Autopsy The not even The Bont, Libbas and Jones' heroics can drag us over the line against the cats thread

[geoffjennings79]

That's roughly where I am.

2016 was a unicorn year.
I thought at the time maybe the universe had shifted, but it hadn't. Normal service has now resumed.

2025 will be another unicorn year. Gia head coach, Moyd and Roughead as assistants, Tom Hawkins as forwards coach (his daughter's Bont doll in tow), Clay Smith tackling coach, Terry Wheeler as the wise owl in the corner of the coach's box.
Even after we're drawn to simultaneously play both SA sides at Adelaide Oval at the same time in the first ever Gather Round tri-bulation match - a neutral venue of course(!) , and somehow play Geelong twice at Kardinia Paddock.
Tom Hawkins' inside knowledge will see Taylor Duryea playing defensive forward on Tom Stewart, complete with zimmer frame, and Sam Darcy as lone ruck in a BOG performance... while English plays wing in the VFL.

 

[BulldogsTV]

I'm totally confused what you think those stats are proving other than Tim English is a more complete player than Rhys Stanley. They certainly don't prove Stanley plays any more physically or more strongly than English. He doesn't get more clearances or make more tackles than English.

FWIW, I agree with the other guy - I'm no Rhys Stanley expert, but I seem to recall St Kilda trying to make him a ruckman who plays a lot in the forward line - which is not dissimilar to how we play English. Stanley's certainly not some bullocking monster like Mumford. I guess yes, he's more physical than Tim English cause EVERY ruckman is more physical than Tim English. But I would suggest he's a lot closer to the English end of the ruck spectrum than the Mumford end.

So basically, you don't know what type of player Stanley is either.
The stats show a very clear discrepancy in both marks and uncontested possessions. At the very minimum this shows they are very different types of players and not even remotely similar.

Rhys Stanley has always been a bad mark, useless up forward, useless down back. He does not roam the ground the same way English does, nor does he have an intercept game. Ask any Geelong fan and they will tell you the same thing: he's a solid citizen who plays his role and competes. His playing style is nothing like English's.

 

[the dog's kennel]

So basically, you don't know what type of player Stanley is either.
The stats show a very clear discrepancy in both marks and uncontested possessions. At the very minimum this shows they are very different types of players and not even remotely similar.

Rhys Stanley has always been a bad mark, useless up forward, useless down back. He does not roam the ground the same way English does, nor does he have an intercept game. Ask any Geelong fan and they will tell you the same thing: he's a solid citizen who plays his role and competes. His playing style is nothing like English's.

The stats show a very clear discrepancy in contested possessions too. English kills Stanley in everything except for hitouts and one-percenters. And he actually beats Stanley in hitouts anyway!

To be honest, I'm not 100% disagreeing with you. When you say "Rhys Stanley has always been a bad mark, useless up forward, useless down back. He does not roam the ground the same way English does, nor does he have an intercept game. Ask any Geelong fan and they will tell you the same thing: he's a solid citizen who plays his role and competes. His playing style is nothing like English's," I'm not disputing any of that. We all agree that he doesn't have English's upside.

What you got into a fight about before, and where I agree with Claudonius is when you described Stanley as "a strong, physical ruckman" brought in to take English apart. Whereas both I and (I think) Claudonius believe Stanley is just a standard, garden variety B/C-Grade ruckman - actually that he is on the less physical side of the ruck spectrum.

Now you think we both have no idea. Maybe you're right. But I just wanted to be very specific about what it is we are disagreeing about. No one is suggesting that Stanley sees himself as a tall midfielder or anything like that.

 

[BulldogsTV]

The stats show a very clear discrepancy in contested possessions too. English kills Stanley in everything except for hitouts and one-percenters. And he actually beats Stanley in hitouts anyway!

To be honest, I'm not 100% disagreeing with you. When you say "Rhys Stanley has always been a bad mark, useless up forward, useless down back. He does not roam the ground the same way English does, nor does he have an intercept game. Ask any Geelong fan and they will tell you the same thing: he's a solid citizen who plays his role and competes. His playing style is nothing like English's," I'm not disputing any of that. We all agree that he doesn't have English's upside.

What you got into a fight about before, and where I agree with Claudonius is when you described Stanley as "a strong, physical ruckman" brought in to take English apart. Whereas both I and (I think) Claudonius believe Stanley is just a standard, garden variety B/C-Grade ruckman - actually that he is on the less physical side of the ruck spectrum.

Now you think we both have no idea. Maybe you're right. But I just wanted to be very specific about what it is we are disagreeing about. No one is suggesting that Stanley sees himself as a tall midfielder or anything like that.

I'm not going to get that deep into the semantics of exactly what type of ruckman Stanley is. However, relative to English, he is clearly a more physical ruckman, and noticeably imposed himself in the stoppages on Saturday in a way English didn't (or couldn't).

Now you think we both have no idea. Maybe you're right. But I just wanted to be very specific about what it is we are disagreeing about. No one is suggesting that Stanley sees himself as a tall midfielder or anything like that.

The other poster said this:

Stanley was brought in because he was fit, not because English was playing.

Stanley has never been considered a strong physical type.He is a very similar player if you ask me.

Suggesting that Stanley "is a very similar player" to English is simply incorrect.

 

[doggiesin08]

Oliver G do you have data on the average number of clearances per game league wide? Noting Libba’s huge clearance numbers and Stanley’s career high hit-outs had me looking at the data for this round and our game looks a huge outlier.

Across the other 8 games the total clearance counts (both teams combined) ranged from 68 to 78 with an average of 73, whereas our game had 97 clearances: 33% more than the average and 24% more than the next highest count.

 

[Oliver G]

Oliver G do you have data on the average number of clearances per game league wide? Noting Libba’s huge clearance numbers and Stanley’s career high hit-outs had me looking at the data for this round and our game looks a huge outlier.

Across the other 8 games the total clearance counts (both teams combined) ranged from 68 to 78 with an average of 73, whereas our game had 97 clearances: 33% more than the average and 24% more than the next highest count.

For / Against / Differential

 

[doggiesin08]

For / Against / Differential

View attachment 1953401

Thanks, looks from that data that the 73 clearances per game average from this round ex our game holds up across rounds (assuring this is 2024 data) and 97 clearances in a single game is a huge outlier.

 

[Oliver G]

Thanks, looks from that data that the 73 clearances per game average from this round ex our game holds up across rounds (assuring this is 2024 data) and 97 clearances in a single game is a huge outlier.

Correct, 97 clearances is the current season record.

 

[grassman75]

Most things that could have gone Geelong's way tonight did, from an umpiring and luck perspective.
They also happen to be a very good side in very good form.

Geelong played very solidly and didn't make many mistakes at all. The umpires allowed them to push the envelope in many ways, but they got away with it, so good luck for them.

We were a lot more uneven. Some amazing individual performances and some great play, balanced out by some below average performances and some howling clangers.


I think you are being a little too hard on some of the old guys and not hard enough on some of the young players. If Marra was a decent kick for goal, we win!

Sanders may have gotten plenty of the ball and played ok for such a young player, but tonight he wasn't really up to the level we needed or that we hope he will reach by the end of the season. A high possession count can often make a game look better than it was.

Personally, I would have subbed out Sanders instead of Daniel. VDM, Gallagher and Bramble would also have been reasonable candidates for being subbed off.

Of course, having Macrae as the sub in the first place was a dumb decision which predictably backfired.

Agree with everything prof except the subbing of Daniel. He stunk it up and I was calling for him to be subbed at half time

Buku copped two or 3 awful bounces very early in the first when he was first to the ball that went over his head or alluded him and fell straight into the lap of a Cats player to clear it easily

 

[grassman75]

Losing today tells this story: we had 4 players who were not up to AFL standard and proves we will not win the GF. CD was exposed today because he lacks physicality and Geelong masterfully exposed this weakness. VDM is a spud who cannot score under pressure and has poor skills. Naughton can’t tackle, plays out of position, provides little support for his peers and looks lost in the forward line. JJ very poor. Duryea’s poor kicking cost us at least two goals. English is a very weak ruck who was given a lesson by Blicavs. Only a dud coach doesn’t play McRae from the start. Cost us the game. TERRIBLY DISAPPOINTED!!!

You named 6 Perro….

 

[W W Biscuit]

1976-78, Dempsey and Templeton often in the best handful on the park, yet even with a final in 76, we lost far too many. 1978 especially - KT kicked bags, captain big Demps outpointed most rucks... people today complain about our bottom 6, 1978 some weeks we had a bottom 10 who failed to make an impact!

79-82 was probably worse though - Templeton, Jennings, Dunstan, a young Hawk and Jock, a smattering of others (Whitten Jnr, Neil Cordy, Wheels) and a lot of foot soldiers. Great grounding for a supporter though, surviving that made 2016 so much sweeter!

A final that we lost to Geelong.

 

[fpm84]

FWIW, I agree with the other guy - I'm no Rhys Stanley expert, but I seem to recall St Kilda trying to make him a ruckman who plays a lot in the forward line - which is not dissimilar to how we play English. Stanley's certainly not some bullocking monster like Mumford. I guess yes, he's more physical than Tim English cause EVERY ruckman is more physical than Tim English. But I would suggest he's a lot closer to the English end of the ruck spectrum than the Mumford end.

This is a spot on appraisal of Stanley’s game, he is absolutely not a physical, bullocking ruckman. His biggest attributes are his athleticism and his pace. He won a GF sprint when he was younger, and his skills around the ground are better than average for a 200cm guy.

Some of his best games for us have been against the athletic rucks like Naitanui and English. He struggles more against the old-school crash and bash guys, like Sean Darcy and previously, Lycett, Hickey and Mumford.

 

[lachy]

Who? I've seen several people reference a similar name, was that an MD-type poster?

A poster who comes up with a new alt regularly, post aggressively till found out then banned, then back again with a new alt.

 

[Dazb86]

I've lowered my expectations for the team too. I see us very much in a mini-rebuild mode for a year or two. The annoying thing is that Sanders cost us this year's 1st rounder as well so there's no upside at all to a so-so year.

Does feel like a rebuild to be honest. We may end up with one maybe 2 first rounders this year with some trades.

 

[Dazb86]

For / Against / Differential

View attachment 1953401

Essendon is very surprising

 

[stefoid]

For / Against / Differential

View attachment 1953401

An undefeated team has been smashed in ther clearances - worst in the league. Their opposition has been average so far, but still. It tells you something

 

[Dazb86]

An undefeated team has been smashed in ther clearances - worst in the league. Their opposition has been average so far, but still. It tells you something

It tells you Geelongs defensive lines and offensive lines are very good. With the 666 rule centre clearances should hold some weight.

 

[hutchy31]

An undefeated team has been smashed in ther clearances - worst in the league. Their opposition has been average so far, but still. It tells you something

Not only that, but one of the other undefeated teams is 2nd worst (Carlton), and the other (GWS) is breaking even. I wonder if this is indicative of the game evolving away from that being as important a stat as it used to be (it'll always be important, just maybe less so).

Alternatively, they've just had a nice run in the fixture to start the season. You can't argue with their results, but Geelong haven't played a top 4-6 team yet imo (none of their opponents might make finals) and GWS have played one away game and that was against the worst team in the comp. They've also only played a slow-starting pies team, the second worst team in the comp, and GC on a neutral ground. They should be 4-0 with a good percentage so have only done what's expected, let's see what happens when their fixture heats up (fwiw I think they're a certainty for top four, but we'll see).

Carlton probably have the more impressive start with the away win in Brisbane and beating a decent (if boring) Freo side - although three of their wins with very close margins and the only decent margin being against North.

Although they've lost a game each, I'd say Port and Melbourne have been the best-performing teams so far. If they both come up with commanding wins this week against decent opposition then I'd guess that the discussion might turn towards them being the flag fancies. Not sure any of the undefeated teams can lay down a big marker given their opposition.

 

[geoffjennings79]

A final that we lost to Geelong.

A final we led until deep into the last quarter. Until then we'd played Geelong in 2 finals:

• we lost the 1953 prelim to them (after winning our first ever final the week before)
• beat them in the 1954 semi after they finished top and us second (they went out in straight sets)

Since then, from 1976 onwards, it's been a trail of misery in finals against them.

92 QF and PF
94 QF
95 QF
08 PF
09 PF

 

[Dogs Rule]

So can anyone think of any reason why Naughton wasn't moved onto Cameraon on Saturday to at least make him accountable? Why we didn't tell someone to just sit on Miers? Why are we coached so poorly? It's like they just sit up their like stunned mullets.

 

[hutchy31]

So can anyone think of any reason why Naughton wasn't moved onto Cameraon on Saturday to at least make him accountable? Why we didn't tell someone to just sit on Miers? Why are we coached so poorly? It's like they just sit up their like stunned mullets.

I think one of the indictments on Bevo's coaching (and the coaching group more broadly in recent years) is that they exclusively back in our system to beat the other teams. I'm sure there is opposition research and planning, but it often doesn't seem like it. In-game adjustments also commonly look superficial or ineffective.

Miers will carve you up if you give him space between the midfield and forward lines, and he was roaming there slicing through the defense all game. Cameron moved up the ground knowing we didn't have a defender that could live with him there, unless they were smaller and in which case he'd dominate them anyway. He's admittedly a hard match up but he plays like that a lot and you'd have thought we would have something to throw at them.

Conversely, Hawkins and Stewart were kept pretty quiet at either end so maybe you need to pick your poison and can't stop everything, but it was a glaring issue on Saturday.

Chris Scott seems to be the opposite, in that he designs a plan against each team to exploit their weaknesses. When they play against some other teams I've no doubt Cameron will play deep forward and Hawkins will roam - with Miers maybe playing wider to exploit weaknesses there. Geelong obviously have a core game plan and system, but it feels more malleable to change to suit the opponent. Bulldogs much less so.

 

[Dogs Rule]

I think one of the indictments on Bevo's coaching (and the coaching group more broadly in recent years) is that they exclusively back in our system to beat the other teams. I'm sure there is opposition research and planning, but it often doesn't seem like it. In-game adjustments also commonly look superficial or ineffective.

Miers will carve you up if you give him space between the midfield and forward lines, and he was roaming there slicing through the defense all game. Cameron moved up the ground knowing we didn't have a defender that could live with him there, unless they were smaller and in which case he'd dominate them anyway. He's admittedly a hard match up but he plays like that a lot and you'd have thought we would have something to throw at them.

Conversely, Hawkins and Stewart were kept pretty quiet at either end so maybe you need to pick your poison and can't stop everything, but it was a glaring issue on Saturday.

Chris Scott seems to be the opposite, in that he designs a plan against each team to exploit their weaknesses. When they play against some other teams I've no doubt Cameron will play deep forward and Hawkins will roam - with Miers maybe playing wider to exploit weaknesses there. Geelong obviously have a core game plan and system, but it feels more malleable to change to suit the opponent. Bulldogs much less so.

I know it's a fine balance and you don't want to be reactionary in game, but you also don't want to just be asleep at the wheel and do nothing. Coaching doesn't end at the opening bounce and you're right, the set and forget strategy costs us dearly at times by either making no moves or making one or two token moves when the horse has well and truly bolted.

 

[Norm De Guerre]

I was a little disappointed in the half back run against the cats given its about the only place we have genuine pace. It's an area that must improve to be competitive.
That said, Geelong have quick smalls fwd who are not afraid to defend so it's challenging.

Dale and JJ are trying to give us the drive that we depend on out of half back. But it just isn't working with the fluidity that we have come to expect from them. I dont know if the precision that we have come to expect from Dales delivery has seemingly abandoned him because he's trying to bite off more than he can currently chew. Or if clubs understand that he an JJ are so fundamental to our attack that they are putting a lot of work into negating them. I presume that its a bit off column A and B.

Wouldn't it be lovely to have the luxury of having "quick smalls fwd who are not afraid to defend?"

2 and 2 with decent percentage is not terrible given we've played both Melbourne and Geelong. It's a start at least and there's scope for improvement. There's that I suppose.

Its unfortunate but Ive come to accept that we have a flawed and unbalanced list that lacks quality midfield depth. One that is destined for a mid table 7-11 place finish this year.

 

[stefoid]

Scott has been working with a decent gameplan for years so his team is well drilled, unlike ours.

They concentrate on the 2nd possession of a stoppage, while we seem to concentrate on the first.

 

[Charlie Bucket]

So can anyone think of any reason why Naughton wasn't moved onto Cameraon on Saturday to at least make him accountable? Why we didn't tell someone to just sit on Miers? Why are we coached so poorly? It's like they just sit up their like stunned mullets.

Why would the coach put Naughton on Cameron? He’d be carved up by Cameron working up and down the ground.

So not only would Naighton be completely ineffective down back, we’d lose any work he does up forward.