Game Plan

[P-MONEY]

Can someone who watches our games week in week out explain what our game plan is?

For the life of me i just can't see what our trend is. The one thing i do notice is we love to kick it to a contest. Now is that because we don't have players running of there man to take an easy uncontested mark?
The other thing i find really hard to understand is our kick outs always end up with a boundary throw in just outside the defensive 50.

I watch a lot of footy and i can work out how other teams play the ball out of there defence but when i watch my own team i really struggle to actually understand what we are trying to do.. It looks like " Let's kick it to a contest and see what happens". It would be interesting to see how many turnovers we have for the year.

Richmond have a game plan? Even Gold coast! We are very one dimensional in our disposal. Predictable.. If we get first hands on the pill at the centre- Quick kick forward. Inside 50- Barry. Kick out- Wings, hardly ever a short kick..

Collingwood is a massive test next week and you know how they are going to play. They have structure and every player knows his job.

What structure do we take into this game?

 

[Libba39]

I think our game is based around contested ball, meaning we are kicking long to contests and hoping to bring the ball to ground and win clearance after clearance, and get quick handballs out the back of the pack. Our problem (and this has been the case for the last few years) is that when the game is hot (like last night or a final) then these contests are only 60/40 at best in our favour. What we lack is an easy 'out' that Cloke for example gives Collingwood - ie a dedicated big-bodied hit-up type player. Mayne did a good job for Freo last night.

Unfortunately our best hit-up lead player is named Robert Murphy and due to injuries and trades he is stuck in the backline. Also he probably can't take the punishment and turning that the lead-up position requires anymore.

As for the above-mentioned injuries and trades we are missing Hargrave who is a great kick and Harbrow who's ability to break lines and deliver on his left side created a lot of trouble for the opposition (notice how many times freo forced us onto the left wing forcing right-sided players to kick off the inside of their boot)

As for other tactics I thought it was obvious in game 1 v Ess that Eade has been left behind tactically. The bombers have adapted to play a more Collingwood game style where they often kick short out of a contest and then spread. As I (and many others) have mentioned before Rocket has one plan/style and when it goes ka-put there is nothing to back it up.

 

[Maverick Dog]

I too am unsure if a game plan exist. Our zone or press from kick ins is completely ineffective. We half do it in half measures and quite often the opposition will be able to move the ball to the wing with minimal pressure applied. The movement into the forward line is haphazard and still to hall conscious. It appears all Eade is concerned about is winning the contested ball which is an area we smashed Freo in. This is all good but if you cannot execute after winning the ball you will turn it over and undo all that good work.

You are also correct about the movement out of back line. Is very one dimensional.

All the other top teams have copied the pies but we have have elected to go back to the 80s style of play. I too would want to know if anyone who may have closer links to the coaching panel can explain what in hell are they doing?

I am hoping we are developing a game plan but we do not want to disclose to early in the season. Unfortunately by the time they do it may be too late. This is me being optimistic.

It will be interesting next week. I rate the talent of our list equal to the pies but they have the best coach going around while I feel Eade is now well and truley passed his used by date. I expect us to be competitive but unless Eade can dramatically improve the tactical and strategic part of his coach we will lose by in excess of 30 points.

 

[Bazzas Lovechild]

I think our game is based around contested ball, meaning we are kicking long to contests and hoping to bring the ball to ground and win clearance after clearance, and get quick handballs out the back of the pack. Our problem (and this has been the case for the last few years) is that when the game is hot (like last night or a final) then these contests are only 60/40 at best in our favour. What we lack is an easy 'out' that Cloke for example gives Collingwood - ie a dedicated big-bodied hit-up type player. Mayne did a good job for Freo last night.

Unfortunately our best hit-up lead player is named Robert Murphy and due to injuries and trades he is stuck in the backline. Also he probably can't take the punishment and turning that the lead-up position requires anymore.

As for the above-mentioned injuries and trades we are missing Hargrave who is a great kick and Harbrow who's ability to break lines and deliver on his left side created a lot of trouble for the opposition (notice how many times freo forced us onto the left wing forcing right-sided players to kick off the inside of their boot)

As for other tactics I thought it was obvious in game 1 v Ess that Eade has been left behind tactically. The bombers have adapted to play a more Collingwood game style where they often kick short out of a contest and then spread. As I (and many others) have mentioned before Rocket has one plan/style and when it goes ka-put there is nothing to back it up.

Well put. Time for a change. Rocket is out of ideas.

 

[BomberDog]

From the way we are playing and setting up it is hard to see many more wins heading our way. It looks as though the coaching group has run its race with this group of players.

With Rocket out of contract this year we can only hope that the club is woking behind the scenes to bring a new coaching group in. The club cannot afford a period down the ladder. A path that appears likely at the moment. New enthusiasm, ideas and respect is needed. Heres hoping Mick is a romantic and wants to get that flag that he missed out on 25 years ago to finish his career.

 

[Morris Major]

bomb it long to barry, if barry isn't around bomb it long to anyone

 

[Cruiserweight Champ]

Kicking out from defence has been an issue for a while now. We always seem to struggle especially against the better teams. I watch a bit of footy and I see most teams clearing the ball out of their back 50 with ease (not always obviously) then i watch our boys and we would be lucky to have one "easy" clearance out of defence from a kick in for the whole match.

Also it seems Gilbee has lost a bit of confidence in his kicking, he used to nail those goals on the run, last night he missed two by a fair margin. Murph, great player, but he seems very one dimensional when kicking out, which long towards the boundary. I think they need to give Gilbee the kick in duties and back him in.

To be honest it seems our team as a whole has really dropped off in their skill levels with very poor kicking and handpasses often missing the target, even our marking has been pathetic this year. We really need to lift our skill level and quickly starting this week against the pies.

 

[lindsay_bulldogs]

bomb it long to barry, if barry isn't around bomb it long to anyone

I would like to say that is untrue but it sadly isn't.

 

[dogwatch]

Our last bit of innovation was in about 2006 when we had hardly any good talls so Rocket developed a fast play-on game based on swift ball movement (it was not so much based on leg speed but everyone regarded us as fast because we moved the ball on quickly). Eade called on his players to take risks to break the lines and said he would forgive the occasional stuff-up because the risks were worthwhile most of the time. This style was based on accurate delivery and we had some of the best users of the ball. It was fast, high scoring and attractive football.

Geelong copied this style to some extent and so did others. Unfortunately it didn't take us to a Grand Final before others figured us out and overtook us. The strong defensive surge became vogue.

It was this relentless pressure, harrassment and tackling that exposed us. We still have many of those same players who have good foot skills but they now have far less time to dispose of the ball. So our efficiency has dropped to about 65% and we turn the ball over. It's been frequently mentioned that Collingwood benefited immensely last year by forcing turnovers through pressure.

I haven't seen any sign of innovation or strategic advantage since those days.

Hall's great season in 2010 has been a mixed blessing. We were most dangerous in 2009 when we had 10-14 players getting on the goal scoring sheet. We were unpredictable and everyone was given a chance at scoring goals. Now our bombittoBazza tactic is predictable, one-dimensional and too easy to counter simply by double-teaming him. No-one else has become a viable target and we don't even feed off the spillage.

Eade has been good for us but he's had good material to work with (and he still does). He needs to turn that into results. If we don't finish top 4 this year it will be time for a change. A new set of coaching ideas could do wonders for us ... just as it did when Wheeler, then Wallace, then Eade first took over their coaching role.

 

[LardDog]

I would like to say that is untrue but it sadly isn't.

Yup sadly this is the best we can do most of the time:

1 Barry, 4 Freo defenders, and we still kick it to him...WTF?!

 

[Staffy_Dog]

Yup sadly this is the best we can do most of the time:

1 Barry, 4 Freo defenders, and we still kick it to him...WTF?!

and the sad thing about that passage of play is I believe it was Cooney who kicked it in to Barry, there was a player just inside the forward 50 on the right side, who was 25 metres clear of another player. It may have been another passage of play but it was infuriating seeing a player so clear for so long, would have been close to 10 - 15 seconds and he was simply looking at Barry.

The other thing that infuriates me, as has been mentioned on here, is the ease at which the opposition can get the ball out of our forward 50. There is no forward pressure.

To me, it appears Rocket is not moving with the times. He is trying to use a mixture of efficient disposal, for which we were so potent a few years ago but have let ourselves down in recent times, along with Hawthorn's zone, not the revamped Collingwood/St Kilda forward press.

Stats (and rankings against the competition) I would love to see for us are:

• Goals for and against at stoppages (especially inside our forward and defensive 50)
• Tackles in forward 50
• Disposal efficiency

Although there are heaps of other stats out there, if we're low in these areas, we stand little chance of beating the top sides.

I think we'll make the 8, but a top 4 spot, let alone a Grand Final berth seems a long way away.

On the coaching front, I'd love to see Malthouse come back. If not Malthouse, it would be quite funny if we were able to nab Roos, he would've then succeeded Rocket at not only the Swans but the Dogs too. Whoever it is (if it happens at all), it needs to be someone who's coached a premiership.

 

[_Mike_]

The problem with our game plan is that

- The ball carriers lack footy smarts (with the exception of Griffen)

How many times do we see Cooney, Boyd, Cross bomb into the FW50? Cooney has gone backwards in his kicking which was never a strong part of his game. Cross is another S.West who isnt able to effectively use is feet and Boyd just doesnt punish the opposition with his delivery. This is a major drawback with the kick long to Hall game. Its predicatble, easy to read and usually defenders are able to stack 2-3 on Hall making it impossible for him to play 1-1 football.

- Lack adaptability

In 2008/2009 we were a side that had a very good spread of goal kickers, but failed to adapt to games that were highly defensive and relied on bombing long (against St.Kilda for example) We thought our problem was based on not having a key forward able to take the big grabs. While that was true in 09, 10 was a very different year. We had lost alot of pace from the smaller players - Eagle had dramatically slowed down over the 09/10 break, Johnno and Aker were both spent forces , but their previous years contribution was pivotal to where they were at seasons end.

We had a poor return last year from Higgins (Injury/illness), Gia was quiet in comparison and Gilbee's ability to kick long goals on the run had dried up. Even Bob struggled for most of the year until he was moved to half back of which he played much better.

We saw the Dogs in 2010 play the long game, and for most it worked. Barring injuries/illnesses the end result should have been much better.

In 2011, we have the same game plan, the same style. The good teams have picked up on that and adapted to our style easily. We lack small crumbing players, Gia has injury concerns and players like Higgins and Hill are not picking up the slack. Although Hill has played mainly across the backline, he has the ability to play forward. Sherman has been alright and kicked four the other night, doing enough to make his swap for Harbrow worthy so far.

We've relied on Huddo too much not giving him enough chance to rest. Minson should have been brought in if he had been playing well for Willi. We're still missing Hargrave on the backline but Markovic is getting some game time which is good to see.

While its still early in the year, I see a problem with Eade setting the trend for the same predictable style of football. Teams have worked St.Kilda out , teams have worked the Bulldogs out.

The continual insistance on playing injured players and persisting with those out of their depth is annoying at the very least. Percentage footy is where it at, and the Dogs are off the mark.

We're 5 rounds in and we're in a similar place to where we were last year. We've lost 2 games against supposed contenders, beaten 2 easy beats and had a bye.

We have a stretch of tough games ahead and if things dont change we could be asking ourselves whether or not we'll make the 8 let alone anything else.

 

[WIGNEY]

Can someone who watches our games week in week out explain what our game plan is?
quote]

Nope. Got no idea. Ask most dogs supporters and no-one does. Maybe the players are like us.

 

[dogwatch]

Time to bump this one and give credit where it's due. Eade delivered an effective game plan against the Tigers today.

He recognised that we'd become too conservative and told his players to take the game on, take some risks, even if it might cost a few goals in turnovers. Very much like the Doggies of 2006-09.

He was also prepared to experiment with Gilbee and Murphy up forward in an effort to provide some missing spark and unpredictability. This was a luxury that perhaps he felt he could afford with Hargrave back and providing some run out of defence. The Gilbee part worked so well that he didn't get to switch Murphy forward because Gilbee just kept slotting them.

He also gave Ward his chance with a full game in the centre and Ward responded magnificently.

Suddenly we weren't playing reactively any more but taking the game on with confidence and forcing the other side to respond. Everyone (well at least 19 of them) were hard at the contest. Richmond were caught off guard and rattled and they never really got back into it except briefly in the third quarter. To Eade's credit he didn't panic but backed his side to come good and they did.

What's the conclusion from all this? Did Rocket only just wake up that we'd become too conservative? Shouldn't he have sussed this out a week or two ago? I think that's a hard call because two weeks ago we took it to Collingwood and there were some good signs that day (apart from the last 20 mins). But the performance against the Swans was poor and I suspect the tape from that match got a good workout during this last week.

Another possible conclusion is that the injuries to key personnel have limited Eade's tactical options (as well as decimated the team's more skilful players).

So the strategy against West Coast will be fascinating. They will be watching the tape of this game against Richmond closely so we won't have the benefit of surprise with Gilbee up forward, etc. I reckon it will be mostly more of the same but Eade did hint in his press conference that "we've still got some improvements to make".

 

[bigdog54]

Rocket instructing players to take the game on is hardly earning his money or a novel game plan for that matter. Although we played on and moved the ball quickly we did so against a bottom four side and did concede 18 goals!

Im not quite ready to be heaping praise on the coach just yet...