The Western Bulldogs have done a lot right this season – they’re 11-4 for a reason – but they have one major weakness.
The Dogs have plenty of bite around the footy. They are still clearly the number one team in the competition for winning contested footy (+19.9 per game) and clearances (+7.8 per game) thanks to a long list of midfielders capable of winning their own ball – Marcus Bontempelli, Tom Liberatore, Luke Dahlhaus, Mitch Wallis, Jack Macrae and Liam Picken to name a handful.
Defensively, they are second to only Sydney for points against, conceding barely 12 goals a game, despite key defenders Easton Wood and Marcus Adams missing five and four games, respectively.
But the Dogs continue to fall down in the forward 50.
The fourth-placed Dogs are scoring just 88 points a game (tenth in the competition) and haven’t scored more than 100 points in a contest since Round 8 – twice this season they’ve been restricted to fewer than seven goals under the Etihad Stadium roof.
On the season, their 190 goals is the same number the Saints have managed, and only two more than the five-win Suns have kicked.
Dig a little deeper and the numbers get even uglier. The Bulldogs are pumping it inside 50 about 55 times per game (ranked seventh), but are turning only 23 per cent of those entries into goals. Only Carlton and Essendon are converting at a worse rate. That means this year’s Brisbane Lions are more likely to turn an inside-50 into six points than the Bulldogs.
The eye test doesn’t look any better. Luke Beveridge chose to take on Richmond last week with only one recognised ruckman. That might not seem a big deal against Shaun Hampson and Ben Griffiths, but it meant the Dogs’ only true key forward, Jack Redpath, had to handle a decent share of the ruck duties.
When Redpath was on the ball and Jordan Roughead resting on the bench (he sat for about 22 minutes total), the Bulldogs were without a marking target in their forward line – Macrae was on several occasions the biggest Dog inside 50.
As a midfielder, the 191-centimetre Macrae is a big guy, as a forward, he has 12 marks inside 50 in 70 games, which is two more than the ten total contested marks he’s plucked.
The solution seems so obvious. There’s a big bloke running around in the VFL who the club gave a reported six-year, $6 million contract to help solve this very problem (or $7 million, depending on who’s reporting on it and what their agenda is).
Tom Boyd is not a star, but his presence not only makes life easier for his team but more difficult for their opponents. The Bulldogs have managed only 21 total marks inside 50 in their past three games – that’s not going to get it done in the long run.
Often when talk turns to the Dogs’ weaknesses in 2016 it’s followed by some version of, “It’s okay, they’ll be better next year.”
That’s a dangerous game to play. For all their young talent, the Western Bulldogs still rely heavily on veterans Dale Morris and Matthew Boyd, who will both be 34 next season. Injured skipper Bob Murphy is already 34.
There’s no telling how the 2017 season will unfold, but the 2016 premiership race is wide open.
The Bulldogs won their only flag 62 years ago; it’s time for them to stop stuffing around and play the guys who give them the best chance to end that drought – and that means playing Tom Boyd.
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
To me it is a Captain obvious that the Scrays need to play Boyd. He not only balances out their forward line but can play With his contract he has attracted the tabloid media getting mileage by picking every part of him apart and with it the gullible fans jumping on. Sure, he has slightly disappointed till now but to use an economic term, the Scrays knew when they got him that they were investing in the 'futures market' and it might take as long as 5 years for him to fully develop Think Hawkins at Geelong for a perfect analogy
David Ward
Roar Guru
Agree. Bite the bullett and see what he can do. He might be more ready than everyone thinks. The Dogs have been trying to ease Jake Stringer back into form for weeks by playing him up the ground, getting inconsequential possessions forcing less talented forwards (Redders, Tory Dickson) to play roles they're not equipped for, and stretching Bont (who is the same vintage as Boyd) thinner than is good for him, gun though he is. At 3/4 time on Saturday night Bevo said: "String, go forward and do what you're paid to do." And he did. I'm a Tiger, and it'll be a while before I venture back into that bearpit of supernaturally persecuted doggy supporters. But he was the difference. Tom doesn't have to aim that high but, then again, maybe he should.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
I have to admit, I too have been guilty of the whole: we're too young, go for it next year thinking. But I'm starting to understand that's fool's gold. You're right, this season is wide open - reminds me a lot of 1997 (as painful as that is). Speaking of Adelaide...
T Bone
Guest
Yep, play him
Trev
Guest
Boyd at least gets to contests, when he starts to stick some marks he'll be alright. But least ya want is a key forward contesting.
reuster75
Guest
For Tom Boyd this year read Nathan Ablett and Tom Hawkins in 2007 & 2009 for the Cats. Neither player was the finished article in those years and hadn't any track record of consistently dominating games but they provided a contest, were a good foil to Mooney and brought the ball to ground for the likes of Johnson and Chappy. On form Boyd may not be desrving of a game just yet but some players develop better in the seniors than in the VFL and he may be one of those. The dogs have nothing to lose by playing him and they need to know before finals if he can help or not.
mattyb
Guest
Tom Boyd must play this week. He goes ok and is competitive in the air and often brings the ball to ground. Boyd should have actually played last week except the club gave our magnificent players to much say. The Dogs need someone up forward and Boyd is all ready to go to give us a forward option that is going to lead to ongoing and going success. I think the Dogs payed slightly overs for Boyd but plenty of clubs would have dug deep if they knew they could lure him so it was certainly a sellers market. Boyd in future years will be very very good but he will take time,he's just a boy.
Ryan Buckland
Expert
I agree Adrian, the option is there staring at them in the face. I wrote it in my column today: defence gets you into the game, but attack and scoring is what wins it. I've come around to your thinking on this year, too, after we talked about it on the tweets; don't gamble on 2017 being "your year" - 2016 is wide open and they've be foolish to let it slip away.
Adrian Polykandrites
Expert
This is where we disagree. A very good key forward would be great, but they a competent one would make them better, and that's what Boyd is. He'd be anything but a passenger.
me too
Guest
The Dogs paid massive overs for Boyd because they needed and still need a strong marking full forward. Unfortunately they need a very good one, and at this moment he isn't close. They need him, but need him playing a lot better than he is. To play him now is the best thing they can do long term, but if they intent to fight for top four this year they can't afford a passenger.
Adrian Polykandrites
Expert
Thanks Dougie, will get onto the record correction. As for the seventh year, I think TomC is correct that it was actually last year, which was part of his locked-in rookie deal, so the new contract was really six years.
TomC
Roar Guru
Possibly it's the media being lazy, possibly it's because the first year of his contract was his second year after being drafted, and therefore was mandated to earn the draftee wage, which I think is $80k. So after that first year he's on a million a season, based on the media reports. Most typically I hear the contract referred to as 'more than six million over seven years'.
Pumping Dougie
Guest
Adrian, just a couple of minor errors in the article to fix: (1) the Doggies are 11-4, not 11-5, and (2) Boyd is reported to be on a 7 year contract worth $6m, which the media lazily refer to as $1m per year without doing their maths - actually it's $857k per year average. So the heading of the article needs to change. But otherwise, I agree with you. Tom Boyd definitely makes the Doggies a better balanced, more dangerous side.