Autopsy Dogs def Saints 90-50

[Werewolf]

Worth noting that we have never lost 3 straight under Bevo. Always short odds today.

Actually once, two years ago in rounds 6-8. BTW here's a spooky fact for you folks:

Last time: St.Kilda won by 15 points, Riewoldt kicked 4.0, Stringer didn't play

This time: Bulldogs win by 40 points, Riewoldt didn't play, Stringer kicked 5.2

Difference in results = 55 points. Total of #1 forward outputs = 56 points

 

[compact72]

one thing thats probs been mention is how great Bailey Dale has been over the last couple of weeks. Really starting to cement his spot as that high half forward/wing role
Was part of the 4 goals

What's next? Melbourne after him?

 

[dogwatch]

Actually once, two years ago in rounds 6-8. BTW here's a spooky fact for you folks:

Last time: St.Kilda won by 15 points, Riewoldt kicked 4.0, Stringer didn't play

This time: Bulldogs win by 40 points, Riewoldt didn't play, Stringer kicked 5.2

Difference in results = 55 points. Total of #1 forward outputs = 56 points

Spooky, but not enough 54 and 16 in this post.

 

[Hard Ball Get]

One thing I've noticed is the how much weight people put on stats on this site, and on the last few pages. Stats aren't everything and a lot of the time can be misleading.

Case in point...
Bev described Stringers game as his best for the club. Statistically it was good but no where near his best.

Contributing to the team isn't just contributing on the stats sheet.

 

[Yojimbo]

AFL Fantasy spread Dogs Versus Saints.

Jack Newnes 143 Stk
Billy Longer 125 Stk
Leigh Montagna 123 Stk
Koby Stevens 115 Stk
Seb Ross 107 Stk
Marcus Bontempelli 103 Dogs
Jake Stringer 98 Dogs
Dylan Roberton 98 Stk
Bailey Dale 97 Dogs
Jason Johannisen 95 Dogs
Robert Murphy 91 Dogs
Jack Steele 91 Stk
Jack Steven 90 Stk
Mitch Wallis 89 Dogs
Shane Savage 88 Stk
Jackson Macrae 85 Dogs
Daniel McKenzie 82 Stk
Blake Acres 81 Stk
Jade Gresham 80 Stk
Caleb Daniel 79 Dogs
Jake Carlisle 79 Stk
Lin Jong 77 Dogs
Marcus Adams 77 Dogs
Liam Picken 76 Dogs
Shane Biggs 76 Dogs
Sam Gilbert 76 Stk
Luke Dahlhaus 75 Dogs
Tory Dickson 73 Dogs
Lachie Hunter 73 Dogs
Paddy McCartin 73 Stk
Easton Wood 71 Dogs
Maverick Weller 69 Stk
Tim Membrey 68 Stk
Jack Billings 67 Stk
Jordan Roughead 64 Dogs
Jarryn Geary 63 Stk
Dale Morris 62 Dogs
Matthew Suckling 62 Dogs
Darren Minchington 57 Stk
Tom Boyd 56 Dogs
Jack Sinclair 50 Stk
Nathan Brown 43 Stk
Tim English 33 Dogs
Bailey Williams 27 Dogs.

Dogs by 40 points ? Can't wait for Brownlow night and the
3-2-1 on this game, impact versus possessions.

 

[Libba39]

One thing I've noticed is the how much weight people put on stats on this site, and on the last few pages. Stats aren't everything and a lot of the time can be misleading.

Case in point...
Bev described Stringers game as his best for the club. Statistically it was good but no where near his best.

Contributing to the team isn't just contributing on the stats sheet.

Agree!

I think even most media experts pretty much watch the game then blindly allocate their 3-2-1 based on who won and how many fantasy points they scored.

The dogs are the most even team in the comp so an 'average' game by one of our players has a lot more meaning.

The Age and HS voting is a case in point - not a single Bulldog player featured in the top 22/11.

 

[Old_Dog]

I thought Daniel was BOG like some others on the board, but after reading the "expert" commentary I thought I must have been at a different match, or having a seniors moment. To me Daniel is one of the most clinical distributors of the ball, and those spoiling efforts were absolute gold.

 

[maddog37]

Watching the replay Biggs was very good. Looks quicker.

 

[Mattdougie]

One thing I've noticed is the how much weight people put on stats on this site, and on the last few pages. Stats aren't everything and a lot of the time can be misleading.

Case in point...
Bev described Stringers game as his best for the club. Statistically it was good but no where near his best.

Contributing to the team isn't just contributing on the stats sheet.

It's a point I've been trying to make for a few months.

I think it comes down to the persons inability to watch football and make their own decisions.

They look at the CD or game day stats and make opinions from that then throw those stats at you as proof of their own knowledge.

I've seen blokes have awful days but get decent CD stats and also some have very good days and not get great numbers

 

[fronkalicious]

It's a point I've been trying to make for a few months.

I think it comes down to the persons inability to watch football and make their own decisions.

They look at the CD or game day stats and make opinions from that then throw those stats at you as proof of their own knowledge.

I've seen blokes have awful days but get decent CD stats and also some have very good days and not get great numbers

The eye test baby!

 

[Mattdougie]

The eye test baby!

Apparently that doesn't count if you can throw a meaningless stat at it

 

[dogwatch]

Case in point: on Saturday St Kilda chipped the ball around a lot, got a heap of uncontested marks and possessions in the back half but couldn't penetrate our defence. That might explain some of their high fantasy numbers. By contrast we made some swift breaks out of the back 50, broke the lines and with only a few possessions found Stringer or another forward in space near goal. Not many fantasy points in that.

Also St Kilda won twice the number of hitouts (58-29) but got very little advantage from it. Certainly boosted Longer's fantasy points (125) but he wasn't all that influential on the day.

That said, we shouldn't demonise stats as long as they are used sensibly and in conjunction with the eye test. Can be be very helpful in understanding what's going on.

For instance our tackling was inferior on Saturday and the stats clearly show it (63-95). The previous week we made over 100 tackles. What the stats don't show is the number of times we failed in our attempted tackles - we got away with it against St Kilda but it might hurt us against a side like Sydney.

 

[Mofra]

For instance our tackling was inferior on Saturday and the stats clearly show it (63-95). The previous week we made over 100 tackles. What the stats don't show is the number of times we failed in our attempted tackles - we got away with it against St Kilda but it might hurt us against a side like Sydney.

Teams are told not to tackle but merely corralle some players (e/g/ Essendon's dossier on Ablett) which impact on stats too.
If you saw our warm up on GF day there was an interesting "man on the mark" style exercise we did that I have never seen any other team do.

 

[Hard Ball Get]

Case in point: on Saturday St Kilda chipped the ball around a lot, got a heap of uncontested marks and possessions in the back half but couldn't penetrate our defence. That might explain some of their high fantasy numbers. By contrast we made some swift breaks out of the back 50, broke the lines and with only a few possessions found Stringer or another forward in space near goal. Not many fantasy points in that.

Also St Kilda won twice the number of hitouts (58-29) but got very little advantage from it. Certainly boosted Longer's fantasy points (125) but he wasn't all that influential on the day.

That said, we shouldn't demonise stats as long as they are used sensibly and in conjunction with the eye test. Can be be very helpful in understanding what's going on.

For instance our tackling was inferior on Saturday and the stats clearly show it (63-95). The previous week we made over 100 tackles. What the stats don't show is the number of times we failed in our attempted tackles - we got away with it against St Kilda but it might hurt us against a side like Sydney.

Absolutely, but there are a lot of irrelevant ones out there and some that are relevant to some players but not to others.

A perfect example would be Tom Mitchell's 50 touch game. People questioned it because he didn't have a high level of 'metres gained'. If he's playing an inside role, handballing back out of a pack, feeding the ball wide to runners etc. then that stat is completely meaningless. However if a player like Isaak Smith (same team) or JJ from a Dogs perspective, had 50 touches and only 300 metres gained, then it is an issue.

A one size fits all mentality, doesn't work.

 

[Norm De Guerre]

AFL Fantasy spread Dogs Versus Saints.

Jack Newnes 143 Stk
Billy Longer 125 Stk
Leigh Montagna 123 Stk
Koby Stevens 115 Stk
Seb Ross 107 Stk
Marcus Bontempelli 103 Dogs
Jake Stringer 98 Dogs
Dylan Roberton 98 Stk
Bailey Dale 97 Dogs
Jason Johannisen 95 Dogs
Robert Murphy 91 Dogs
Jack Steele 91 Stk
Jack Steven 90 Stk
Mitch Wallis 89 Dogs
Shane Savage 88 Stk
Jackson Macrae 85 Dogs
Daniel McKenzie 82 Stk
Blake Acres 81 Stk
Jade Gresham 80 Stk
Caleb Daniel 79 Dogs
Jake Carlisle 79 Stk
Lin Jong 77 Dogs
Marcus Adams 77 Dogs
Liam Picken 76 Dogs
Shane Biggs 76 Dogs
Sam Gilbert 76 Stk
Luke Dahlhaus 75 Dogs
Tory Dickson 73 Dogs
Lachie Hunter 73 Dogs
Paddy McCartin 73 Stk
Easton Wood 71 Dogs
Maverick Weller 69 Stk
Tim Membrey 68 Stk
Jack Billings 67 Stk
Jordan Roughead 64 Dogs
Jarryn Geary 63 Stk
Dale Morris 62 Dogs
Matthew Suckling 62 Dogs
Darren Minchington 57 Stk
Tom Boyd 56 Dogs
Jack Sinclair 50 Stk
Nathan Brown 43 Stk
Tim English 33 Dogs
Bailey Williams 27 Dogs.

Dogs by 40 points ? Can't wait for Brownlow night and the
3-2-1 on this game, impact versus possessions.

Points to two things. Phantasy football is horse shit and St.kilda **** around with the ball a lot to little effect.

 

[dogwatch]

Teams are told not to tackle but merely corralle some players (e/g/ Essendon's dossier on Ablett) which impact on stats too.
If you saw our warm up on GF day there was an interesting "man on the mark" style exercise we did that I have never seen any other team do.

Fair enough but I saw a lot of St Kilda players brush past our blokes on the weekend ... and they were making genuine attempts to tackle. It seemed to me that it happened more in the first third of the game when St Kilda were taking it up to us, but maybe that was as much my anxiety about the balance of the match than what was actually happening. Later on I probably wasn't as stressed by a broken tackle.

That's where stats can be handy - did we stick more tackles after that point and is that one of the factors that helped us get on top? ... or was it just my imagination?

Unfortunately summary stats in the media won't tell us that. No doubt the detailed CD that clubs subscribe to would give a better break down.

 

[adsum]

It's a point I've been trying to make for a few months.

I think it comes down to the persons inability to watch football and make their own decisions.

They look at the CD or game day stats and make opinions from that then throw those stats at you as proof of their own knowledge. ...

Before the Saints game you said something about Lin Jong averaging around 20 possessions a game and no scores. You went on to say "this is not great for a full time mid".
Aren't you doing what you criticise others for doing ie using "game day stats (around 20 possessions and no scores) and mak[ing] opinions from that (not great for a full time mid) then throw[ing] those stats at you as proof of their own knowledge"?

 

[compact72]

WESTERN BULLDOGS v ST KILDA

10 Jake Stringer (WB)

7 Lachie Hunter (WB)

4 Marcus Adams (WB)

3 Jason Johannisen (WB)

2 Bailey Dale (WB)

2 Mitch Wallis (WB)

1 Caleb Daniel (WB)

1 Billy Longer (StK)

 

[Testekill]

WESTERN BULLDOGS v ST KILDA

10 Jake Stringer (WB)

7 Lachie Hunter (WB)

4 Marcus Adams (WB)

3 Jason Johannisen (WB)

2 Bailey Dale (WB)

2 Mitch Wallis (WB)

1 Caleb Daniel (WB)

1 Billy Longer (StK)

lol at Longer getting a vote.

 

[compact72]

lol at Longer getting a vote.

He probably was. St Kilda fans love making him the scapegoat

 

[Bulldogs Legend]

one thing thats probs been mention is how great Bailey Dale has been over the last couple of weeks. Really starting to cement his spot as that high half forward/wing role
Was part of the 4 goals

He looked even better when I watched the replay his kicking under pressure was first class.

 

[dogwatch]

WESTERN BULLDOGS v ST KILDA

10 Jake Stringer (WB)

7 Lachie Hunter (WB)

4 Marcus Adams (WB)

3 Jason Johannisen (WB)

2 Bailey Dale (WB)

2 Mitch Wallis (WB)

1 Caleb Daniel (WB)

1 Billy Longer (StK)

Coaches with very different opinions:
They both agree on Stringer as BoG (5-5). They both agree that Lachie was good (4-3 split).
After that they 100% disagreed.
My guess is
Beveridge:
5. Stringer
4. Hunter
3. JJ
2. Dale
1. Daniel

Richo:
5. Stringer
4. Adams
3. Hunter
2. Wallis
1. Longer (StK)

But really the 4-3 votes could easily have been reversed between the coaches, as could the 2 votes. I just thought Bev might have given Hunter a tagging job and rewarded him for carrying it out so well.

 

[Testekill]

Coaches with very different opinions:
They both agree on Stringer as BoG (5-5). They both agree that Lachie was good (4-3 split).
After that they 100% disagreed.
My guess is
Beveridge:
5. Stringer
4. Hunter
3. JJ
2. Dale
1. Daniel

Richo:
5. Stringer
4. Adams
3. Hunter
2. Wallis
1. Longer (StK)

But really the 4-3 votes could easily have been reversed between the coaches, as could the 2 votes. I just thought Bev might have given Hunter a tagging job and rewarded him for carrying it out so well.

Yeah, I can certainly buy Beveridge giving Dale & Hunter those votes as Dale played his best game for the club and Hunter did a great job tagging.

 

[Bulldogs Legend]

Cooney on SEN was rating the players from the Bulldogs and when he got to Daniel he rated him a B and said he would alsways be a B because of his height. That he can't beat opponents above his head.........what an illogical comment. Sam Mitchell is A class player, as a small player of course he's renowned for his aerial work.

Then you see that piece of play with Carlisle and you just realise what a special player he is. Cooney really is disappointing in his analysis of footy at times.

I thought Daniel was best on Saturday, certainly best 3.

I like Cooneys humour but as a footy analyst he makes Lloyd and King seem like Luke Beveridge!

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Reckon there's great potential for the likes of Lake and Cooney to host a Bounce-style entertainment program but as analysts, no thank you.