one on one, contested situation - they take the mark and we run off out of there space as quick as possible I’m yet to see a single other team does this by design (not just by circumstance ie cbf getting to the mark)

 

[Mr. Walker]

Well no they didn't. In the 1st half Richmond players didn't guard the mark twice, one of which was a lazy effort by Pickett. Freo stood the mark 100% of the time. You are welcome to watch the 2nd half to try to prove your point.

I noticed this too. In the first half both sides were diligent in manning the mark then in the second half this changed. Was it an instruction from the coaches, players given initiative or players getting tired. If it was coach decided I would love to know the perceived advantage in a tight game.

 

[BEaston]

Well no they didn't. In the 1st half Richmond players didn't guard the mark twice, one of which was a lazy effort by Pickett. Freo stood the mark 100% of the time. You are welcome to watch the 2nd half to try to prove your point.

So you didn't watch the whole game? I did watch the 2nd half, Richmond did it plenty.

 

[Jeff 1975]

Tonight's game will give us a good indication

 

[DognBones]

So you didn't watch the whole game? I did watch the 2nd half, Richmond did it plenty.

Because you stated "plenty" in two posts I decided to check and verify my memory.
In the 3rd quarter Richmond did not stand on the mark once and in the 4th quarter, once also.
Further, Freo maintained their 100% record throughout the game.
If you can find further examples please list the times in each quarter where they occur.