For all the nuff nuff's

[floppinab]

Re: the apparent lack of comprehension on the match day thread, and the perceived 'negativity'.

In my opinion, from my vantage point at the ground I made the following observations and came to the following general conclusions:

1. Goodes and MOL were poorly minded by their opposite numbers - I suspect that Goodes had no opponent for most of the day,

Is that alright, or am I being to negative, not really supporting at all.

For those that think Roos doesn't have a plan B I think they forget too easily. Roos plan B for players out of form is very simple. Get them to tag. Goodes is a case in point. Against Port he went full time Goodes to tag Cornes, it worked a treat with Goodes putting in his best performance for the year (that said it was an average performance for Goodes who we expect far more).

Against the Dogs he mixed it up a bit, for a fair swag of the game Goodes was tagging Johnson, my guess is he had a licence to tag Johnson and then swap with someone else on the ground when he wanted to. The merry go round in this first 5 minutes was interesting with Goodes trying to go to Johnno, some other Bulldog trying to go to Goodes, etc. etc. It worked OK, but interesting to note Johnno broke free once or twice in the first half but Goodes really hit his straps in the last bit of the first and most of the second quarters.

[hammo]

i must agree that there is obviously a huge difference in the views of those that watched it live at manuka, and those that watched it on tv.

the atmosphere at the ground was electric. it was a clear, warm, sunny day and the 14.5K people who turned up were in a great mood for footy. the smell of bbq wafting in from behind the grandstands was intoxicating. the beer was cold. we felt sorry for the players. imagine trying to play when bbq in cooking in the background. being so close to the play was (is) an amazing experience when you're used to sitting in the lofty heights of the brewongle. imagine ... goodsey can really hear me when i profess my love. micky can really hear me when we encourage him to go for the goal. the dirty, filthy maggot could really hear me when i let him have it for not giving bbbh a free after his head was nearly knocked off right in front of me (i could see it ... why couldn't the maggot??). the dodgy pa system. the kids on the boundary lined up five deep waiting for the second siren to go for kick-to-kick.
if you've ever been to a "country" grand final ... that's what the atmosphere is like. almost carnival-like.

I have to disagree with you on that one Annie. I've experienced a better atmosphere at my local supermarket.

[giant]

I have to disagree with you on that one Annie. I've experienced a better atmosphere at my local supermarket.

Yes, but what would they be prepared to pay the Dogs to play a home game there?

[stellation]

Why the apostrophe?

[Jewels]

I have to disagree with you on that one Annie. I've experienced a better atmosphere at my local supermarket.

I would be interested in knowing where you were seated Hammo as, from Annie's description, I was sitting near her on the GA grassed area and we were having a ball. We were surrounded by a lot of dogs supporters and I found the atmosphere great.

[AnnieH]

I have to disagree with you on that one Annie. I've experienced a better atmosphere at my local supermarket.

it's always a great day at manuka when the sun is shining and it's warm.
come august, i'll probably freeze the girls to death and the beer will be warm!!
you were probably sitting near the chardy nuff nuffs.

[Go Swannies]

Is it in honour of the Bombers and the approaching game that Sheady's expression "nuff nuffs" - or "nuff nuff's" for those who embrace random apostrophes - has suddenly become fashionable here? Martians anyone?Should we all take jackets to wave on Saturday night?

[Margie]

What's a "nuff nuff"? Once I know what it is, I'll know whether or not to read the thread.

I know Kevin Sheedy said it some time back, but don't know the definition. Siriously.

[hammo]

it's always a great day at manuka when the sun is shining and it's warm.
come august, i'll probably freeze the girls to death and the beer will be warm!!
you were probably sitting near the chardy nuff nuffs.

It sounds like I was in the same bay as you

[NMWBloods]

The fact the Dogs have come up short against Eagles, Crows and now Swans would indicate that they don't have the appetite for a contest.

I think that is indicative of experience. Each of those sides has a lot of experience, especially finals, and strong, mature bodies. A lot of the Bulldogs players are still relatively young and slight, so an increase in intensity makes it difficult for them, hence why they prefer, and excel, at the running game.

[liz]

I think that is indicative of experience. Each of those sides has a lot of experience, especially finals, and strong, mature bodies. A lot of the Bulldogs players are still relatively young and slight, so an increase in intensity makes it difficult for them, hence why they prefer, and excel, at the running game.

I don't entirely agree with that. Yes, the Bulldogs had a handful of youngsters out there, like Wight, Higgins and Addison. But they also have West, Darcy, Johnson, Eagleton, Robbins, Akermanis who are all around the 30 mark. And the likes of Gia, Harris, Gilbee, Cross, Hahn, Morris, Street are all in the 24-27 age bracket, which means they should be at - or approaching - the peak of their footy playing career. They may be, on average, around a year younger than their Swans equivalents, but two, three years ago those Swans were playing finals and winning a premiership.

Street still may be a stick insect but he's a year or so older than Jolly. Darcy and Everitt are close enough to equivalents in terms of age / experience.

I think a lot of the Dogs' problem beating the top teams is that too few of them relish actually winning hard ball. In Cross and West they have two of the best but limit their impact (which the Swans were always going to focus on doing) and there aren't many others willing to take up the slack.

Clayton has often been lauded as one of the best recruiters in the league and in terms of spotting individual players, his track record is good. But in terms of bringing together a competitive squad, I think there are question marks over what he has done. I can't see them becoming a real contender until Griffen and Cooney have matured a bit, in a couple of years. And by then Grant, Darcy and West may well be gone and Johnson will be close to the end. They are going to have to replace that top-end talent as well as improve in areas they are currently weak in.

[ScottH]

Is it in honour of the Bombers and the approaching game that Sheady's expression "nuff nuffs" - or "nuff nuff's" for those who embrace random apostrophes - has suddenly become fashionable here? Martians anyone?Should we all take jackets to wave on Saturday night?

You left out the marshmallows and seagulls.

What's a "nuff nuff"? Once I know what it is, I'll know whether or not to read the thread.

I know Kevin Sheedy said it some time back, but don't know the definition. Siriously.

Nuff Nuff -> Not Very Bright person (or worse).

[NMWBloods]

I don't entirely agree with that. Yes, the Bulldogs had a handful of youngsters out there, like Wight, Higgins and Addison. But they also have West, Darcy, Johnson, Eagleton, Robbins, Akermanis who are all around the 30 mark. And the likes of Gia, Harris, Gilbee, Cross, Hahn, Morris, Street are all in the 24-27 age bracket, which means they should be at - or approaching - the peak of their footy playing career. They may be, on average, around a year younger than their Swans equivalents, but two, three years ago those Swans were playing finals and winning a premiership.

Street still may be a stick insect but he's a year or so older than Jolly. Darcy and Everitt are close enough to equivalents in terms of age / experience.

I think a lot of the Dogs' problem beating the top teams is that too few of them relish actually winning hard ball. In Cross and West they have two of the best but limit their impact (which the Swans were always going to focus on doing) and there aren't many others willing to take up the slack.

Yeah, I think there is a large element of that. However, a number of those players mentioned are around the 100 game mark, which is about three seasons behind a number of our players, and I think that makes some difference.

[liz]

Yeah, I think there is a large element of that. However, a number of those players mentioned are around the 100 game mark, which is about three seasons behind a number of our players, and I think that makes some difference.

It does make some difference, agreed. But take two seasons off some of our players and remember that back in 2005 (and even before) they were playing tough, uncompromising football that led to a premiership at the end of the year.

And if you're going to start factoring in games, rather than age, you have to look at someone like Cooney. He is still a pup in terms of years but he's played over 70 games and by that stage you'd hope a player as talented as he clearly is would have got more of a taste for toughing games out when things aren't quite going his way.

Someone like Gia - who for me was one of the most disappointing Dogs on the weekend - is, even now, about 30 games of experience ahead of the likes of Schneider and Buchanan.

[NMWBloods]

Yes, and I think the style and nature of the club and how it plans to play games are big factors. In terms of talent many of the 'Dogs are well ahead of their Swans counterparts in my view. However, the degree of intensity and attack at the ball are quite different, which seems to have become a hallmark of the Swans in the past few years. You would think that the 'Dogs would try to add that to their game in the next couple of years, and it is possible for them to do as the Swans in 2003 were really the tough outfit we see now. Without it they'll struggle to progress far in finals.