Roast Bevo pull your ******* head in

[Sharpiesadog]

Perhaps because we had a structure that worked for us but sabotaged by the AFL e g 3rd man up. No structure is invincible, they have to change all the time.

We had a structure that worked for us in the first half of last season and it’s been ditched for no apparent reason.

 

[D Mitchell]

The third man up went out in 2017. Beveridge any anyone else still complaining about it needs to move on.

...

My heart was broken, sorrow, sorrow.

Hawthorn's one soldier out, another in approach doesn't work where the battleground changes so rapidly, replacing Tom Boyd and Jordan Roughead with Naughton and Keath can't work unless Bont of Dunkley can come in over the top. Pre 1958, teams ran, not 2 but 4 ruckmen. Then along came Norm Smith who had as a protege a failed half forward flanker, son of a Rat of Tobruk, in Ron Barassi. He created the ruck-rover role. By the time Barassi became coach at North, he'd reduced the need for Ruckman to 1, in his case, our Gary Dempsey. I have no idea whether we should play 2 or 1 with bit players. Maybe we should go back to 4 ruckmen or 2 changing in the back pocket with Followers, like Ted Whitten or Ruck-Rovers, like Ron Barassi changing up forward. There's not just 1 model that wins Premierships, Richmond did it with 1 tall forward, the odd resting ruckman and a super Bont. Melbourne jettisoned Hannon and relied on North discard Brown. Others on this board talk about 3 talls, when 2 didn't work. Bev knows a bit more about footy than me and spends a iot more time than me thinking about it.

 

[D Mitchell]

What has a 2016 rule that has been obsolete since our GF got to do with team selection/structure?

Had 5 and a half seasons to adjust.

It was an illustration only, that should be obvious. I've expanded upon it in a response to Scottydog.

 

[D Mitchell]

We had a structure that worked for us in the first half of last season and it’s been ditched for no apparent reason.

You'll have to ask Bev and/or the selection committee for the reason.

 

[Doggy]

You'll have to ask Bev and/or the selection committee for the reason.

Probably the same reason we changed playing style after 2016... according to Beveridge he didn't want to be studied and found out so changed things.

Didnt seem to hurt Richmond who stole our game plan and enhanced it for 3 flags.

Beveridge .. outsmarting himself as usual

 

[D Mitchell]

Probably the same reason we changed playing style after 2016... according to Beveridge he didn't want to be studied and found out so changed things.

Didnt seem to hurt Richmond who stole our game plan and enhanced it for 3 flags.

Beveridge .. outsmarting himself as usual

How many AFL games, let alone premierships, have you coached, Doggy ?

 

[Doggy]

How many AFL games, let alone premierships, have you coached, Doggy ?

What sort of a question is that when blind Freddy could see it was a mistake to change full tactics in case another team works it out.

As I said, didn't stop Richmond using our game plan successfully ... and still using it

 

[acker]

Fully Independent not a Internal Review conducted by a former opposition

Coach
CEO
Captain
Football Department Manager
List Manager

Best if it's conducted during the last half of 2022 so they can see match days and training also.

No punches pulled a brutally honest assessment of everyone it encompasses.

Perhaps some

It’s common knowledge they left for money and longer term deals. Bevo addressed this in preseason stating we can’t offer the same job security.

In other words except for Joel Corey who went home to WA, all the other assistant coaches Bevo lost left the Dogs to go sideways in their career.

That's a good look .... NOT

Why would you leave a club on the verge of success .. something is not right

Or have Chris Grant and Ameet Bains been sloppy funding the Assistant Coaching department?

Hard to believe 3 or 4 of them left because they all demanded an unjust salary - more likely the market place wage for an assistant went up and Grant and Bains decided they didn't want to increase that part of the club budget - or they took their eye off the ball

Alternatively - those assistants had issues with Bevo?

 

[D Mitchell]

Perhaps some

In other words except for Joel Corey who went home to WA, all the other assistant coaches Bevo lost left the Dogs to go sideways in their career.

That's a good look .... NOT

Why would you leave a club on the verge of success .. something is not right

Or have Chris Grant and Ameet Bains been sloppy funding the Assistant Coaching department?

Hard to believe 3 or 4 of them left because they all demanded an unjust salary - more likely the market place wage for an assistant went up and Grant and Bains decided they didn't want to increase that part of the club budget - or they took their eye off the ball

Alternatively - those assistants had issues with Bevo?

or maybe they just wanted a change or their contracts were up and not renewed or they had better offers or wanted a break from football. Why assume the worst ?

 

[_Mike_]

Move on from which assistant and specialist coaches left to who’s been appointed to the current roles.

Spangher as a forwards coach comes to mind as a wtf decision. The way the forward structure has been set up and players spoiling each other is a good indication that things are not working.
Nothing against the guy but on the surface it’s like giving a lawyer a scalpel and putting them at the operating table.

Why has the club deviated from the previous practice to look for options other than proven players & assistants in that role?

 

[doggies ftw]

Not backing up a grand final with finals for the second time would be pretty bloody damning tbh, what does that tell us? Probably that the gameplan & system is not there and we don’t rely on motivation and the 2nd year to a big year just is a bridge too far

 

[Timewillcome]

Still mystified by the 5m off the mark bullshit. Just releases pressure on the kicker.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't get this. Absolutely baffled how this strategy is played week after week, no other team does it (I guess because it doesn't @@#$ work). Sums up the stubbornness of the coach, Bev will take this to the grave.

If anyone here can justify why this works I'd love to hear it. Player on the mark has yet to impact on the kicker, or cover some perceived zone. He pushes off the mark, allowing the opposition player with the ball to do as they please, no need to push back and be distracted about whether their kick / handball will be smothered. They are free to assess the options while our guy makes space for them to do it, may as well just stand aside and let them run off. We even do this in the forward 50 at times, because we have trained to do it it is now automatic.

If the coaching panel needs extra money to hire professionals, why doesn't he take a pay cut for the sake of the team. May prolong his career if he started winning.

 

[lachy]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't get this. Absolutely baffled how this strategy is played week after week, no other team does it (I guess because it doesn't @@#$ work). Sums up the stubbornness of the coach, Bev will take this to the grave.

If anyone here can justify why this works I'd love to hear it. Player on the mark has yet to impact on the kicker, or cover some perceived zone. He pushes off the mark, allowing the opposition player with the ball to do as they please, no need to push back and be distracted about whether their kick / handball will be smothered. They are free to assess the options while our guy makes space for them to do it, may as well just stand aside and let them run off. We even do this in the forward 50 at times, because we have trained to do it it is now automatic.

If the coaching panel needs extra money to hire professionals, why doesn't he take a pay cut for the sake of the team. May prolong his career if he started winning.

Sort of understand the theory as it allows lateral movement early without having to wait for the umpire to call play on, not sure it works and better than being a statute though given the extra space provided.

Just trying something for one of the many absurd rule changes and interpretations over the last couple of years making the game close to unwatchable

 

[doggies ftw]

Sort of understand the theory as it allows lateral movement early without having to wait for the umpire to call play on, not sure it works and better than being a statute though given the extra space provided.

Just trying something for one of the many absurd rule changes and interpretations over the last couple of years making the game close to unwatchable

Lateral movement is irrelevant if you’re 10m off the player with the ball. You might shut down a handball receive for the guy running past but because we’re giving them space they have zero reason to handball anyway. It’s a huge part of the reason we’re getting cut up this year worse than ever.

When we take a mark the opposition holds us up forcing us to stop, back up and retreat back behind the mark to allow ourselves space to kick over the man on the mark.

When the oppo marks we run straight past them to man no man land 10m further down the ground, they take possession and can instantly move it on and keep the ball moving. It may only be a 2-3 second difference but that’s all it takes.

Why are teams taking the ball from our forward line to theirs with ease more than ever this year? This. This is the reason, it’s actually debilitating to the team, how has this not been called out by anyone yet is beyond me.

It may be a shit rule; just like the changes to the third man up rule. But it is a rule, Bev needs to stop thinking he’s smarter than everyone else in the room trying to find these little gimmicks because he doesn’t like a rule - just play the sport on its merits like every one else in the flipping league. I swear a local footy coach could come in and get more out of this list by just stripping everything back to junior football 101 basics rather than trying to reinvent the wheel

 

[Dazb86]

The only real benefit of standing 5m off is stopping a handball. But if the kicker has heaps of space the handball isn't even needed

 

[acker]

Move on from which assistant and specialist coaches left to who’s been appointed to the current roles.

Spangher as a forwards coach comes to mind as a wtf decision. The way the forward structure has been set up and players spoiling each other is a good indication that things are not working.
Nothing against the guy but on the surface it’s like giving a lawyer a scalpel and putting them at the operating table.

Why has the club deviated from the previous practice to look for options other than proven players & assistants in that role?

I'm not so hard on Sprangher the forward line has been changing a bit in the first 12 games. He needs another tall down there to move some attention away from Naughton

I'm more critical of Marc Webb the midfield coach and Rohan Smith in defence.
Ball going into our forward line against better sides is poor including the target options
When the opposition get the ball they seem to move it through middle without much pressure and get to much danger balls into their forwards.
Our defence outside Keath seem to get lost under high balls to often

 

[dergert]

For the past month our forward line has looked the best it has since last year. I'm willing to cut Spangher some slack with this.

We will find out more toward the back end of the year when Bruce is back and hopefully playing as well as can be off a year lay off.

 

[NBates]

Is anyone missing from our current line up vs last year's GF side?
When does Bevo's contract expire?
When does Bont's?
Who are we likely to lose in the meantime (except for English which I suspect may happen)?

 

[doggies ftw]

The only real benefit of standing 5m off is stopping a handball. But if the kicker has heaps of space the handball isn't even needed

This. But even if you did want to handball to a running receiver you’d just take a few steps forward draw the man on the mark and then do it anyway.

There is zero benefit. It’s genuinely crazy

 

[hoianbulldog]

Likely the market place wage for an assistant went up and Grant and Bains decided they didn't want to increase that part of the club budget - or they took their eye off the ball

Or they couldnt pay market rates for assistants due to budget allocions elswhere. This would still fall back on them.


If beveridges wage is the reason our assistants are inferior to most other clubs the that falls back on to Grant and Bains.......and probably the board.

 

[Libbaaaa]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't get this. Absolutely baffled how this strategy is played week after week, no other team does it (I guess because it doesn't @@#$ work). Sums up the stubbornness of the coach, Bev will take this to the grave.

If anyone here can justify why this works I'd love to hear it. Player on the mark has yet to impact on the kicker, or cover some perceived zone. He pushes off the mark, allowing the opposition player with the ball to do as they please, no need to push back and be distracted about whether their kick / handball will be smothered. They are free to assess the options while our guy makes space for them to do it, may as well just stand aside and let them run off. We even do this in the forward 50 at times, because we have trained to do it it is now automatic.

If the coaching panel needs extra money to hire professionals, why doesn't he take a pay cut for the sake of the team. May prolong his career if he started winning.

Other teams do it from time to time but not every single mark like we do. Just one more dumb thing for the player to be over thinking.

 

[ScragCity]

just play the sport on its merits like every one else in the f*n league.

This is a bit silly dftw. Every good coach looks for opportunities to exploit rules, switch things to their advantage and find a little edge here and there. You don't just think, "Oh well, this is the rule so obviously the AFL want us to play a certain way, so we will do that." That's just a really stupid way to think and you would never become a head coach with that mindset. Whether or not the "outside 5" method we are employing is effective, is a valid discussion. I'd probably agree with you; my intuition says that it isn't working. However, that doesn't mean that there is no place for innovation in coaching an AFL team. We won a flag from Bevo's innovation and creativity. Clarko won four by being an innovator. Whenever the AFL makes a rule change the first thing a coach should be thinking is "how can I exploit that?"

 

[BEaston]

My take on the outside 5m thing is that it's about compressing or positioning our zone into the area where we think it's most beneficial.

If you can relate it to basketball where there are essentially 3 scoring zones on the court... at the rim, mid-range and 3pt range. Generally teams can only really stop scoring in 2 of the 3 zones on the court. It's similar in footy with regards to your defensive zone but the determining factor is the size of the zone (assuming the same number of players in the zone). If you spread your zone too far, then there will be holes within it which allows teams to pierce it through ball movement and creating 1v2's in localised areas to create overlap. If you compress your zone too much then, while you're defending a specific area very well, it can be too easy for teams to go around or over it.

So, accepting that it's impossible to stop all locations on the field with a zone you configure it in the best way you think (going back to basketball for example, you might want to force teams to score in the mid-range by taking away the rim and 3 pointers).

Unfortunately I haven't been able to go to as many games in person as I'd like this season so haven't been able to watch this live which is important when looking at this kind of thing. But, my impression from the few games I've been to and watching on TV is that we are happy to give up kicks down the line and handballs but we really do not want to give up mid-range kicks (20-45m) or switches across the field.

To guard against switches it means we're going to be spread somewhat wide across the field. This then limits the depth of the zone you can implement before we run into the aforementioned problem of having too many holes. To help that, we're choosing to back up off the mark to strengthen the zone in that 20-45m range. We want the kicker to try go long, which generally are easier balls to kill and force a stoppage (which plays into our midfield strength). This is also suited to having English in the side (which I think is a key component of the strategy) as one of his best strengths is sitting a kick down the line and marking or halving aerial contests. We are happy to give up handballs as really all that does is force the opposing team into our strong zone area and force a rushed long kick which is what we want anyway. In that way, the space the man on the mark gives up is largely irrelevant as it leads to the outcome we want.

I believe that is the theory behind it. Is it working? I think at times it has. Other times it looks really bad. One thing that this depends on though is actually the guys working hard behind the man on the mark to make position in the zone. I reckon if we looked back on a lot of the goals kicked against us in free play, many were when the defence had not been set correctly and we were sliced up by foot in that 25-40m zone. Other times when we've set up, you'll actually see that it has forced teams down the line a lot. We very rarely get cut through the middle once we're set up. The guy manning the mark actually is one of the least important players in achieving the outcome of the zone. People will focus on that because it looks different and it's new so when we get scored on it's kind of easy to blame. I have to admit it did take a fair few weeks before I actually saw the point of it, because it did look so different. It was only when I noticed that firstly, we very rarely get switched on and two that Tim was almost an unstoppable force down the line before his injury that I kind of saw it. However, the key element is still the defensive running of players behind the man on the mark rather than the man on the mark himself.

Another question to ask is, is this the correct defensive zone strategy to implement in the first place? Maybe we shouldn't be focusing on stopping switches as much? Or maybe we don't have the adequate height to want to force teams down the line? Maybe we should create a wider zone with bigger holes to invite invite miskicks then pressure from all around (similar to a Tigers gameplan in seasons' past)?

But anyway, that's my take on it.

As a side note, I've seen pretty much every other team do the outside 5m thing at times so there must be some value in it (perceived or otherwise). It's not just some cRaZy bEvO thing that is unique to us that people on here would make believe.

 

[doggies ftw]

This is a bit silly dftw. Every good coach looks for opportunities to exploit rules, switch things to their advantage and find a little edge here and there. You don't just think, "Oh well, this is the rule so obviously the AFL want us to play a certain way, so we will do that." That's just a really stupid way to think and you would never become a head coach with that mindset. Whether or not the "outside 5" method we are employing is effective, is a valid discussion. I'd probably agree with you; my intuition says that it isn't working. However, that doesn't mean that there is no place for innovation in coaching an AFL team. We won a flag from Bevo's innovation and creativity. Clarko won four by being an innovator. Whenever the AFL makes a rule change the first thing a coach should be thinking is "how can I exploit that?"

Fair point, sometimes I think we completely over complicate the littlest of things though by trying to be too tricky. Most of the best teams right now have the simplest of game plans with very few moving parts whereas you try to dissect ours and it’s so bloody complicated. The speed of which things change in this sport if we were getting some type of slight advantage out of it there’d be 15 other clubs doing similar by now

 

[grassman75]

Bingo!

And how did Melb and Brisbane go this week? Oh yeah they lost, same as us.

While I don't disagree with the structure argument, I still maintain we haven't been totally outclassed all season. Mostly it's been dumb things things like inaccuracy or slow to get going. We should have beaten, Carl, Rich, Port, Adel (granted there was a bit going on that week). Even if we went 2/2 of those we are right up in the 8.

Tough draw but still not panic stations as we slowly get more troops back