Review Vent/Autopsy Thread. Here for all your post match needs.

[Igloo]

Shoot us a pm with any troubles/queries, dw. Keep it clear from here.
Fred's method was the wrong one, pm's are the right one.

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

Shoot us a pm with any troubles/queries, dw. Keep it clear from here.
Fred's method was the wrong one, pm's are the right one.

That's fair enough. The new mods are doing a great job by the way, and I like the way you are on often as well.

 

[Igloo]

Cheers D_r_b

 

[Mr. Walker]

my vent is different.

our development of young players has to be the worst in the AFL. Name one Dog who is playing better than last year. Dahlhaus maybe although I would argue he has continued where he left off. Wood, Grant, Wallis, Roughead, Higgins and Jones have either gone backwards or stagnated.

maybe it is easier in a top side but Collingwood and Geelong kids come in and play a role straight away and look to improve while our boys always struggle. does anyone think our player development is up to standad?

PS At the game on Saturday and sat about 10 metres from the Melbourne MC (Neeld Royal, Jade Rawlings , Leigh Brown and one other guy I didn't recognize.) They all left at three quarter time! Maybe they saw the Dogs as no opposition to analyse.

 

[Mr. Walker]

I should have added - another poster pointed out that last week Adelaide as a team had played less games than us indicating to me that their youngsters are performing better. Not sure about the stats for the Saints game but was probably the same and a couple of their kids outperformed us. same for West Coast where their young guys outplayed us too. Our player development seems to be poor.

 

[_Mike_]

Re: blaming Macca 2

Not to mention the fact that the first Blame Macca thread devolved into attacks against other posters.

There's the line in the sand.

I have no problems with posters wanting to have a whinge about things going sour, but once a post starts to sway to attacking fellow posters it stops there.

the rules apply to all visitors and regulars & we're expected to be consistent.

 

[dogwatch]

Re: blaming Macca 2

There's the line in the sand.

I have no problems with posters wanting to have a whinge about things going sour, but once a post starts to sway to attacking fellow posters it stops there.

the rules apply to all visitors and regulars & we're expected to be consistent.

Totally agree. They should be warned or carded. You can even delete an offensive post.
But why stifle discussion by shutting down the whole thread?

 

[Unnamed1]

Shoot us a pm with any troubles/queries, dw. Keep it clear from here.
Fred's method was the wrong one, pm's are the right one.

Why is PM the right way? I tend to think keeping things out in the open is the right way. I would also hope that Mods have been around long enough on here not to be perturbed by a slapstick comment about Burma! (In saying that I understand the balance the Mods have to exercise, but tend to think punishing posters with cards is a better way of moderating poster behaviour, rather than stifling threads...)

 

[Igloo]

Why is PM the right way? I tend to think keeping things out in the open is the right way. I would also hope that Mods have been around long enough on here not to be perturbed by a slapstick comment about Burma! (In saying that I understand the balance the Mods have to exercise, but tend to think punishing posters with cards is a better way of moderating poster behaviour, rather than stifling threads...)

If a thread gets locked, and posters have concerns, or disagree that it shouldn't have been locked, give one of the mods a pm stating your case, and if it's fair enough, in all likelihood the thread will be re-opened.

Cracking the shits, and making a thread about users is not the way to go about things.

 

[Slattery_20]

my vent is different.

our development of young players has to be the worst in the AFL. Name one Dog who is playing better than last year. Dahlhaus maybe although I would argue he has continued where he left off. Wood, Grant, Wallis, Roughead, Higgins and Jones have either gone backwards or stagnated.

maybe it is easier in a top side but Collingwood and Geelong kids come in and play a role straight away and look to improve while our boys always struggle. does anyone think our player development is up to standad?

They were both reasonably old sides - Dogs 25 yrs 1 day / 92 games; Sts 26 rs 40 days / 112 games.
Certainly looked very, very disorganised, the balance wasn't right, and a lot simply under-performed.
The set-ups wouldn't allow the best developed kids to look good, players were being isolated, having to fly against 3, didn't have options to go to, etc etc etc.

In short you can't take all that much out of most individual performances, when the whole was that far off it.

Really have to go back to square 1 with selections: competitiveness, and working to the team plan.


(FWIW I would drop about 8, and the guys who "performed" on the stats sheet, or have performed in recent years would not be safe)

 

[Dazb86]

Surprised you watched the game as a neutral. Was hard to sit through as a supporter of one of the teams playing. Shocking game.

 

[Slattery_20]

In hindsight, yeah.
I've friends/family who are Dogs, and they had a Medallion club ticket going...
My thinking was "I won't bother watching the GC/Essendon game... that'll be one-sided... Dogs/Saints should be pretty tight"... err...

 

[JJHunter]

I've seen cordy a lot, unfortunately I don't believe he will make it as well.

Shoulder are too small not strong enough for a modern day big tall strong forward. At VFL level he is nice when he gets the ball, smart good disposal but not strong enough in the ruck or as a forward.

Love him to prove me wrong but I see more in Campbell and Hill.

I also want JJ in, for me the best young kid we have.

Campbell and Hill would have been able to outmark Simpkin in the four 1 on 1's Cordy had against him. Couldn't believe we wasted those good entries late in the game going to cordy who never looked likely to clunk one.

 

[dcs84]

This is what worries me, I'm not sure he is. McCartney has been banging on about players giving their all, and has been talking up Addison. He likes this sort of player. Would any other coach even bother putting games into this guy?

This really frightens me because it begins to solidify my previously loose fears. That is that McCartney is one of those coaches that hangs his hat on some rigid 'system', it becomes his mantra, his signature, his coaching style and he becomes tethered to it (like Ahab to Moby-Dick). Addison does work hard but he is so deficient in skills, he is sloppy at best, and a liability at worst. I would prefer lazy talent to hard working uselessness every time. I follow basketball also and there are some similarities in that some teams get lumped with a coach who is all about defence, which is great, but there is another side to the game, scoring points and the team seems so torqued up on being defensive stoppers that they appear lost when transitioning to offence. I was extremely concerned when I heard that McCartney was all about winning the contested ball, shouldn't he be all about winning the game. Honestly, and this happened a bit last season also, players almost appeared to wait for St Kilda to collect the ball and then the Bulldogs would go for the player, I saw on several occasions, in a 50/50 they let their opponent grab the ball as they seemed only focussed on tackling.

I watched the game, I thought Minson was good, I thought Dahlhouse was good Murphy, as always, looked a cut above but really it wasn't the players alone, there was no structure, the players were lost, that's coaching, if he wins he gets the credit, so take the brickbats. All this malarchy about give him time, he didn't just fall off the back of a Turnip truck, he had the team the entire preseason, he has been involved in Footy all his life. A dim witted child could have selected 22 players from our list, sorted them into vague positions and told them "You've all got talent, go out there and play" and they would have probably done as well against St Kilda as the team McCartney helmed. My point is when you have a distinct style that you live and die by then you are creating a rod for your own back if it doesn't produce at least a modicum of success.

 

[100action]

This really frightens me because it begins to solidify my previously loose fears. That is that McCartney is one of those coaches that hangs his hat on some rigid 'system', it becomes his mantra, his signature, his coaching style and he becomes tethered to it (like Ahab to Moby-Dick). Addison does work hard but he is so deficient in skills, he is sloppy at best, and a liability at worst. I would prefer lazy talent to hard working uselessness every time. I follow basketball also and there are some similarities in that some teams get lumped with a coach who is all about defence, which is great, but there is another side to the game, scoring points and the team seems so torqued up on being defensive stoppers that they appear lost when transitioning to offence. I was extremely concerned when I heard that McCartney was all about winning the contested ball, shouldn't he be all about winning the game. Honestly, and this happened a bit last season also, players almost appeared to wait for St Kilda to collect the ball and then the Bulldogs would go for the player, I saw on several occasions, in a 50/50 they let their opponent grab the ball as they seemed only focussed on tackling.

I watched the game, I thought Minson was good, I thought Dahlhouse was good Murphy, as always, looked a cut above but really it wasn't the players alone, there was no structure, the players were lost, that's coaching, if he wins he gets the credit, so take the brickbats. All this malarchy about give him time, he didn't just fall off the back of a Turnip truck, he had the team the entire preseason, he has been involved in Footy all his life. A dim witted child could have selected 22 players from our list, sorted them into vague positions and told them "You've all got talent, go out there and play" and they would have probably done as well against St Kilda as the team McCartney helmed. My point is when you have a distinct style that you live and die by then you are creating a rod for your own back if it doesn't produce at least a modicum of success.

I like to look at West Coast 2009-2010 I thought they were a long way from making finals and Worsfold was not the man to take them forward. They had similar problems with a midfield that cant kick but could find the ball and were hard at it:

Masten
Ebert
Priddis
Scott Selwood
Adam Selwood

In that time Masten has improved out of sight and looks like having a breakout year this year, Priddis's disposal is up to scratch, Ebert also improved greatly IMO but he was traded and they received a 2nd rounder, Scott Selwood has become the best tagger in the AFL and Adam has been delisted and replaced by the likes of Gaff and Shuey.

This is just saying shit kicks can be coached to some extent and players played in a way to minimize their weaknesses. There is hope yet for Smith and Wallis's kicking (Masten/S.Selwood) and Boyd can follow the footsteps of Priddis. Turning over the list like retiring/removing Cross (A Selwood/Ebert) and bringing in some gun midfielders that can kick like Whitfield/Stringer (Gaff/Shuey) will resolve this problem over time.

 

[AJARWA]

This really frightens me because it begins to solidify my previously loose fears. That is that McCartney is one of those coaches that hangs his hat on some rigid 'system', it becomes his mantra, his signature, his coaching style and he becomes tethered to it (like Ahab to Moby-Dick). Addison does work hard but he is so deficient in skills, he is sloppy at best, and a liability at worst. I would prefer lazy talent to hard working uselessness every time. I follow basketball also and there are some similarities in that some teams get lumped with a coach who is all about defence, which is great, but there is another side to the game, scoring points and the team seems so torqued up on being defensive stoppers that they appear lost when transitioning to offence. I was extremely concerned when I heard that McCartney was all about winning the contested ball, shouldn't he be all about winning the game. Honestly, and this happened a bit last season also, players almost appeared to wait for St Kilda to collect the ball and then the Bulldogs would go for the player, I saw on several occasions, in a 50/50 they let their opponent grab the ball as they seemed only focussed on tackling.

I watched the game, I thought Minson was good, I thought Dahlhouse was good Murphy, as always, looked a cut above but really it wasn't the players alone, there was no structure, the players were lost, that's coaching, if he wins he gets the credit, so take the brickbats. All this malarchy about give him time, he didn't just fall off the back of a Turnip truck, he had the team the entire preseason, he has been involved in Footy all his life. A dim witted child could have selected 22 players from our list, sorted them into vague positions and told them "You've all got talent, go out there and play" and they would have probably done as well against St Kilda as the team McCartney helmed. My point is when you have a distinct style that you live and die by then you are creating a rod for your own back if it doesn't produce at least a modicum of success.

I think some people having a dip at McCartney this early on need to keep in mind that this guy has had more success in his past 17 seasons than the Dogs have had in 100 years. Times are tough but let's keep some perspective here.

 

[AJARWA]

If a thread gets locked, and posters have concerns, or disagree that it shouldn't have been locked, give one of the mods a pm stating your case, and if it's fair enough, in all likelihood the thread will be re-opened.

Cracking the shits, and making a thread about users is not the way to go about things.

Swearing and using antagonistic language may not be the way to go about things either. Just a thought.

 

[Igloo]

Swearing and using antagonistic language may not be the way to go about things either. Just a thought.

You call that antagonistic? I call it exactly what happened, and letting everyone know to not go down that path, as it wont end well for them.
As for swearing, I don't think anyone is going to be offended by the word "shit".

 

[Sharkey66]

Hope I'm wrong but I wonder if we are starting to see the effects of a very inexperienced coaching panel.
Watters has Laidly, Neald has Craig, figjam has Eade, Voss has Harvey, Hird has Thompson.
I know Macca has a long history, but most of the assistants don't.
Smith, King, Shannon Grant, all have only 2 or 3 years xp coaching, Monty only a few more, and i don't know who else we have down there at the moment.

Also, has anyone heard if C Grant or Bazza are doing any part time coaching with the forwards. A great resource going to waste if they're not.

 

[True Dog]

Hope I'm wrong but I wonder if we are starting to see the effects of a very inexperienced coaching panel.
Watters has Laidly, Neald has Craig, figjam has Eade, Voss has Harvey, Hird has Thompson.
I know Macca has a long history, but most of the assistants don't.
Smith, King, Shannon Grant, all have only 2 or 3 years xp coaching, Monty only a few more, and i don't know who else we have down there at the moment.

Also, has anyone heard if C Grant or Bazza are doing any part time coaching with the forwards. A great resource going to waste if they're not.

They should both be on the payroll, what they can't teach isn't worth knowing.....

 

[Sharkey66]

[/b]
They should both be on the payroll, what they can't teach isn't worth knowing.....

My point being they both have roles at the club already.

 

[True Dog]

My point being they both have roles at the club already.

Understand but neither have official coaching roles and I think they should?