What They're Saying - The Bulldogs Media Thread - Part 3

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
lachy said:
The amount of times forwards create separation from their opponents only to have the ball bombed over or on top of their heads is at least 10 to 15 forward entries per game.

The amount of time we do not kick to the.space of a forward contest where our forwards could protect the space or simply put kicked to our forwards advantage is 5 to 10 times again.

Watch the replay against the pies and you will see it was the top end of each for the pies game.

The amount of times Macrae in particular lowers his eyes and hits up a team-mate is quite high. Macrae Libba and Bont account for no more than 20% of our forward entries.btw it is not just our midfield who have the forward entries. Have a look at a couple of Naughton's when he marked up high

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...
If this is the case, then our coaches will have been aware of it for years now. They have all of the vision and data. High possession and inefficient i50 conversion have been the norm for 3-4 years now.

Why they are not able to train that for major improvement over the course of a couple years doesn’t make sense. So frustrating. Bevo mentions chemistry and personal but I’m in the camp that says a good kick inside 50 to a good forward gets marked most of the time.

But then hey goal kicking is a whole different story.
 
ScottyDogg said:
If this is the case, then our coaches will have been aware of it for years now. They have all of the vision and data. High possession and inefficient i50 conversion have been the norm for 3-4 years now.

Why they are not able to train that for major improvement over the course of a couple years doesn’t make sense. So frustrating. Bevo mentions chemistry and personal but I’m in the camp that says a good kick inside 50 to a good forward gets marked most of the time.

But then hey goal kicking is a whole different story.
Click to expand...
Bruce and Naughton were both hit on the lead with good entry kicks in the first 5 minutes and converted. It rarely happened again after that, we just seem to work so hard for our goals. I’d love to see the behind the goals vision because it will tell pretty clearly whether it’s the forwards, or whether our mids are just failing to recognise the space inside 50.
 
27 shots at goal suggest our inside 50’s weren’t too much if an issue.

It’s been an issue over a few years, but Friday’s game shouldn’t be the highlighted game. .
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Dazb86 said:
We sprayed a few on the full from gettable positions. Plus Bonts absolute shocker from10m in front.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think if we cleaned up our shot accuracy our inside 50’s wouldn’t actually seem so bad.

We don’t need to hit a fwd up on the lead for an inside 50 to be deemed a good one. As long as there’s a shot at goal and we’re able to set up easily in prep for a change of possession, I think that’s a good balance.
 
 
Golden_6 said:
Bruce and Naughton were both hit on the lead with good entry kicks in the first 5 minutes and converted. It rarely happened again after that, we just seem to work so hard for our goals. I’d love to see the behind the goals vision because it will tell pretty clearly whether it’s the forwards, or whether our mids are just failing to recognise the space inside 50.
Click to expand...

We were being picked off by absolutely elite interceptors in Moore and Howe which may have made it look worse.
And it could be the same this week with Barrass and Hurn.
 
Golden_6 said:
Bruce and Naughton were both hit on the lead with good entry kicks in the first 5 minutes and converted. It rarely happened again after that, we just seem to work so hard for our goals. I’d love to see the behind the goals vision because it will tell pretty clearly whether it’s the forwards, or whether our mids are just failing to recognise the space inside 50.
Click to expand...
Me too!
 
Charlie Bucket said:
Yeah I think if we cleaned up our shot accuracy our inside 50’s wouldn’t actually seem so bad.

We don’t need to hit a fwd up on the lead for an inside 50 to be deemed a good one. As long as there’s a shot at goal and we’re able to set up easily in prep for a change of possession, I think that’s a good balance.
Click to expand...
The sheer numbers put paid to that. We had 33% more i50's (40-60) and yet they stayed close. They scored from 15 of their 40 entry's, we scored from 18 of our 60.
Were there 3 occasions when the ball made it into our goal square only to be rebounded by Moore et al? Soooooo frustration. How do we not get anything from that position? Ineffective crumbers?
I think Buckley might have sumed it up. Our game is structured, designed around, keeping the ball in our i50 for multiple entries. That means multiple congested entries, and a high defensive press. Congested 50 makes it harder to score, high press means more fruitless entries.
Whenever the oppos get through our zone they get out the back and often score.
Whenever we get the ball quickly into an open 50 we look great and often score. Thats one reason I think we look so good if we win centre bounces, were moving inside too quickly for a flood which gives the forwards time to work. Otherwise its a congested 50 = kick high and long in hope. Chopped off more often than not.
 
Last edited:
Outback Footy said:
The sheer numbers put paid to that. We had 33% more i50's (40-60) and yet they stayed close. They scored from 15 of their 40 entry's, we scored from 18 of our 60.
Were there 3 occasions when the ball made it into our goal square only to be rebounded by Moore et al? Soooooo frustration. How do we not get anything from that position? Ineffective crumbers?
I think Buckley might have sumed it up. Our game is structured, designed around, keeping the ball in our i50 for multiple entries. That means multiple congested entries, and a high defensive press. Congested 50 makes it harder to score, high press means more fruitless entries.
Whenever the oppos get through our zone they get out the back and often score.
Whenever we get the ball quickly into an open 50 we look great and often score. Thats one reason I think we look so good if we win centre bounces, were moving inside too quickly for a flood which gives the forwards time to work. Otherwise its a congested 50 = kick high and long in hope. Chopped off more often than not.
Click to expand...

Good rundown Outback.

I don’t have any issue with how we structure up as I think it’s important in modern football if you can maintain possession in your fwd half. Firstly, it creates more chances to score and secondly it’s difficult for teams to transition out of our fwd 50.

I hear what you are say re meaningless inside 50’s, which in the past have been a serious issue, I still don’t think Friday night should be highlighted as part of that issue.
Only 18 scoring shots, but we had 27 shots at goal. That changes the percentage up drastically and shows a lot more dominance than the 18 shots does.

Bont, English, Bruce, Naughton all missed gettable shots from marks. Not congested football that usually results from an inside 59 in to a congested fwd line.
Dunks missed a snap on goal with almost no pressure around him. Bruce also kicked one outbox the full after marking near the point post. So I don’t think the inaccuracy was solely due to a congested fwd.

If the players had of kicked with half the accuracy they should have, we’d have won by 8 goals plus and we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

I agree that it’s been an issue, but I think 27 shots at goal from 60 entries is pretty good.
And keeping the oppo pretty tight on the scoreboard means our structure worked pretty well.
I guess we’ll have to see what happens this Sunday to get a better gauge of if things have changed over the off season, but personally, I’m liking what I see.
 
Its all well and good to have a lopsided inside 50 count, but a side with a competent forward line, one that doesn't rely on 7 foot potato like Mason Cox will quickly and ruthlessly punish our midfields profligacy with said Indies 50's.

Until Bruce and Naughton understand that their job doesn't stop with them being outmarked/worked, then the games elite marking defenders are going to be a huge issue when it comes to our ability to win, let alone put sides away for the rest of the season and beyond. Naughton in particular doesn't seem to have an understanding or an ability to adjust to the fact that a player like Darcy Moore invariably uses his marking ability as a springboard to attack immediately and drive the ball long out of his defensive zone. We saw this last week time and again as Moore ran away from a badly trailing and ineffective Naughton. Until he makes this adjustment and understands that he isn't going to mark everything and that games best KPB's are also some of its most attacking players. Then he will continue to get chewed up and spat out by them as he was on Friday night.
 
Norm De Guerre said:
Its all well and good to have a lopsided inside 50 count, but a side with a competent forward line, one that doesn't rely on 7 foot potato like Mason Cox will quickly and ruthlessly punish our midfields profligacy with said Indies 50's.

Until Bruce and Naughton understand that their job doesn't stop with them being outmarked/worked, then the games elite marking defenders are going to be a huge issue when it comes to our ability to win, let alone put sides away for the rest of the season and beyond. Naughton in particular doesn't seem to have an understanding or an ability to adjust to the fact that a player like Darcy Moore invariably uses his marking ability as a springboard to attack immediately and drive the ball long out of his defensive zone. We saw this last week time and again as Moore ran away from a badly trailing and ineffective Naughton. Until he makes this adjustment and understands that he isn't going to mark everything and that games best KPB's are also some of its most attacking players. Then he will continue to get chewed up and spat out by them as he was on Friday night.
Click to expand...

Oppo teams don’t punish our use going inside 50. Particularly if the balls been in our end for a little while. In fact teams have great difficulty transitioning the longer we’ve got to set up. That’s why it’s not a bad things having less space in our fwd half. It helps us defend when the oppo take possession. It can give us grief also, but part of it is to assist with defence.
Why do you think players, when going long inside 50, kick to the pockets? It’s so the opposition don’t have easy exit if there’s a turnover. Coaches take a defensive mindset when planning and coaching fwd structure. Bevo has just taken it further.

Where the oppo fwds get us is turnover in transition. When we turn over without giving ourselves time to set up is when we get punished.

If we move the ball from def to fwd 50 quickly, and then turn it over, that’s when the oppo get us out the back.

Ball inside our 50, congested with repeat entries... Very hard to score the other way.

Agree with the Naughton and Bruce stuff. Not sure why they continually lead to the same spot. That’s half the issue with the Moore, May and Lever types. You take them near the contest and it’s handing them the chance to intercept.
 
Charlie Bucket said:
Oppo teams don’t punish our use going inside 50. Particularly if the balls been in our end for a little while. In fact teams have great difficulty transitioning the longer we’ve got to set up. That’s why it’s not a bad things having less space in our fwd half. It helps us defend when the oppo take possession. It can give us grief also, but part of it is to assist with defence.
Why do you think players, when going long inside 50, kick to the pockets? It’s so the opposition don’t have easy exit if there’s a turnover. Coaches take a defensive mindset when planning and coaching fwd structure. Bevo has just taken it further.

Where the oppo fwds get us is turnover in transition. When we turn over without giving ourselves time to set up is when we get punished.

If we move the ball from def to fwd 50 quickly, and then turn it over, that’s when the oppo get us out the back.

Ball inside our 50, congested with repeat entries... Very hard to score the other way.

Agree with the Naughton and Bruce stuff. Not sure why they continually lead to the same spot. That’s half the issue with the Moore, May and Lever types. You take them near the contest and it’s handing them the chance to intercept.
Click to expand...
The issue with this mindset is if we win possession of the ball deep in the pocket, whether that be by taking a mark or crumbing, the shot at goal becomes difficult, which means more often than not we're going to score a behind, which allows the opposition for a much easier transition kicking out from the extended goal square.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

X_box_X said:
The issue with this mindset is if we win possession of the ball deep in the pocket, whether that be by taking a mark or crumbing, the shot at goal becomes difficult, which means more often than not we're going to score a behind, which allows the opposition for a much easier transition kicking out from the extended goal square.
Click to expand...

You make a great point about inaccurate goal-kicking. Teams that miss gettable shots at goal are going to be punished more severely now that teams should be able to clear defensive 50 from the kick in.

Far more difficult to hem a team in the pocket when theres so much room.
 
X_box_X said:
The issue with this mindset is if we win possession of the ball deep in the pocket, whether that be by taking a mark or crumbing, the shot at goal becomes difficult, which means more often than not we're going to score a behind, which allows the opposition for a much easier transition kicking out from the extended goal square.
Click to expand...

That was just an example of the defensive mindset coaches have.

Those particular inside 50’s usually are only used when there’s no option available and you’re too far out to hit space 20m out from goal.

No doubt a more suitable angle is preferred when having a shit, but no player is going to hold off getting an inside 50 just because they think it may result in a point.
Shots on goal are number one priority for any team.
If you can hit a teammate or a marking contest within shooting range, and it’s the best option, regardless of where inside 50 it is, you pull the trigger.

Can you imagine a player burning a teammate because he thinks he’s not going to kick accurate enough from where he’ll most likely mark it?

Same goes for long balls to the pocket. If no other option, get it in, worry about setting up for the point when need be.
 
X_box_X said:
The issue with this mindset is if we win possession of the ball deep in the pocket, whether that be by taking a mark or crumbing, the shot at goal becomes difficult, which means more often than not we're going to score a behind, which allows the opposition for a much easier transition kicking out from the extended goal square.
Click to expand...

I’ll also add, teams playing on and kicking long from the kick ins aren’t necessarily going to go end to end for easy goals. They have to negate a 50/50 contest, unless they’ve got an open target to hit. Which if that is the case, the other teams problem isn’t just kicking inaccuracy, it’s how they’re setting up.
But if no open target, they’re essentially doing the same thing as the team going inside 50, except they need to back the players at ground level to win it. Far harder to defend the middle of the ground than an inside 50 ball (as the attacking team).

If the sequence of play goes like this...
Repeat Dogs inside 50, shot at goal, point, oppo kick in long to a 50:50 contest 70m out, that’s a win for us. Especially considering the quality we have at those contests.
 
Charlie Bucket said:
That was just an example of the defensive mindset coaches have.

Those particular inside 50’s usually are only used when there’s no option available and you’re too far out to hit space 20m out from goal.

No doubt a more suitable angle is preferred when having a sh*t, but no player is going to hold off getting an inside 50 just because they think it may result in a point.
Shots on goal are number one priority for any team.
If you can hit a teammate or a marking contest within shooting range, and it’s the best option, regardless of where inside 50 it is, you pull the trigger.

Can you imagine a player burning a teammate because he thinks he’s not going to kick accurate enough from where he’ll most likely mark it?

Same goes for long balls to the pocket. If no other option, get it in, worry about setting up for the point when need be.
Click to expand...

We conceded multiple goals from turnovers inside our F50 where we (Naughton for example) kicked to space in a dangerous spot to an outnumbered forward that resulted in a rebound 50 goal for the Pies. Can see why they coach against it.
 
Woof said:
We conceded multiple goals from turnovers inside our F50 where we (Naughton for example) kicked to space in a dangerous spot to an outnumbered forward that resulted in a rebound 50 goal for the Pies. Can see why they coach against it.
Click to expand...

There were a few like that. Outnumbered contest inside 50 and we weren’t ready for a turnover. They got end to end goals like that in the 1st and 3rd quarters I think.
 
Charlie Bucket said:
That was just an example of the defensive mindset coaches have.

Those particular inside 50’s usually are only used when there’s no option available and you’re too far out to hit space 20m out from goal.

No doubt a more suitable angle is preferred when having a sh*t, but no player is going to hold off getting an inside 50 just because they think it may result in a point.
Shots on goal are number one priority for any team.
If you can hit a teammate or a marking contest within shooting range, and it’s the best option, regardless of where inside 50 it is, you pull the trigger.

Can you imagine a player burning a teammate because he thinks he’s not going to kick accurate enough from where he’ll most likely mark it?

Same goes for long balls to the pocket. If no other option, get it in, worry about setting up for the point when need be.
Click to expand...
Footy really is a numbers game. The more contests you win, the more probability there is of an effective clearance. The more clearances you win, the more probability there is of getting an inside 50. The more inside 50s you get, the more probability there is of taking a mark inside 50. The more marks you take inside 50, the higher the probability that you will score. The more scoring shots you have, the higher the probability that you will win.

I did some data analysis across 15 seasons and close to 100 games. If you can win at least 3/5 of the statistical categories above (contested possession, clearances, inside 50s, marks inside 50 and scoring shots) you have a 78.16% chance of winning the game. 4/5 gets you to 84.12% and 5/5 is 89.47%.

Of those teams that won (or halved) only 2 or less categories, 84.21% of those teams won purely due to kicking more accurately at goal.

In round one 8/9 teams won 3/5 categories with the Dogs, Tigers, Power and Eagles completing the magical 5/5. The only team that had 2/5 (Saints) had to rely on, you guessed it, more accurate kicking for goal to win the match from less scoring shots.

Just as an aside in the 2016 finals we went;
QF: 5/5
SF: 5/5
PF: 5/5
GF: 4/5 (Swannies took more marks inside 50)
 
WallyStringhaus said:
Footy really is a numbers game. The more contests you win, the more probability there is of an effective clearance. The more clearances you win, the more probability there is of getting an inside 50. The more inside 50s you get, the more probability there is of taking a mark inside 50. The more marks you take inside 50, the higher the probability that you will score. The more scoring shots you have, the higher the probability that you will win.

I did some data analysis across 15 seasons and close to 100 games. If you can win at least 3/5 of the statistical categories above (contested possession, clearances, inside 50s, marks inside 50 and scoring shots) you have a 78.16% chance of winning the game. 4/5 gets you to 84.12% and 5/5 is 89.47%.

Of those teams that won (or halved) only 2 or less categories, 84.21% of those teams won purely due to kicking more accurately at goal.

In round one 8/9 teams won 3/5 categories with the Dogs, Tigers, Power and Eagles completing the magical 5/5. The only team that had 2/5 (Saints) had to rely on, you guessed it, more accurate kicking for goal to win the match from less scoring shots.

Just as an aside in the 2016 finals we went;
QF: 5/5
SF: 5/5
PF: 5/5
GF: 4/5 (Swannies took more marks inside 50)
Click to expand...

This is great stuff Wally.

I recall Bev talking about, on a few occasions, the percentages of certain areas that lead to wins more often than not.
Similar to what you’ve posted.

Contested footy and inside 50’s have been our thing since he took over so wouldn’t surprise to see him buy in to it. That probably goes for all coaches.

Out of interest, was your data analysis part of an official role or just something you liked to do on the side?
 
Really good analysis all round here, good discussion. We’re really not far off being a very very good team. Also as far as defensive pressure, defensive work rate and ground level work goes Id say Naughty and Bruce would be up there when compared to most players in their roles across the league. The pressure Naughty provides at ground level is next level for a key forward. He provides repeat effort after repeat effort, don’t think we can criticise them in that regard... When we ease JUH into Bruce’s spot over the next couple of years I think we’ll have close to the best key forward duo in the comp when it comes to the defensive side. Will be a serious edge we will have on the competition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Testekill
#31 Welcome to the Bulldogs Josh Dolan
2 3
Replies
70
Views
6K
Hoges64
Hoges64
Testekill
#62 Welcome to the Bulldogs Luke Kennedy
2 3 4
Replies
85
Views
8K
Dry Rot
Dry Rot
Testekill
#51- Welcome to the Bulldogs Sam Davidson
2 3
Replies
50
Views
5K
gohardorgohome
gohardorgohome
Testekill
#29 Welcome to the Bulldogs Lachie Jaques
2 3
Replies
61
Views
5K
Mojorisin
Mojorisin
Testekill
Welcome to the Bulldogs Matthew Kennedy
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
7K
Hoges64
Hoges64
Testekill
Pick 20# Welcome to the Bulldogs Cooper Hynes
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
146
Views
8K
Golden_6
Golden_6
Eastdog
Western Bulldogs and the MCG factor
2 3
Replies
72
Views
3K
Dogs_r_barking
Dogs_r_barking

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top