A Preseason Preview - Part 3 of 16 - Bulldogs

[pahoffm]

The Bulldogs - Is their bark worse than their bite.

Again, as it will be nearly completely Tiger supporters reading this thread I will try to get to the point without waffling on too much about the intricacies of the Western Bulldogs.
The Bulldogs have a mixture of old & new. Rodney Eade is the new but experienced coach, and he has assistance from: Leon Cameron, really a Bulldog but did spend some time with us; Matthew Drain, moving from administration to coaching; Chris Bond, ex-Tiger; and Alan Richardson, ex-coach of our 2002 Coburg finals side. Their list including rookies is:

Player Ht Wt Age
Street 209 105 24
Bandy 200 103 29
Wight 200 91 19
Minson 199 98 19
Darcy 198 100 29
Rawlings 196 95 27
Skipper 196 91 22
Walsh 196 94 19
Morgan 195 94 23
Wells 195 94 18 New
Williams 195 86 18 New
Harris 194 94 23
Grant 193 98 32
Harrison 191 96 30
Bowden 191 91 23
Tiller 191 73 17 New
Hargrave 190 86 23
Morris 190 86 22 Rookie
McGuinness 190 90 21
Cross 188 85 22
Power 188 83 21
Murphy B 188 82 20
Koops 187 85 26
Griffen 187 85 18 New
Hahn 186 94 23
McMahon 186 77 21
Cooney 186 81 19
Thompson 186 72 19
Murphy R 184 82 22
Boyd 184 85 21
Smith 183 85 31
Birss 183 80 22
Ray 183 75 19
Johnson 182 85 28
McCormack 182 73 17
West 181 80 30
Giansiracusa 181 81 23
Nayna 181 77 19 Rookie
Eagleton 180 80 26
Gilbee 180 80 23
Robbins 178 84 27
Fawkner 178 80 20


The Bulldog's list has 4 new players compared to our 10 new faces. This has a lot to do with the big turnover of players at the Bulldogs over the last few years. It is interesting that they've listed 2 rookies, the same as us, for much the same reason.

The Bulldog's list can be redistributed into a spread which goes:

Twilight = 28+yo
Prime = 25-27yo
Development = 22-24yo
Junior = 18-21yo

Dogs
<180 Small Runners
Twilight: 0
Prime: Robbins 27
Development: 0
Junior: Fawkner 20

Tigers
<180 Small Runners
Twilight: 0
Prime: 0
Development: Krakouer 22,
Junior: Rodan 21, Foley 20,

Dogs     
180-184 Smaller Mediums
Twilight: Smith 31, West 30, Johnson 28
Prime: Eagleton 26
Development: Giansiracusa 23, Gilbee 23, RMurphy 22, Birss 22
Junior: Boyd 21, Ray 19, Nayna 19, McCormack 17

Tigers
180-184 Smaller Mediums
Twilight: Chaffey 28
Prime: Brown 27,
Development: Pettifer 23, Newman 23, Hyde 22,
Junior: Hartigan 20, Gilmour 19, Roach 19, Meyer 18, Raines 18, Tambling 18,

Dogs
185-189 Taller Mediums
Twilight: 0
Prime: Koops 26
Development: Hahn 23, Cross 22
Junior: Power 21, McMahon 21, BMurphy 20, Cooney 19, Thompson 19, Griffen 18

Tigers
185-189 Taller Mediums
Twilight: Campbell 32
Prime: Bowden 27, Johnson 27, Hilton 26, Tivendale 26,
Development: Tuck 23, Coughlan 23,
Junior: Jackson 19, Deledio 18, Polo 18,

Dogs 
190-194 Mobile Key Position
Twilight: Grant 32, Harrison 30
Prime: 0
Development: Harris 23, Bowden 23, Hargrave 23, Morris 22
Junior: McGuiness 21, Tiller 17

Tigers
190-194 Mobile Key Position
Twilight: Graham 32, Gaspar 29, Kellaway 29
Prime: 0
Development: Morrison 24,
Junior: Moore 21, Schulz 20, Archibald 19, Thursfield 19, McGuane 18, Limbach 17

Dogs 
195-199 Key Position/ Ruck
Twilight: Darcy 29
Prime: Rawlings 27
Development: Morgan 23, Skipper 22
Junior: Minson 19, Walsh 19, Wells 18, Williams 18

Tigers
195-199 Key Position/ Ruck
Twilight: Richardson 30
Prime: Simmonds 27,
Development: Hall 24,
Junior: Pattison 19

Dogs
200+ Ruck
Twilight: Bandy 29   
Prime: 0
Development: Street 24
Junior: Wight 19 

Tigers 
200+ Ruck
Twilight: Stafford 30   
Prime: Knobel 25,
Development: 0
Junior: 0


The Bulldogs look well covered for Talls, KPPs, and Mediums. Although they've probably over-recruited in the area of taller mediums in the last couple of years. Where they drastically fall down are small ball getters. Over the last few years they've relied almost entirely on Smith, West & Johnson, with little success. Their lack of attention to genuine smalls is apparent, and their results reflect this deficiency. Like us the Bulldogs just can't keep the ball flowing out of the centre for 4 quarters. They have recruited more outside midfielders which partially covers this hole. Until they address the situation with small ball getters, and they're still yet to, they won't be cutting up any sides.


The depth of the Bulldogs, in covering injuries, can be seen as follows:

B: Birss 22 Harris 23 Harrison 30
Nayna 19 Skipper 22 Hargrave 23
                          Walsh 19

HB: Cross 22 Morgan 23 Gilbee 23
Morris 22 McGuiness 21 Power 21
             Tiller 17     Boyd 21

C: Koops 27 West 30 Murphy R 22
Thompson 19 Cooney 19 Murphy B 20

HF: Bowden 23 Rawlings 27 Johnson 28
McMahon 21 Wells 18        Giansiracusa 23
Griffen 18                        McCormack 17

F: Darcy 29 Grant 32 Eagleton 26
Minson 19 Williams 18

R: Bandy 29 Smith 31 Robbins 27
Street 24 Hahn 23 Fawkner 20
Wight 19 Ray 19


The Bulldog's coverage of the field looks better this year as many of their juniors have now come up into the development zone. This is more evident in their defence and also their forward and back flankers.

Conclusion:
The Bulldogs seem relatively easy to place. A new but experienced coach with stable assistants. A list that has changed little but is now maturing into the vital development/prime zones in their defence and flanks. They will improve this year, but they will struggle for their wins as they lack those types of players that do move the ball quickly. They'll go up 2 or 3 places but until they really address the area of inside midfielders then they're far from becoming consistent finals contenders in the coming years.

Again, I welcome your response.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

Agreed Phanto.IMO of the bottom 3 the doggies have the scope to improve dramatically.maybe not finals yet but their list like you said are now maturing and with a coach like Eade i expect them to suprise a few this year

 

[pahoffm]

Yes.

I thought Rohde had to cop the brunt for having to replenish the Bulldog list after Wallace's tenure. I don't know if Rohde had the goods to be senior coach, but he had admirably seen to the recruitment of some very good juniors, especially talls, that will stand the Bullies in good stead for years to come.

 

[mb64]

Bulldogs to me are an unknown quantity this year.Had a couple of impressive wins last year but not often enough.Could be a surprise packet.

 

[dmx]

Like the kid Boyd, got some interesting assignments last year, and didnt shirk the issue. Played like a more experienced player, and it surprised me that he is only 21.

 

[pahoffm]

Bulldogs to me are an unknown quantity this year.Had a couple of impressive wins last year but not often enough.Could be a surprise packet.

I agree. The ones that I'll be interested in will be those young kpps like Harris, Skipper & Morgan, and their young mediums such as Birss, Cross, Power et al.

You're right dmx, Boyd too will be an interesting one to follow, but like many of his peers he must get into the game far more often.

 

[Tiger in a Tube]

Phant - I enjoy going thru' your analysis and appreciate the considerable thought and work that's clearly gone into it, but because it's based on age, it drags all the players back to one ability level. And that's not a true reflection of reality.

If the aim of this analysis is to work out how the club will perform in 2005, then I'm not sure it's that succesful.

Ability is key and will be different for individuals and is much more subjective that performing a categorisation based on age.

I think that an analysis/breakdown based on ability would be even more useful.

eg:
Game Breaker = what it says on the box. Able to turn a game at will. . .on their own
Superstar = able to turn a game given assistance from team
Good Ordinary = Not making up the numbers, but not spectacular
Stepping up = Had a dud previous year and now needs to "step up"
Last Chance = Had a dud year and isn't really in the squad for any other reason that their contract or they are making up the numbers.
(So. . .guess I'd better come up with one then eh? )
I was going to post this under your original Tiger analysis, but . . .well didn't so here it is.

But back to the Bullies. I don't know enough about the ability of their mobile Keys, but ours are unknown because of their age. Much has been made of our fleet of fast mediums and smalls, but I don't think you win flag with that. You need that AND a quality CHF. A fleet of high quality running players + an average CHF is going to finish further up the ladder than a team with a quality CHF and average runners. . .IMHO.

Based on that, we'll finish above the Dogs . . .

 

[Stu]

Then the analisys is more open to interpretation on individual players, not facts
It already is to a degree re playing positions and how important each type of player is to a side, but catagorising players on one opinion is just going to end up as an endless debate

The dogs should have beaten us in 2004, we were lucky to get away with that one. They should be knocking on the door of the 8 in 2005

 

[pahoffm]

Phant - I enjoy going thru' your analysis and appreciate the considerable thought and work that's clearly gone into it, but because it's based on age, it drags all the players back to one ability level. And that's not a true reflection of reality.

If the aim of this analysis is to work out how the club will perform in 2005, then I'm not sure it's that succesful.

Ability is key and will be different for individuals and is much more subjective that performing a categorisation based on age.

I think that an analysis/breakdown based on ability would be even more useful.

eg:
Game Breaker = what it says on the box. Able to turn a game at will. . .on their own
Superstar = able to turn a game given assistance from team
Good Ordinary = Not making up the numbers, but not spectacular
Stepping up = Had a dud previous year and now needs to "step up"
Last Chance = Had a dud year and isn't really in the squad for any other reason that their contract or they are making up the numbers.
(So. . .guess I'd better come up with one then eh?    )
I was going to post this under your original Tiger analysis, but . . .well didn't so here it is.

But back to the Bullies.  I don't know enough about the ability of their mobile Keys, but ours are unknown because of their age.  Much has been made of our fleet of fast mediums and smalls, but I don't think you win flag with that. You need that AND a quality CHF. A fleet of high quality running players + an average CHF is going to finish further up the ladder than a team with a quality CHF and average runners. . .IMHO.

Based on that, we'll finish above the Dogs . . .

See your point but Hts & Ages are facts. Ability assessments are subjective unless they can be quantified.
Just trying to keep the analysis objective.

Maybe Games and Goals should be used as an assessment criteria in an analysis. Anybody else is welcome to do so.

 

[Joshnbeks Dad]

The lack of "Prime" players on the doggies list is noticable and concerning as this is the age bracket for players who Wallace would have developed.

 

[pahoffm]

The lack of "Prime" players on the doggies list is noticable and concerning as this is the age bracket for players who Wallace would have developed.

Yes, it does irritate a raw nerve. Some of us were aware of Wallace's recruiting record prior to him coming to Tigerland.
I suppose we will have to remain vigilant.

 

[tigertough12]

The lack of "Prime" players on the doggies list is noticable and concerning as this is the age bracket for players who Wallace would have developed.

Yes, it does irritate a raw nerve. Some of us were aware of Wallace's recruiting record prior to him coming to Tigerland.
I suppose we will have to remain vigilant.

Thats why we have a man called GREG MILLER to look after this sort of thing (recruiting of players that is)

Plough looks after coaching and development of players already on the list.

 

[pahoffm]

Yes, and a good thing to that we have Greg. We look forward to the fruits of them working together in the not so distant future.

 

[Pomsta]

Fair bit of class in the development section of the small mediums, something that we are seriously lacking. However in a couple of years this will be strength a the Tiges.

 

[pahoffm]

Fair bit of class in the development section of the small mediums, something that we are seriously lacking. However in a couple of years this will be strength a the Tiges.

Agreed, but I'd still also love to have that same class in our rovers.

 

[CHF]

Phantom,

I have read the first three of your rpeviews with interest. As I am a Melbourne supporter I will read the Melbourne review with particular interest.

I think the format is interesting in that it reflects the list structure very well and gives you the opportunity to see where weakness is and where it might develop in the future. it also allows you to gague the depth at the club especially when you have the list of your own club as a known factor to use as a standard.

Well done.

Would you mind if I used this format to have a look at our own list and then post it to the board at Demonology?

When I looked at the Doggies list I was surprised at the apparent depth of the younger kids coming through. I can also see the future of the club over the next couple of years will require the younger players to really come on to cover the immenent retirement of some key 'twilight' players.

I see the doggies and the tigers in different situations. the Doggies have some good developing young players but they will be losing a lot of experience in the next few years. The Tigers are almost in the position of being ahead of them, but behind them. Ahead in that they have culled and moved on a lot of the older 'dead wood' but behind them in terms of developing youngsters and list structure.

Hope that makes sense and, once again, well done.

 

[pahoffm]

You are welcome to use my format as long as you obey literary conventions and publish its origin. I suggest you use my real name Michael Pahoff so they'll know who you're talking about.

By the way sent my regards to my old friend Michael Givoni, it's been a while since I've seen him. I've heard he's done some really great things for Spotless catering, Telstra Dome and the MelbourneFC.

 

[Chiang Mai Tiger]

You are welcome to use my format as long as you obey literary conventions and publish its origin. I suggest you use my real name Michael Pahoff so they'll know who you're talking about.

Ahhhh so thats who you really are

 

[CHF]

You are welcome to use my format as long as you obey literary conventions and publish its origin. I suggest you use my real name Michael Pahoff so they'll know who you're talking about.

By the way sent my regards to my old friend Michael Givoni, it's been a while since I've seen him. I've heard he's done some really great things for Spotless catering, Telstra Dome and the MelbourneFC.

I knew your name from earlier visits here. Thank you for that I will be sure to credit you with the format.

A question. what do you think of my comment regarding the respective lists of the doggies and Tigers?

 

[pahoffm]

Yes, I think you're pretty right. Footscray's rebuilding comes as no surprise to me though, I've been watching it for the last couple of years. They still need young rovers.