Do we need insurance for Hall??

[Bulldog Joe]

I don't agree Bulldog Joe.

In 2008 we played two top sides in the finals, lost both and kicked 11 goals and 7 goals.

In 2009 we played two top sides in the finals, lost both and kicked 12 goals and 7 goals.

What has changed?

Yes we were absolutely fantastic on Friday night. I could not be any more proud of the boys. But our forward line was abysmal. If we had a decent forward line we would have won by five goals.

For me, it is all about next year. We should aim to be the best we possibly can. Hawthorn, Geelong and St kilda all have healthy forward line structures that is potent and can stand up under finals pressure to kick winning scores. I don't see why we can't strive for that as well. I don't see why we should go with the same medium forward line that lets us down every finals series.

Shouldn't we be trying to get quality talls and crumbers into our forward structure that can kick goals without relying on perfect delivery?

Well we will have to agree to disagree.

Brisbane have the forward line structure you seek and we smashed them.

You claim St Kilda have the structure but yet everyone agrees that we deserved to beat them. They only scored 9 goals.

The Dogs have the best spread of goalkickers and they need to be better under finals pressure. The whole team was significantly better in 2009 finals compared to 2008. Griffen could have made the difference if he had nailed the 2 first quarter opportunities.

We have goalkicking midfielder forwards, who should be kept at the club for many years yet. I refer to Cooney, Griffen, Higgins and Ward specifically. We also have potential in Stack and Hill and Harbrow could become another goal scoring midfielder. We also get goals from the back through Gilbee specifically. I expect all of those players to be around after the departure of Aker, Johnno and Eagle, unless they are traded for something better.

Yes a tall marking option will help, but do not abandon the parts of our game where we are superior. I certainly do not want a predictable set up that only allows 1 or 2 players to be the forward targets.

 

[The Boy From Brasil]

Well we will have to agree to disagree.

Brisbane have the forward line structure you seek and we smashed them.

You claim St Kilda have the structure but yet everyone agrees that we deserved to beat them. They only scored 9 goals.

The Dogs have the best spread of goalkickers and they need to be better under finals pressure. The whole team was significantly better in 2009 finals compared to 2008. Griffen could have made the difference if he had nailed the 2 first quarter opportunities.

We have goalkicking midfielder forwards, who should be kept at the club for many years yet. I refer to Cooney, Griffen, Higgins and Ward specifically. We also have potential in Stack and Hill and Harbrow could become another goal scoring midfielder. We also get goals from the back through Gilbee specifically. I expect all of those players to be around after the departure of Aker, Johnno and Eagle, unless they are traded for something better.

Yes a tall marking option will help, but do not abandon the parts of our game where we are superior. I certainly do not want a predictable set up that only allows 1 or 2 players to be the forward targets.

You are correct that we smashed Brisbane and should have beaten St Kilda. We have a good side, no doubt about that. But I think we can be a lot better if we improved our forward structure.And IMO becoming a lot better is the closest guarantee we have of winning a premiership.

Agree with a lot of your post above and how close we were. There are only two points I disagree with you on.

1) That our forward structure doesn't need a restructure

2)That because we went so close this year is 100% relevant to next year.

Anyway, happy to disagree with you on those points and agree with you on the others.

 

[Mutt]

Well we will have to agree to disagree.

Brisbane have the forward line structure you seek and we smashed them.

You claim St Kilda have the structure but yet everyone agrees that we deserved to beat them. They only scored 9 goals.

Joe you miss the point completely! Puting a power forward or even twin towers up forward of itself will not guarantee sucess. It may not win the Saints the flag this year (but it sure helped to get them there!) Brisbane are a very poor example of what we should do. You are implying that BFB and I advocate that one or two power forwards will always get you a win in big finals. That is garbage and a poor comeback.

Yes we have significant strengths as a team but there is room for improvement in the backline, in the midfield and especially up forward. No-one is advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but tinkering around the edges might not be enough.

Why should we shy away from trying to construct the best list and the best game plan and playing style we can? Making do didn't get it done!

 

[Bulldog Joe]

Joe you miss the point completely! Puting a power forward or even twin towers up forward of itself will not guarantee sucess. It may not win the Saints the flag this year (but it sure helped to get them there!) Brisbane are a very poor example of what we should do. You are implying that BFB and I advocate that one or two power forwards will always get you a win in big finals. That is garbage and a poor comeback.

Yes we have significant strengths as a team but there is room for improvement in the backline, in the midfield and especially up forward. No-one is advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but tinkering around the edges might not be enough.

Why should we shy away from trying to construct the best list and the best game plan and playing style we can? Making do didn't get it done!

I am sorry but I do not miss any point, but you seem to not get that we have a significantly dangerous forward line because we have the best spread of goalkickers in the competition.

We do not need to change much, in fact we simply need to add the tall marking effective forward.

If we replace Welsh with Hall/Lloyd/???? that can take one mark a quarter we will be a very dangerous outfit.

Our strength is in our midfield runners and rebounding defenders. They will still need to use the ball by hitting up the leading targets (principally Murphy) and also the other forwards who are all capable of scoring goals. The tall forward will still need to provide leads, but should also be there for the occasional high bomb.

I know we need a side to win finals, but we were oh so close with the current set up. Adding a reliable aggressive marking forward will make us better equipped.

Completely restructuring the forward setup would detract from the strengths we have in goalkicking midfielders.

Why would we need to abandon our current strengths???

 

[potatomasher]

I would pay Hall $150,000 base pay, however, if he is suspended, doesn't get paid. On top of that I would give him $2000, per goal.

Just as a Swans fan being curious about anything to do with Hall, I don't like the last sentence there. Hall isn't a player you can measure in goals, he plays for the team and nothing else. If three defenders manhandle him to the extent he can't mark the ball, he'll lead up the ground and open up the forward line. He might not get a goal all game, but taking three defenders away from the forward line all game is worth more than one or two goals would be anyway. I still can't handle the thought of him lining up against the Swans.

 

[Dry Rot]

Why would we need to abandon our current strengths???

Because it doesn't work under finals pressure as I predicted.

 

[chef]

Because it doesn't work under finals pressure as I predicted.

St.Kildas forward line(2 x Key Forwards) wasn't that much better was it?

 

[The Boy From Brasil]

I am sorry but I do not miss any point, but you seem to not get that we have a significantly dangerous forward line because we have the best spread of goalkickers in the competition.

We do not need to change much, in fact we simply need to add the tall marking effective forward.

If we replace Welsh with Hall/Lloyd/???? that can take one mark a quarter we will be a very dangerous outfit.

Our strength is in our midfield runners and rebounding defenders. They will still need to use the ball by hitting up the leading targets (principally Murphy) and also the other forwards who are all capable of scoring goals. The tall forward will still need to provide leads, but should also be there for the occasional high bomb.

I know we need a side to win finals, but we were oh so close with the current set up. Adding a reliable aggressive marking forward will make us better equipped.

Completely restructuring the forward setup would detract from the strengths we have in goalkicking midfielders.

Why would we need to abandon our current strengths???

But our current forward structure doesn't win finals Joe. We have played four good sides in the last two years and we are 0-4. We have kicked 7 goals twice, 11 goals and 12 goals. That is just averaging over 9 goals a game. Not enough for a winning score.

If we keep doing the same thing year after year and keep getting the same results, then we have to change something. I am not suggesting we throw the baby out with the bath water and change our entire team, but IMO our forward structure does need a decent make over.

Your argument is that our strengths are multiple options for goal kickers and running midfielders. Why does this change if we change our structure? We can still have Murphy or a couple of others there for the precise pass. But two tall forwards would give us an edge and a smart, tackling crumber eg a rioli type would also give us an extra demension in goal kicking and frontal pressure.

 

[Dry Rot]

St.Kildas forward line(2 x Key Forwards) wasn't that much better was it?

Sure was. When we just bombed the thing under pressure not much happened, when Saints did the same those two did better.

 

[chef]

Sure was. When we just bombed the thing under pressure not much happened, when Saints did the same those two did better.

I disagree, winning finals has more to do with the defence and mid field.

Do you still think we need to rebuild with an eye for 2012 Dry Rot?

 

[The Boy From Brasil]

St.Kildas forward line(2 x Key Forwards) wasn't that much better was it?

They had 17 less inside 50's for the entire match, so you would say their forwards converted the opportunities better than we did.

 

[LibbaDog]

Joe, most of what you say is correct about not changing the setup, but our problem is the setup inside the 50 arc, numerous times under pressure our delivering players just kick and pray. How many times did we see the ball go to Gia or Acka or Higgins, when they had two or more opposition players on them, a tall strong player at least has a chance to mark or bring the ball to ground and thats where Aka Higgins and ko work their magic. This sort of delivery happens due to the pressure, not the ability, one of our three most inside 50 deliverers was Murphy, we need him close enough to kick goals, not delivering into the 50. Your statement that Bris has the forward structure is true,but the reason they got smashed is about what happenned over the rest of the ground, if we had their two key forwards we would have won the Grandfinal.

Well we will have to agree to disagree.

Brisbane have the forward line structure you seek and we smashed them.

You claim St Kilda have the structure but yet everyone agrees that we deserved to beat them. They only scored 9 goals.

The Dogs have the best spread of goalkickers and they need to be better under finals pressure. The whole team was significantly better in 2009 finals compared to 2008. Griffen could have made the difference if he had nailed the 2 first quarter opportunities.

We have goalkicking midfielder forwards, who should be kept at the club for many years yet. I refer to Cooney, Griffen, Higgins and Ward specifically. We also have potential in Stack and Hill and Harbrow could become another goal scoring midfielder. We also get goals from the back through Gilbee specifically. I expect all of those players to be around after the departure of Aker, Johnno and Eagle, unless they are traded for something better.

Yes a tall marking option will help, but do not abandon the parts of our game where we are superior. I certainly do not want a predictable set up that only allows 1 or 2 players to be the forward targets.

 

[chef]

They had 17 less inside 50's for the entire match, so you would say their forwards converted the opportunities better than we did.

But if we had converted the chances we set up we wouldn't be having this discussion. We didn't lose because a lack of a tall forward.

 

[Mutt]

Why would we need to abandon our current strengths???

Maybe because we've had a gutfull of gallant efforts!

The conservative line peddled by the self-appointed astute posters such as yourself has once more resulted in heartbreak.

We need to do more than import a 30-something KPP and lean back in satisfaction as we march to the inevitable premiership. If that's the plan, well FFS we are doomed to never-ending disappointment.

We got close this year, but to pretend that our team doesn't have room for improvement on every line is head in the sand stuff. Greatness doesn't happen by just tinkering with the 3rd best team.

The forward line you are so enamored of consists largely of players who have all played their best footy and have little scope for improvement:
Murphy
Giansiracusa
Eagleton
Akermanis
Johnson.

A restructuring of the forward line is required and a change of gameplan needs to go with it. If Gia, Eagleton, Aker and Johno are all in our best 22 next year we won't win the flag.

 

[bulldogsman]

But if we had converted the chances we set up we wouldn't be having this discussion. We didn't lose because a lack of a tall forward.

Win or lose we should've smashed them even with those missed chances.

 

[Mutt]

But if we had converted the chances we set up we wouldn't be having this discussion. We didn't lose because a lack of a tall forward.

If we had a decent forward set up we would have smashed 'em and we wouldn't be having this discussion!

 

[Ghost of '85]

Why do i need to applaud his effort? He had plenty of chances to come into the side, and didnt. His obviously not up to AFL, and the club knows that. PLayed a great year at Willi, but he has played 1 game out of 50 in the past 2 years for the bulldogs, which for a "developed" player is poor.

Well you should be looking to encourage a bloke who's tried really hard, maybe not the most gifted player, but I think underestimated. He would have known that he'd probably not get a game this year and that he was only ever backup. So a lot of players would drop their head, sulk about. But Skip worked really hard and played as a team man for Willi and was always there if we got an injury. That's what you applaud. A footy club is about the sum of it's list not just the 22 that run at at AFL level. Without the efforts of blokes like Skipper you don't have a club. We as supporters should encourage that. That's what the word support means. Otherwise we may as well just be someone from another club on here to bag Bulldog players. I wonder how we'd feel if we read some of the comments on here about how we do at our work, especially when it come from a so called supporter.

 

[The Boy From Brasil]

We got close this year, but to pretend that our team doesn't have room for improvement on every line is head in the sand stuff. Greatness doesn't happen by just tinkering with the 3rd best team.

Thats the thing. I think sometimes a close preliminary loss can be a curse because you start thinking what could have been and think "well we are only a kick off a grand final so we only have to improve a little bit".

In some ways it is flawed logic because it ignores the fact that there are many other teams that are going to improve a lot next year. Just because we finished in the top four this year doesn't mean we will definately finish there next year. We had a good run with injuries this year, could play our two ruckman in virtually all of the games, and didn't have too many on the sidelines at any point in time. Who knows, this could change next year.

Hawthorn will be absolutely coming off the long run after a dissappointing year. They will have their players back from injuries, a few extra weeks break and a huge resolve. St Kilda and Geelong will be still up there. And Adelaide are coming. Collingwood will have turned up the heat on itself after such a poor finals series.

So there is no guarantee that we will finish top four next year. Yes, we are a good chance but no guarantee. The only thing we can do is improve, and as an organisation we should look to improve as much as possible. We should keep raising the bar until we maximise where we are at.

It doesn't mean that we kick out all our players to start again. What it means is that we throughly review every aspect of our team and list, and see what improvement we can get.This could be from stucture to fitness and from young player development to list management. The 7 point narrow loss to St Kilda shouldn't really come into it, because if we start thinking of that, then we start resting on our laurels and once we do that, we will be overtaken.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

Maybe because we've had a gutfull of gallant efforts!

The conservative line peddled by the self-appointed astute posters such as yourself has once more resulted in heartbreak.

We need to do more than import a 30-something KPP and lean back in satisfaction as we march to the inevitable premiership. If that's the plan, well FFS we are doomed to never-ending disappointment.

We got close this year, but to pretend that our team doesn't have room for improvement on every line is head in the sand stuff. Greatness doesn't happen by just tinkering with the 3rd best team.

The forward line you are so enamored of consists largely of players who have all played their best footy and have little scope for improvement:
Murphy
Giansiracusa
Eagleton
Akermanis
Johnson.

A restructuring of the forward line is required and a change of gameplan needs to go with it. If Gia, Eagleton, Aker and Johno are all in our best 22 next year we won't win the flag.

At least I can be consoled that you are not involved in the game plan or list mamgement.

Having agreed that we need a quality tall marking forward option, why do we then need to abandon the play that gives us the highest scoring team and the most goalkickers.

Your suggestion that we effectively dump Gia, Eagleton, Aker and Johnno is just ludicrous.

As I have stated before we simply need to replace Welsh with the quality tall marking forward, but we do need improvement right across the ground. Collectively the whole team needs to be better and particularly with skill execution under pressure more than anything else.

To try to make sense of what you are saying i have looked at a farming analogy.

The Cows are not producing enough milk because they are getting insufficient water although they have very good fodder.
You then provide the additional water supply and give them surplus, but you change everything and provide half the fodder. Will you then be surprised if the cows still don't produce enough milk.

 

[The Boy From Brasil]

Joe, why do we have to abandon our running game and multiple goal kicking options when we have a couple of tall forwards? You talk as if they are mutually exclusive.

The part where I agree with you is your argument about needing multiple goal kicking options. I agree with this. If we get Hall and then just kick it to him all the time like Carlton do with Fev, then we are going from the frying pan into the fire.

But what is wrong with having a forward structure like some of the other teams? ie 2 KPF's, one small crumber, and a couple of skilful mediums. This can still work under the game style in the middle that we have at the moment. It works for Geelong, why not for us?

 

[Bulldog Joe]

Joe, why do we have to abandon our running game and multiple goal kicking options when we have a couple of tall forwards? You talk as if they are mutually exclusive.

The part where I agree with you is your argument about needing multiple goal kicking options. I agree with this. If we get Hall and then just kick it to him all the time like Carlton do with Fev, then we are going from the frying pan into the fire.

But what is wrong with having a forward structure like some of the other teams? ie 2 KPF's, one small crumber, and a couple of skilful mediums. This can still work under the game style in the middle that we have at the moment. It works for Geelong, why not for us?

Thank you.
We are obviously in violent agreement.
This post is full of the need to restructure the forward line, I am simply saying that the changes needed do not require a total restructure of the forward line.

My first priority would be replace Welsh with the effective tall marking forward.

My second priority would be to replace Hahn with a mobile tall who can also exert forward line pressure.

The game plan does not need a major overhaul.

 

[The Boy From Brasil]

Thank you.
We are obviously in violent agreement.
This post is full of the need to restructure the forward line, I am simply saying that the changes needed do not require a total restructure of the forward line.

My first priority would be replace Welsh with the effective tall marking forward.

My second priority would be to replace Hahn with a mobile tall who can also exert forward line pressure.

The game plan does not need a major overhaul.

In an ideal world I would say a change of 2 or 3 to the forward line, which is close to 50%.

You have identified two changes. I would also like to add a small crumbing forward, such as a Rioli type. Maybe we already have this in Stack of Lynch. Or maybe we can pick up the best under 23 indiginous small forward not playing AFL at the moment in the rookie draft.

The main point I was making is that we need to get away from 5 medium forwards and Minson to 2 talls, 1 crumber and 3 goal kicking mediums, or something like that.

As supporters, we are all tired of the small forward line year after year and that is the major area I would say that we would like to change for 2010.

 

[Batman]

My first priority would be replace Welsh with the effective tall marking forward.

My second priority would be to replace Hahn with a mobile tall who can also exert forward line pressure.

The game plan does not need a major overhaul.

Mate I agree with the personnel changes completely, I tend to think though that players who are used to precision kicking to fast small leading players who virtually never lead down the middle, but lead to pockets and flanks will require a major change. Akermanis has been operating as leading forward. With Hall he will need to change direction and sit front and centre in front of Hall. That is totally different. Murphy and Johnson and Hill will often be able to lead into centre corridor space created by Barry, we haven't had that. Also against StK Eade appeared to actually instruct our players seek touch in the forward line and operate from the boundary throw in, so I think we would be in for significant changes.

And for those saying we need to take our chances, I'd be interested in seeing stats on where we take our shots from and whether they are on the run. I think we have to take low percentage shots from the boundary or outside 50, often on the run far more than other teams and this impacts on our goal kicking efficiency, and frankly this strategy particularly breaks down under finals pressure.

Cheeres

 

[Dry Rot]

I disagree, winning finals has more to do with the defence and mid field.

Do you still think we need to rebuild with an eye for 2012 Dry Rot?

Yes, even more so now. This basic personnel group has now had its best shot.

A good chunk of this team has either plateaued or on it's way out.

 

[chef]

Yes, even more so now. This basic personnel group has now had its best shot.

A good chunk of this team has either plateaued or on it's way out.

Can you please explain, as i disagree.

Our core next season-
Hahn
Gilbee
Hargrave
Lake
Gia
Murphy
Boyd
Morris
Cross

The next group-
Minson
Cooney
Williams
Griffen
Tiller
Higgins
Addison
Picken
Stack
Harbrow
Hill
Everitt(?)
Grant
Boumann
Wood
Reid
O'Keefe(?)
Ward
Cordy
Roughead
Jones

IMO our list is primed for at least a good 3-4 season run at the flag. Add Hall for a couple of season plus another tall added to our list in trade week(Bradshaw, Hale, Dowler or Hansen) and the future is looking sweet.

Who are you going to trade with an eye for 2012?

And with the next few drafts being compromised, How are we going to be able to do this?(plus Eade has a two year deal, so i can't see him doing anything but going for the flag)

Not having a go Dry Rot, I just love a good discussion on anything Bulldog.