 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Nathan Buckley - What should the club do with him? |
| Sack him now, it's over |
|
38% |
[ 60 ] |
| Sack him mid-season, we aren't at DEFCON 1 just yet |
|
3% |
[ 5 ] |
| Sack him end of season, give him a dignified exit as he warms the seat |
|
14% |
[ 22 ] |
| Decide end of season (still think he's the man) |
|
14% |
[ 23 ] |
| Decide end of season (he's lost me) |
|
4% |
[ 7 ] |
| Decide end of season (I genuinely don't know) |
|
16% |
[ 26 ] |
| Extend him now, he is The Chosen One! |
|
8% |
[ 13 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 156 |
|
| Author |
Message |
MarkOSuv
Joined: 22 Mar 2017
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
If you understand your football and it's systems you will see the very good coaches in Clarkson and Beveridge don't change their defensive structures because it's predictable to their players to follow.
Last year, Buckley started the year with defenders guarding space in the zone. It was very easy to get through and players such as Nathan Brown looked all at sea because he couldn't make the space up on the turnover and it was seeing record numbers conceded in the defensive 50.
He then changed later in the year to a zone that was more focused guarding the direct player. That resulted in less marks conceded in the defensive 50 as opponents weren't caught at sea ball watching.
A coach who constantly changes his defensive structures is a poor coach. It makes players second guess and not trust their natural game. It also creates unpredictability in an area of the ground that needs to be water tight.
Sadly for Bucks, his defensive zone has cost him his job. |
|
|
|
 |
thompsoc
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ThePieMind wrote: | | thompsoc wrote: | | MarkOSuv wrote: | | Jpies wrote: | | If there is a flaw in our game plan, it is our entry to the forward line. |
Incorrect.
They just had Champion Data on SEN and showed last night that the Bulldogs scored 10 goals due to Collingwood's defensive press falling down and their players having greater numbers (sometimes free) in their forward 50. That is a structure issue and nothing to do with forward entry. |
I thought it was 8 by the naked eye.
So 10 it was.
we pick 3 big guys up forward.
they congest our forward line
they get it over the top.
they score 10 goals this way.
Have you seen it before.
Yep Yep Yep.
Remember our constant zoning of the past.
Good sides just carved us up.
good sides just look at our past strategies and plan accordingly
Might be good if we mix things up
But no, it is process, process, process. |
LOL - 3 talls caused the over the top goals.
You're still feeling the effects of last nights slab |
No, playing 3 talls means you need to get it in quick to take the height advantage.
Get it in slow with congestion means they have an advantage of ground level players.
Press up high and presto out the back with sling shot efficiency goes the Dogs. |
|
|
|
|
ThePieMind
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| thompsoc wrote: | | ThePieMind wrote: | | thompsoc wrote: | | MarkOSuv wrote: | | Jpies wrote: | | If there is a flaw in our game plan, it is our entry to the forward line. |
Incorrect.
They just had Champion Data on SEN and showed last night that the Bulldogs scored 10 goals due to Collingwood's defensive press falling down and their players having greater numbers (sometimes free) in their forward 50. That is a structure issue and nothing to do with forward entry. |
I thought it was 8 by the naked eye.
So 10 it was.
we pick 3 big guys up forward.
they congest our forward line
they get it over the top.
they score 10 goals this way.
Have you seen it before.
Yep Yep Yep.
Remember our constant zoning of the past.
Good sides just carved us up.
good sides just look at our past strategies and plan accordingly
Might be good if we mix things up
But no, it is process, process, process. |
LOL - 3 talls caused the over the top goals.
You're still feeling the effects of last nights slab |
No, playing 3 talls means you need to get it in quick to take the height advantage.
Get it in slow with congestion means they have an advantage of ground level players.
Press up high and presto out the back with sling shot efficiency goes the Dogs. |
We never had 3 SLOW talls last night. Of our talls only Cox is slow, Grundy, Moore and White are all capable ground ball players.
AND you conveniently ignore that the high defensive line rebounded WB rebounds by a factor of at least 4-5 the compared to their OTT Goals.
The game is about I50's - the high line gives us the opportunity to do this - we converted I50's very poorly, that's the story from last night.
We score 3 more goals which we could have easily done and Bevo looks a dud and Bucks a genius.
That's what you need to consider, as unsettling as it is to your agenda. |
|
|
|
|
thompsoc
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
So you reckon that Moore, Grundy and White are at least equal to their Dogs opponents when the ball is on the ground or in terms of speed.
It didn't look like that last night to me.
As for the I50's.
Sides that play us seem to be happy with the I50 count going in our favor.
So long as our forward line is congested, which means we get more points than goals.
With an open forward line in their favor it is almost a certainty to score more goals than points.
We gave up 10 goals with this strategy.
A winning score is probably around 14 or so goals.
So the opponent needs to only score a goal or so a quarter in the conventional manner to win the game. |
|
|
|
|
ThePieMind
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| thompsoc wrote: | So you reckon that Moore, Grundy and White are at least equal to their Dogs opponents when the ball is on the ground or in terms of speed.
It didn't look like that last night to me.
As for the I50's.
Sides that play us seem to be happy with the I50 count going in our favor.
So long as our forward line is congested, which means we get more points than goals.
With an open forward line in their favor it is almost a certainty to score more goals than points.
We gave up 10 goals with this strategy.
A winning score is probably around 14 or so goals.
So the opponent needs to only score a goal or so a quarter in the conventional manner to win the game. |
More rubbish - which teams are happy to give up I50's to us?
That is just ridiculous.
We didn't give away 10 goals we gave away net 38 points, according to post game on FOX.
At least spend sometime quoting facts rather than speculation and conjecture.
Your anti Buckley bent is known but to distort reality to support it is very transparent. |
|
|
|
|
mooretreloar
Joined: 21 Sep 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Like stui, other than this post I am not going to waste my time and energy engaging with people (not members, supporters, fans) who know absolutely, I repeat absolutely, nothing about football.
The betting odds for last night's game had the Dogs $1.37 favourites, so everyone was expecting us to get smashed. However, we ran them to 14 points, so we must be doing something right. Apparently, they won the premiership in 2016 and are one of the best sides in the competition.
The loss last night had nothing at all to with Buckley.
The selection committee has some explaining to do, as to why we played such a tall side, which was a contributing factor to the loss.
As I posted in the post game thread, at the G last night I didn't see Buckley on the ground between the opening and closing siren for each quarter, nor did I see him make a skill execution error. The predominant reason for last night's loss was the poor skill execution by our players. Our skill level will improve when we are able to add the class players that were unavailable last night.
In conclusion, have fun in your absolutely inane thread, I hope you get your thrills out of it. |
|
|
|
|
MarkOSuv
Joined: 22 Mar 2017
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| mooretreloar wrote: | Like stui, other than this post I am not going to waste my time and energy engaging with people (not members, supporters, fans) who know absolutely, I repeat absolutely, nothing about football.
The betting odds for last night's game had the Dogs $1.37 favourites, so everyone was expecting us to get smashed. However, we ran them to 14 points, so we must be doing something right. Apparently, they won the premiership in 2016 and are one of the best sides in the competition.
The loss last night had nothing at all to with Buckley.
The selection committee has some explaining to do, as to why we played such a tall side, which was a contributing factor to the loss.
As I posted in the post game thread, at the G last night I didn't see Buckley on the ground between the opening and closing siren for each quarter, nor did I see him make a skill execution error. The predominant reason for last night's loss was the poor skill execution by our players. Our skill level will improve when we are able to add the class players that were unavailable last night.
In conclusion, have fun in your absolutely inane thread, I hope you get your thrills out of it. |
If you base the results of games on betting markets than you sadly have NFI with all due respect.
Given the Dogs started the preseason 5 weeks after than every club apart from Sydney, there was no better time to play them as they will progressively get better as the season evolves. |
|
|
|
|
ThePieMind
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| MarkOSuv wrote: | | mooretreloar wrote: | Like stui, other than this post I am not going to waste my time and energy engaging with people (not members, supporters, fans) who know absolutely, I repeat absolutely, nothing about football.
The betting odds for last night's game had the Dogs $1.37 favourites, so everyone was expecting us to get smashed. However, we ran them to 14 points, so we must be doing something right. Apparently, they won the premiership in 2016 and are one of the best sides in the competition.
The loss last night had nothing at all to with Buckley.
The selection committee has some explaining to do, as to why we played such a tall side, which was a contributing factor to the loss.
As I posted in the post game thread, at the G last night I didn't see Buckley on the ground between the opening and closing siren for each quarter, nor did I see him make a skill execution error. The predominant reason for last night's loss was the poor skill execution by our players. Our skill level will improve when we are able to add the class players that were unavailable last night.
In conclusion, have fun in your absolutely inane thread, I hope you get your thrills out of it. |
If you base the results of games on betting markets than you sadly have NFI with all due respect.
Given the Dogs started the preseason 5 weeks after than every club apart from Sydney, there was no better time to play them as they will progressively get better as the season evolves. |
Like he said only those that don't understand the game think Buckley is the root of all evil. |
|
|
|
|
thompsoc
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ThePieMind wrote: | | thompsoc wrote: | So you reckon that Moore, Grundy and White are at least equal to their Dogs opponents when the ball is on the ground or in terms of speed.
It didn't look like that last night to me.
As for the I50's.
Sides that play us seem to be happy with the I50 count going in our favor.
So long as our forward line is congested, which means we get more points than goals.
With an open forward line in their favor it is almost a certainty to score more goals than points.
We gave up 10 goals with this strategy.
A winning score is probably around 14 or so goals.
So the opponent needs to only score a goal or so a quarter in the conventional manner to win the game. |
More rubbish - which teams are happy to give up I50's to us?
That is just ridiculous.
We didn't give away 10 goals we gave away net 38 points, according to post game on FOX.
At least spend sometime quoting facts rather than speculation and conjecture.
Your anti Buckley bent is known but to distort reality to support it is very transparent. |
Do you honestly think they didn't plan for big forwards, high defensive press,
and a highly rated some say number one midfield in the comp.
They knew we were going to keep pumping it into the forwards with the usual bomb it slow and bomb it long Bux forward strategy.
Given they are 5 weeks or more behind us in prep time they did enough in second gear to beat us.
I don't think you understand footy that much.
Tell me the good attributes of Bux coaching credentials.
Tell me the attributes that has shone in 5 years that has the footy world clapping.
Tell me about his game day tactics, his game day strategies, his development of players, tell me of his innovation in his coaching.
Give me some examples!!!!!
But no we get the usual "i am a anti bux troll" or whatever |
|
|
|
|
MarkOSuv
Joined: 22 Mar 2017
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Why do supporters defend Buckley despite a diminishing win/loss record and finishing position every year and the same basic issues being inherit for 5 years? Surely they are unable to seperate the player from the coach. |
|
|
|
|
CarringbushCigar 
Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Location: wherever I lay my beanie
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| mooretreloar wrote: |
The loss last night had nothing at all to with Buckley.
The selection committee has some explaining to do, as to why we played such a tall side, which was a contributing factor to the loss.
|
As the great Harry Hoo said:
"Amazing!! Moment please, one possibility Mr Mooretreloar is losing his mind" |
|
|
|
|
ThePieMind
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| thompsoc wrote: | | ThePieMind wrote: | | thompsoc wrote: | So you reckon that Moore, Grundy and White are at least equal to their Dogs opponents when the ball is on the ground or in terms of speed.
It didn't look like that last night to me.
As for the I50's.
Sides that play us seem to be happy with the I50 count going in our favor.
So long as our forward line is congested, which means we get more points than goals.
With an open forward line in their favor it is almost a certainty to score more goals than points.
We gave up 10 goals with this strategy.
A winning score is probably around 14 or so goals.
So the opponent needs to only score a goal or so a quarter in the conventional manner to win the game. |
More rubbish - which teams are happy to give up I50's to us?
That is just ridiculous.
We didn't give away 10 goals we gave away net 38 points, according to post game on FOX.
At least spend sometime quoting facts rather than speculation and conjecture.
Your anti Buckley bent is known but to distort reality to support it is very transparent. |
Do you honestly think they didn't plan for big forwards, high defensive press,
and a highly rated some say number one midfield in the comp.
They knew we were going to keep pumping it into the forwards with the usual bomb it slow and bomb it long Bux forward strategy.
Given they are 5 weeks or more behind us in prep time they did enough in second gear to beat us.
I don't think you understand footy that much.
Tell me the good attributes of Bux coaching credentials.
Tell me the attributes that has shone in 5 years that has the footy world clapping.
Tell me about his game day tactics, his game day strategies, his development of players, tell me of his innovation in his coaching.
Give me some examples!!!!!
But no we get the usual "i am a anti bux troll" or whatever |
I have a very simple metric - we have closed the gap against the best, and made great progress in this area last year compared to 2015.
That is the bottom line in assessing a coaches list development - not ladder position, because young lists are inconsistent often losing game they should win.
So progress against the best is ALL that counts.
And I like to compare us to GEEL who from the same stage in 2011, have been flat track bullies losing 6 of their last 8 finals, while resetting and not rebuilding. So would you have been happy to have made finals and then bundled out?
So where has this focus on resetting really got GEEL ?
Would you swap their list for ours?
Putting aside the fact that Scott has never beaten Buckley, we have got a list that will contend far earlier than they will.
So that for me is a huge positive with this fair basis of comparison to GEEL, who are considered a benchmark in the comp.
Buck is doing fine, especially when all other factors are considered.
So now sport why don't you tell me why closing the gap against the best, IS NOT the most important metric.
And why the much lauded GEEL. IS BETTER placed than us going forward because they have implemented a superior list management strategy than Buckleys rebuild.
Last edited by ThePieMind on Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
kymbo5@yahoo.com.au
Joined: 23 Mar 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| thompsoc wrote: | | ThePieMind wrote: | | thompsoc wrote: | So you reckon that Moore, Grundy and White are at least equal to their Dogs opponents when the ball is on the ground or in terms of speed.
It didn't look like that last night to me.
As for the I50's.
Sides that play us seem to be happy with the I50 count going in our favor.
So long as our forward line is congested, which means we get more points than goals.
With an open forward line in their favor it is almost a certainty to score more goals than points.
We gave up 10 goals with this strategy.
A winning score is probably around 14 or so goals.
So the opponent needs to only score a goal or so a quarter in the conventional manner to win the game. |
More rubbish - which teams are happy to give up I50's to us?
That is just ridiculous.
We didn't give away 10 goals we gave away net 38 points, according to post game on FOX.
At least spend sometime quoting facts rather than speculation and conjecture.
Your anti Buckley bent is known but to distort reality to support it is very transparent. |
Do you honestly think they didn't plan for big forwards, high defensive press,
and a highly rated some say number one midfield in the comp.
They knew we were going to keep pumping it into the forwards with the usual bomb it slow and bomb it long Bux forward strategy.
Given they are 5 weeks or more behind us in prep time they did enough in second gear to beat us.
I don't think you understand footy that much.
Tell me the good attributes of Bux coaching credentials.
Tell me the attributes that has shone in 5 years that has the footy world clapping.
Tell me about his game day tactics, his game day strategies, his development of players, tell me of his innovation in his coaching.
Give me some examples!!!!!
But no we get the usual "i am a anti bux troll" or whatever |
That's your answer to everything Thompsoc. "Give me an example and I'll accept your view"
Well you tried this on me last year with Blair, I gave you more than one example, it was fact and you still then found excuses for your wrong views. So give you examples, no I won't waste my time and neither should anyone else because no matter how many examples we give you, you are too blind or too stuck in your view to change. I suggest you come up with another line.
_________________
kymbo |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I'm not here to express any view about Buckley. I do think, however, that there's been a tendency to over-talk last night's effort - the team that beat us is not in the top 4 sides in the competition. It wasn't last year, either. It played some good footy at the right time of the year, that's all. Plainly, the Welfare are a lot better than us, skillwise - but we're not the yardstick, at the moment. |
|
|
|
|
CarringbushCigar
Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Location: wherever I lay my beanie
|
| Post subject: | |
|
How many matches have we lost with these over the top/rebound goals?
It was only the desperation and better fitness of our squad that saved our ass from it being a lot more.
I don't have the answers to fix it, but I reckon MarkOSuv is probably on the right track when he states that we push too far up.
I think we have improved our kicking skills and we look to be a very fit hard running side.
Got me stuffed why the rebound easy goals keeps happening almost every week with no observable attempt to adjust.
Feel sorry for Reid Maynard Howe Ramsay who seem to be responsible for saving our ass time and time again.
We are out-playing our opponents and getting out-coached every second week. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
