Dogaholic
First Grade
- Messages
- 5,075
Quite a good read...
source: http://www.rleague.com/db/article.php?id=29217
Wednesday 19 Sep 2007 11:04
by Terry Hall (Reader Submitted Article)
Four losses in a row, two of them finals games and the Bulldogs exit the 2007 NRL competition with a whimper - not the roar continually talked-up in the press by the players. That elusive performance so often promised and so rarely delivered this year.
So, what went wrong?
If you ask the fans, the problems are many and varied. Anything from the coach to the club culture; backline speed to match fitness and everything in between have been identified as possible reasons for a disappointing 2007.
If you ask Steve Folkes, he doesn't know either - at least not yet anyway.
The number one problem seems to be back-line speed - or is it?
One school of thought advocates wholesale changes to the Dogs' backline on the premise that it is slow and has an inability to convert line-breaks (Dogs led the competition in this area) into points - particularly against the stronger teams.
And that assumption might be true but I would argue that based on the evidence (ie 2007 performances) we don't actually KNOW that yet (yes, we know the Bulldogs do not have the fastest back-line in the league, but is that THE problem).
I would also argue that the Bulldogs, in their post-season review need to identify and treat these perceived problems systematically (ie prioritised, IN ORDER) to see just how big they actually are.
Addressing the most important one(s) may just prove that some of the lesser problems are actually not problems at all. And what's more, if they try to address them out of order, they risk either missing the "root cause" or focussing needless energy on things that never needed fixing - or worse, inadvertently "fixing" a strength.
As everybody seems to have an opinion on what the problems are, I thought I would jot mine down in print.
So I have listed what I think the major problems (IN ORDER) faced by the 2007 Bulldogs as they begin to prepare for their campaign for 2008; realising that as they are fixed (or dismissed), the one's below them may cease being problems.
PROBLEM 1: Myth, perception & current rule interpretation
At the ruck, given two identical plays, one where a Bulldog gets out quick and captures the dummy-half and a second where an opposition grabs the Dogs' dummy-half; it is more than likely that the Dogs will lose a tackle "because the Bulldogs are slow from dummy-half" whereas the opposition will gain a penalty "because the Dogs markers are never square".
Add to this the infuriating prevalence of "the big step forward or sideways" that many teams now employ to "assist" in getting the markers offside and suddenly we're back to "touch footy" (Circa 2001).
Is it any surprise that big, dominating forwards have less impact in the "modern" game while a ref's penalty has more impact than ever - especially the one's they DO NOT give.
SOLUTION 1: ADAPT! Easy to say but this particular problem needs three things to occur simultaneously.
(A) Fitness: at times during the year, particularly in the latter 10 mins of each half the Dogs looked absolutely exhausted - nothing left in the tank. Endurance, once a Bulldog strength has somehow become an Achilles' Heal. With the game quickening, fitness is more important than ever.
This off-season, I would be focussing less on weights and bulking up and more on endurance training. The Bulldogs need to be able to keep going when other teams tire. This is the traditional "way of the Dogs". Let's see a return to this.
What's more, a less fatigued team will make less mistakes in attack and defence and incur less penalties as well. They might even get a few more as they begin to finish over the top of the opposition. If this isn't fixed for next year (with the benefit of a full off-season) then I would be seriously sounding out Billy Johnstone to find out how much it would take to bring him "home".
(B) Ruck Technique (attack & defence): This is crucial. Are the Dogs the slowest in the league? When the Bulldogs are tackled they need to stop getting "rolled" onto their back. They need to practice, practice and practice again the art of getting a quick play-the-ball. Bring in outside help if it's needed. Let's see some urgency for the next play (without spilling it). This is most important for the big forward pack that will rely on this to set-up the momentum that makes these guys so dangerous.
Similarly, in defence they need to practice, practice and practice again how to legitimately slow the ruck by getting numbers in defence. Again, get in outside help if it's needed. Effective tackling is needed more so than big hits. Big hits are what you bring out to mentally destroy a team (for next time) AFTER you have dominated the ruck and blunted the opposition's go forward. The Dogs have lost their "Aura" because they have forgotten how they got it in the first place.
(C) A deliberate strategy (both media and official channels) to reverse the misconception that the Dogs somehow infringe more than other teams. RUBBISH!!! They're just penalised more.
Firstly, the CEO and Coach need to be quite vocal in the pre-season and throughout next year in the press and directly to the administration about what the officials are doing (or not doing) and most importantly, what they should be doing. Pressure must be applied to them (they won't do it voluntarily) to referee both sides fairly. In this modern age the NRL are far more reactive to negative publicity than they are to sound reasoning ? so play it out in the press as required. These guys cannot just sit back and let other coaches dictate the "penalty scene" before a ball has been kicked. I'm sure Folkes has an opinion on this - so let's HEAR IT!
Secondly, Andrew Ryan needs to adopt this same approach on the field. He needs to get vocal, question the ref at ALL TIMES and use any break-down in play to point out the infringements of the opposition (particularly the one's that are not being penalised). This needs to happen whether you're 12-4 down or 12-4 up.
The captain needs to make this a PRO-ACTIVE part of his role. SPEAK UP Andrew - it's your job. If you don't want it then hand it over to Willie Mason (who I have no doubt will SPEAK UP) because this needs to be done. The Dogs have been given no favours for persisting with their 'grin and bear it approach' to heavy penalty counts against them. And while I admire Folkesy's subtlety following the Cowboy's debacle, sometimes you need to be more blunt - even if it costs $10,000.
PROBLEM 2: Dummy-half / hooker rotation
Well documented, surprises nobody and has needed fixing for sometime now. The Dogs achieved in 2004 with this set-up despite this weakness - not because of it. They were just that good a team in 2004. So those saying, "but it has worked before..." need to re-think that position now.
There are three very important ingredients the Dogs need from a dummy-half.
(A) A good football brain: he needs to have a cool head, be able to read the play and direct the attack accordingly, taking advantage of weaknesses in the structure of opposing teams including scooting himself when required.
(B) Clean, quick and crisp passing: He needs to be able to know where the right pass should go (see A) and be able to hit his intended player on the chest, long and short in both directions consistently. Slow service from dummy-half and passes not hitting their mark blunt the attack immediately; making it very difficult for your halves to create ANYTHING, your forwards to get a roll-on and for your backs to work in any space at all (no matter how fast they are).
(C) Solid defence but ALSO fast defence: You can't have someone that is a defensive liability, someone that will be simply run-over by opposing forwards. However, you also can't have someone that is defensively sound but is so bulky (like Perry) that they cannot get out quickly and "catch" the opposing dummy-half scooters. So you need defensive strength from this player, but also defensive speed and endurance to get out quickly and pressure the dummy-half to pass sooner than they want to or to not run at all. And this needs to happen ALL GAME.
SOLUTION 2: The club has already moved to rectify this weakness and should be commended for doing so. Sullivan initially to replace Perry on the bench in a straight swap. It is important to note that the ultimate solution to this problem is a combination between 9, 14, 6 & 7. There are a number of combos and I would trial this one first.
9:Hughes 14:Sullivan 6:Roberts 7:Sherwin.
Minimalist? Yes, but the right place to start.
And Folkes needs to keep challenging this group, so if it is not working he needs to make changes sooner in the season rather than later. The team cannot be allowed to cruise for too long in the misguided hope of suddenly getting their act together in the finals. Showing loyalty and faith in the players that have done the job is fine, so long as they have actually DONE THE JOB. They are now coming off a year (2007) where they haven't, so all bets are off in this department.
PROBLEM 3: Halves (related to Problem 2 - remember, might not actually be a problem if Solution 2 fixes it)
The Dogs' halves have copped much criticism, a lot of it quite unfairly I think.
Roberts is still quite green in a position that is very hard to play in the NRL (circa 2007). Just look how many good 5/8ths are running around - not many. I wouldn't be giving up on Roberts just yet (he is a talent), although the time will come in 2008 (if no improvement is evident) where a move to hooker, bench or even centres might be necessary. If the form doesn't come good then it could even be a visit to reggies.
Everyone expects Sherwin to do everything and save the day. I think Shifty actually had a very good 2007. But from all reports Shifty is playing exactly the way he has been told to play by his coach.
SOLUTION 3: As Folkes, I'd be thinking, "Ask not what Shifty can do for the team; ask what the team can do for Shifty" (with apologies to JFK).
With this change in approach (ie getting the attack deeper and more structured, getting players to run the right lines, chase kicks properly, etc) I think you will actually get what we all want to see and that is a more dominating performance from a very talented half-back. This leads to confidence of where his team-mates will be which will in-turn see a return of that unpredictable brilliance that made (makes) Shifty such a dangerous player. He will still be good and deserves first shot at the number 7 in 2008, but with the right approach from Folkes, he can be brilliant (again!).
In the meantime I would "groom-ing" (sorry, that was terrible) possible successors for our halves - just in case the results are not forthcoming. I think the halves can perform but you should always have a plan B.
Holdsworth, Groom, Barba, Winitana. They're all in the mix if the top two do not perform. And again, this should be sooner rather than later. Even if games are being won, how they are won and in what style will be very important for the back end of next season. I expect Folkesy to be unusually adventurous in the pre-season trials.
PROBLEM 4: Backline Speed
Again, might not actually be a problem yet. Sure it would be nice to have speed (which would also offer us some "cheap" and long-range tries) but the way is littered with fast teams that never made the finals. Straight-line speed, although helpful and you wouldn't knock it back, is not necessarily the magic pill some might think. It can help but only at the right time. (and in the right order)
If this point is reached (ie 1-3 do not work), I would also make successive "tweaks" rather than wholesale changes.
SOLUTION 4: (Or more correctly, some options to consider. Entirely speculative this part)
El Masri - is his speed (or lack thereof) a problem? He is such a smart footballer. If it turns out that he is slowing down and it turns out that this does represent a problem then I would consider moving him closer. Centre, 5/8th and Hooker are all options. This guy is a champion and a Bulldog legend and I would think all alternatives would be explored before any decision was made to exclude him from the top squad. And one thing is for certain ? he hasn't lost any speed between the ears.
Tonga needs to step up next season - he's no longer a junior member of the squad. Injuries may have been a contributing factor this season but if he can't get his 'mojo' back then it is time to consider alternatives.
Millard was better than most people have acknowledged I think. Has good hands, can set-up a winger, has quite good defence and has good instincts close to the line. Sure, he's not super-quick but then we are still not sure if that is THE problem.
Utai - height, speed, hands and defensive reads are still an issue but he still contributes so much in other areas. These positives make a compelling case to persist with the "pocket rocket". A full off-season leading to match fitness will be crucial - but again, lack of performance next year will see up and comers offer better options on the wing.
With all this, Folkes needs to send a message that underperformance will lead to reserve grade and back it up by throwing performing juniors in - even if he isn't SURE they are ready for first grade yet.
The Dogs cannot afford to ignore the chance to unearth revelations (or 'hidden gems') the way Melbourne and Parramatta (amongst others) have been able to in 2007.
PROBLEM 5: The Coach
Is Folkes a problem? Is he too tired, too old, too devoid of fresh ideas? Is he too familiar with the players? Has he become so close to some of the players as a result of the massive emotional roller-coaster that he joined them on and led them through during 2002-04 that he cannot motivate and manage them objectively?
SOLUTION 5: That is entirely up to Folkes. Only he can re-invent himself and put in place the things that are necessary to prevent a repeat of 2007. If he can't re-invent himself or it is true that he has become too close then I think he will jump rather than be pushed. HE will know after he does his soul searching this summer. Folkes is pretty straight up and down. If he REALLY DOES NOT KNOW what the problem(s) is and has no idea how to fix them then he will go.
But the club shouldn't be thinking 2008 on this. If a change at the top is required, it will become apparent with the 2008 performances throughout the year (probably by mid-season). In the meantime they should be looking for viable options for 2009.
The coach should absolutely NOT be changed just for the sake of it - it must be to something better. Better might just be Folkes (version 2008+).
2007 was an extremely disappointing year for Bulldogs fans. Not just the way it ended but for the entire season of lacklustre performances. It promised so much yet delivered so little.
2008 is likely to be a rebuilding year for the Bulldogs but it is not without hope. Even in a rebuilding year the 'Dogs would expect to be pushing for the finals this time next year.
And from there, you just never know your luck. If some of these problems can be resolved quickly then the Bulldogs have the talent in their squad to return as a competition force quicker than many of us might think.
