Coach: Kevin Moore
Gains: Steve Turner (Storm), Dene Halatau (Tigers), Blake Green (Sharks), Mickey Paea (St George Illawarra), Junior Tia Kilifi (Panthers), Corey Payne (Tigers)
Losses: Hazem El Masri (Retired), Matt Utai (Celtic Crusaders), Daryl Millard (Wakefield Trinity), Greg Eastwood (Leeds Rhinos), John Kite (Storm), Daniel Holdsworth (Newtown Jets), Nathan Armit (Released), Liam Ayoub (Wests)
In 2009 the Bulldogs finished 2nd.
2010 Squad: Harlan Alaalatoa, Chris Armit, Ben Barba, Nathan Benny, Tim Browne, Michael Ennis, Jake Foster, Bryson Goodwin, Yileen Gordon, Blake Green, Dene Halatau, Ben Hannant, Daniel Harrison, Jarrad Hickey, Michael Hodgson, Jamal Idris, Brett Kimmorley, Brad Morrin, Josh Morris, Heka Nanai, Shane Neaumann, Mickey Paea, Luke Patten, Corey Payne, Ben Roberts, Andrew Ryan, David Stagg, Conrad Ta’akimoeaka, Lee Te Maari, Steve Turner, Gary Warburton, Danny Williams, Tim Winitana.
The Canterbury Bankstown Bulldogs draw for 2010.
In 2010 the Bulldogs will…
…come back to the pack a bit. Finishing second in the premiership round last year was an over acheivement. The last few rounds plus the finals exposed some brittleness in the Doggies. And this season they won’t have Hazem. This is a big loss to the side. Not just his ability to convert almost every try but he was great at sniffing out tries and an excellent defensive winger. The loss of Eastwood also weakens the pack.
Jamal Idris’ second season will be closely watched. He played some blinders last year but his defensive liabilities were exposed during the finals series. The better teams in the comp will be certain to test out if he has learned anything during the first few weeks of the season.
But I expect Kimmorely to lead the Dogs to the finals once again. But there is an overall lack of depth that a few injuries to key positions could easily expose. The Doggies 75th year won’t be a bad one but they don’t have the overall goods to win the comp.
The Bulldogs are $7.00 to win the comp and a $1.36 to make the top eight.
5 responses so far ↓
Mountain Boy // Feb 12, 2010 at 10:23 pm
The Dogs finished 2nd in 2009? Maybe in the Minor Premiership. But any Dragon will tell you thats not the finish (that’s if they were talking, of course). I would be happier to read the real story that told Parramatta finished 2009 as Grand Finalists and Runners-up. ie 2nd
Shaun // Feb 12, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Yes, I may change that.
Thinking about this year, I was first going with the idea that a Melbourne like performance, i.e. not worrying about the minor premiership but a top four finish with momentum will win again.
Of the top four teams last year, the Titans and Doggies over achieved and fierceness of finals footy exposed some cracks. The Saints stumbled before the finals and couldn’t quite get back up.
The simple answer to this year’s premier will be a team that goes into the finals with momentum.
Btw, I think all four teams from the West are in with a good show of making the eight.
Mountain Boy // Feb 13, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Granted, only 3 of the last 10 minor premiers have gone on to take the double. However the minor premiers are still in front with 31 wins from 56 grand finals played (the birth of the grand final concept being 1954). So overall the double has happened more often, than not. The format of the crapentire top 8 play-offs is definitely a factor in lower teams doing well. Parra eg. showed last year that an upset in week 1 could see you play at home for the rest of the series (from 8th). I know its only a vague analogy, but just scrape into the NFL (gridiron) playoffs and you are assured of playing as the away team all the way to the Superbowl (which is then neutral territory). I really think the NRL model doesnt reward the top placed teams nearly enough. Teams 6, 7, and 8 should be going into the playoffs facing an uphill battle all the way to GF day, not simply back into contention just because they happened to win in week 1.
Mountain Boy // Feb 13, 2010 at 11:45 pm
…so my dream finals format would look like this :
week 1
teams 1 and 2 bye
4 v 5 (knockout)
3 v 6 (knockout)
week 2
2 v (3 or 6) (preliminary one)
1 v (4 or 5) (preliminary two)
week 3
grand final
a week shorter but teams, I hear, would go for a shorter season.
the nay-sayers argue the NRL wouldn’t go for the loss of the four matches – but think of the increased gate due to every single game being a knockout blockbuster – and importantly tv ratings winners.
not impossible, but real tough to get to the grand final from 5 or 6 (you need to win away twice). no place here for 7th or worse finish. I just don’t believe a 16-team comp should reward 8.
the best thing for me, is the deserved week off for teams 1 and 2 and then a guaranteed home preliminary final each – the way i think it should be.
Mountain Boy // Feb 14, 2010 at 12:00 am
… sure, under this model, it means that Parra would not have made the grand final last year because they would have missed the semis. No different to Wests telling they could have made the grand final if they hadnt finished 9th. Put all 16 teams in the semis, and eventually you would see team 16 make a grand final. Just because its an even comp doesnt mean that everyone deserves a semi spot.
26 weeks to make the top 6 – else the next 6 months to think about why you didn’t make it in.