What They're Saying - The Bulldogs Media Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeremy Howe might argue....
 
threenewpadlocks said:
Why is it an imperative for us to play finals, Gary Lyon? I would love finals as much as the next Doggies supporter but it's not an imperative when you consider
  • The fact that we were only expected to win 7 games for the year
  • The fact that we have a new coach
  • The fact that our players etc. are all different and people expected us to be 15th or 16th after the last off-season
  • The fact that clearly for the first part of the year that our coach saw it as a "experimental" year with unusual team selection etc. playing Cordy as first ruck for six weeks
  • The fact is that even if we win just two more games for the we've exceeded bookies' expectation
  • The fact that if we win three or four more games we've exceeded our supporter's expectations
  • The fact is in spite of an easy draw there's a fair chance we'll drop away due to our young team and our high-intensity game style.
But don't take all that into account should we fail (which is still more likely not to happen than it is to happen according to the Bookies) to make finals. We have to, don't we Garry?
Click to expand...
Yea. Right on
I wanna see building blocks to winning a flag... And I am ... annnn me happy
How's the new blood boys just teenies and showing competence at the top level... Every one of them.
 
Some Idiot said:
There are very few who can do what Wood has been doing. Fyfe is the only one I can think of who has been a better mark of the footy this year.
Click to expand...
McGovern's the only one who has taken a comparable level of intercept marks, but the difference is that McGovern is doing it as a key defender who is doing well to zone off his man and take em. Wood takes them and then uses them to set up scoring chains as a medium defender and a player who's both a decent long kick and has some run and carry skill. Aside from being blokes who take intercept marks they play different roles and both should be in the All-Australian team.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

No mention tonight at all on 360, was just one of Jakes goals in the weekend highlights package they had. Be very different this week against the Saints, no big media build up, nice easy game the week before. I think we'll get a true indication of where both teams are relative to each other this time.
 
fargy said:
No mention tonight at all on 360, was just one of Jakes goals in the weekend highlights package they had. Be very different this week against the Saints, no big media build up, nice easy game the week before. I think we'll get a true indication of where both teams are relative to each other this time.
Click to expand...

Was thinking that. Glass half full me says it's because we're a good team who beat up on an average team, nothing really to discuss. See - North v GWS.
 
In Repair said:
http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news...isen-despite-6m-contract-20150623-ghvrx1.html

Some will never move on, any chance to have a pop at our club, T-Boyd and the logic behind his aquisition.
Click to expand...

What a mean spirited shot at the Western Bulldogs and Tom Boyd.

What new insights did the article provide...other than that Michael Gleeson is an intellectual lightweight?

The article panders to those who are peeved that the lowly Bulldogs had the audacity to actually do what everyone really knows we needed to do, but nobody thought we were capable of. Well we got the monster power forward, the difference maker, the franchise player who could help us change our club's future. Drink my salty tears Michael.
 
Its known in the industry as working to a deadline. The mind boggles at the thought of the story ideas that Michael rejected before pooping out this 'article' with minutes to spare.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I came in here to criticise Gleeson's article and am glad to see that it's already receiving the negative attention that it deserves. Seriously, if ever there were an example of a journo eking out a few hundred words without actually saying anything at all, this is it. And it's not even well written. Gleeson ought to borrow a comma or two from Mark Robinson.
 
Dizzy Stuff said:
I came in here to criticise Gleeson's article and am glad to see that it's already receiving the negative attention that it deserves. Seriously, if ever there were an example of a journo eking out a few hundred words without actually saying anything at all, this is it. And it's not even well written. Gleeson ought to borrow a comma or two from Mark Robinson.
Click to expand...
That would have to be one of the worst things I've read from The Age. Like you mention, Herald Sun levels of incompetence there.
 
I'm trying to figure out if it is my Bulldogs bias coming into play here but that article is just a load of dribble.
'Boyd is getting a lot of money so he doesn't deserve a Rising Star nomination'????
Are you f#cking serious Michael Gleeson??
The media, across the board, are really making it as hard as possible for the kid.
Boyd is on a big contract so that comes with extra scrutiny but this is getting ridiculous.
 
JTCWBFC said:
How does this shit go to print. There is literally no point to the article and it is terribly written to boot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
He was having a go at the rising star competition rather than Boyd, at least thats what i got from the story
 
I don't think he was having a go at the Rising Star competition or Boyd. The article doesn't really say anything apart from, "It's ironic that a Rising Star nominee already has a big contract". That's the problem - the article is literally pointless. It does not have a point. And the writing is terrible.
 
Sharkey66 said:
He was having a go at the rising star competition rather than Boyd, at least thats what i got from the story
Click to expand...
I thought the same. Wasn't overly worried about the Boyd comments. We all know the RS means f'all.

upload_2015-6-24_12-49-44.jpeg

:)
 
Dizzy Stuff said:
I don't think he was having a go at the Rising Star competition or Boyd. The article doesn't really say anything apart from, "It's ironic that a Rising Star nominee already has a big contract". That's the problem - the article is literally pointless. It does not have a point. And the writing is terrible.
Click to expand...

I learnt an important point - that Jesse Hogan and his $500,000 contract should also not be eligible for the Rising Star Award.

Wonderful thinking, Michael. I think that should be known as "The Gleeson Proposition". I imagine it would be very well-received.
 
Last edited:
Yeah and wasn't Jack Martin signed to a five year deal before playing a game?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Testekill
Welcome to the Bulldogs Matthew Kennedy
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
7K
Hoges64
Hoges64
Eastdog
Western Bulldogs and the MCG factor
2 3
Replies
72
Views
3K
Dogs_r_barking
Dogs_r_barking
Matthew Jelley
Fightback, Bulldogs documentary
Replies
1
Views
413
Inside The Kennel
Inside The Kennel
MaxiBont
Review Sam Darcy and the Bulldogs maul the Roos
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
214
Views
10K
JohnnySteel
JohnnySteel
Fossie 32
2025 Western Bulldogs Men's Sponsorship
Replies
4
Views
257
dogwatch
dogwatch
Dogs_r_barking
Fans Fight Back Against the (cough) AFL Media
Replies
6
Views
1K
Fossie 32
Fossie 32
Sentinel
Autopsy "The Flu Game" - Bulldogs dismantle Freo
12 13 14 15 16
Replies
378
Views
18K
Next Waiting
Next Waiting

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top