Do we play another tall forward?

[Rocco Jones]

I was going to reply to a few comments in the Gilbee injury thread about playing another tall but I didn't want to (continue to) railroad discussion. A few posters were talking about how most sides play at least one more tall forward than we do.

I am not a fan of us playing Cordy, Minson and Roughead in the same side. I don't think you are automatically top heavy because you play a certain amount of guys over a certain height, I think it depends on their mobility and quality. For example Buddy doesn't count towards being 'top heavy'. I definitely believe another tall forward would benefit the side just that it would be a massive risk due to the lack of quality and mobility of our talls.

Roughead, Minson and Cordy combo would mean one of them plays forward all game with another one spending the majority of the game there as well. My issue is less with Cordy's ability to play forward but it being combined with Roughy/Minson being alongside him for hte majority of time.

Roughy and Minson have different styles but at the core of them is being a 1st ruck and IMO that means they are a poor combo/not being worth the sum of their parts.

[GVGjr]

I agree with you Rocco. Playing 3 players that are primarily ruckman who pinch hit as forwards isn't a good mix for us. Even playing 2 of them can be an issue against some sides.
If one of them was a Paddy Ryder or Ports Jackson Trengove who are both more capable of playing in the back line forward line and taking a spell in the ruck then having the 3rd tall wouldn't be an issue but the 3 players we have don't give us that type of flexibility.

It's going to be a challenge to slot them all into the line-up.

[BulldogBelle]

If we look at the make up of the forward line rather than the individuals within it, we definately need another tall up there. A FF (or deep forward in modern speak) that will play the way Gia is, but allows more forgiveness when the ball comes in - ie can compete for the high trajectory rushed inside 50. Either Cordy or Panos, depending on structure.

[SlimPickens]

If we look at the make up of the forward line rather than the individuals within it, we definately need another tall up there. A FF (or deep forward in modern speak) that will play the way Gia is, but allows more forgiveness when the ball comes in - ie can compete for the high trajectory rushed inside 50. Either Cordy or Panos, depending on structure.

I think you've kind of touched on it, the delivery in to our forward line needs to be addressed. Liam Jones kick to Gia against wce showed how it needs to be done. Too many times we bombed it on top of someone's head (mainly Jones and Gia), if we can effectively kick the ball to our advantage it doesn't matter if they're tall or short we will get enough opportunities to mark the ball in our forward line.As tall relief in the forward line I think we need to get more out of our resting talls whether that be Minson,Roughy or Cordy. I'd still stick with Jones and a resting ruckman as our tall options up forward, we have a chance to stretch St Kilda next week as their defense is on the short side.

[Rocco Jones]

If we look at the make up of the forward line rather than the individuals within it, we definately need another tall up there. A FF (or deep forward in modern speak) that will play the way Gia is, but allows more forgiveness when the ball comes in - ie can compete for the high trajectory rushed inside 50. Either Cordy or Panos, depending on structure.

If we HAVE to go in with an extra tall I would definitely drop one of Minson/Roughy for Cordy. Ayce as our 2nd ruckman would give us greater flexibility to plany another tall.

ATM Roughy/Minson spend about 60% combined TOG up forward which is a massive liability IMO. Cordy could play as a modern 2nd ruck allowing Minson to spend pretty much all his time in the ruck.

A lot of posters who want an extra tall are seemingly ignoring the cost, an extra runner. Just not worth it when your talls aren't decent.

[LostDoggy]

At the moment we don,t have the luxury of an in form tall forward , at the moment we have Jones and Dickson and then after that all midfielders with Minson and Roughead rotating through BUT while both Minson and Roughhead are doing a serviceable job but they are just not making enough impact up forward , between them against Adelaide they had 6 contested possessions, 1 mark inside 50, 0 contested marks , 1 goal

If Minson and Roughead can make more of an impact on games and average a goal a game till the end of the season then that will balance out the lack of an extra tall forward

.

[jeemak]

I'm for bringing in Cordy, and keeping Roughead and Minson in the side.

Thinking along the lines of seeing how it goes for a half, with a pure runner as the sub (such as Sherman, coming in for Smith). If it looks like we've lost too much run then we sub Cordy or Roughead off (or Minson if he's not playing well, of course) and changing our structure.

We desperately need a second, genuine tall playing up forward to give Jones a hand until he gains sufficient fitness and learns to run to the right spots, not to mention make up for our innability to deliver the ball foward cleanly.

Cordy to me seems like the only player we have on the list that has shown recent form in the two's, and is tall enough to stretch defenses alongside Jones and Grant. Instead of viewing the prospect of taking him in to this week as a weakness we should see how it works out for us as a strength.

[Ghost Dog]

I don't really know enough about St Kilda to comment, but I can't believe that posters think we are not a chance against them. I watched the Port Adelaide and they are just a good honest team Port - nothing fancy.
If we play for four quarters like we did against the crows in our best two, they will find it very hard to counter the likes of Jones, Dahlhaus, Gia and Brian.

[bornadog]

I'm for bringing in Cordy, and keeping Roughead and Minson in the side.

Thinking along the lines of seeing how it goes for a half, with a pure runner as the sub (such as Sherman, coming in for Smith). If it looks like we've lost too much run then we sub Cordy or Roughead off (or Minson if he's not playing well, of course) and changing our structure.

We desperately need a second, genuine tall playing up forward to give Jones a hand until he gains sufficient fitness and learns to run to the right spots, not to mention make up for our innability to deliver the ball foward cleanly.

Cordy to me seems like the only player we have on the list that has shown recent form in the two's, and is tall enough to stretch defenses alongside Jones and Grant. Instead of viewing the prospect of taking him in to this week as a weakness we should see how it works out for us as a strength.

I went to the Hawks/Geelong match yesterday and the Hawks had Buddy, Roughead and at times Hale in the forward line. Geelong had Pods, Hawkins up there. Maybe we don't have that calibre but we need to start developing someone, whether its Cordy, Hill or Campbell as pure forwards and forget about rucking.

At times yesterday there were 36 players in the forward 50 or both teams with a full press happening. We are now playing a similar style and can protect the forwards without having to have mobile big men having to chase the opposition backman running the ball out.

Jones is playing too deep and is getting smashed at the moment. He is not a FF and I believe better suited to CHF.

[LostDoggy]

I'm in the don't play all 3 corner.

I am however all for Cordy getting an opportunity this week. But at the expense of Minson or Roughead. Either aren't doing enough at the moment, so it wouldn't bother me which we dropped.

We have 2 glaring weaknesses, firstly the delivery forward of centre and secondly ability to hold the ball in our forward 50.

I guess if you improve the disposal going forward it will help lock the ball in, but it's just getting rebounded too easily at the moment. Having 2 ruckmen down there at all times won't help this at all.

It's a bit disappointing though because we should be able to have this luxary. We have Grant + Jones who are quick talls who should be able to apply pressure ocne the ball hits the deck. They just don't do it consistently enough at the moment. West Coast get away with it because Darling chases all day as does Kennedy (when fit)

[LostDoggy]

I'm on the fence with Minnow -- it was one bad game, which everyone is entitled to have now and then. Having said that, if this becomes a trend, he would be valuable-ish trade bait so we would be smart to cash in while there is still some currency, especially if Roughie + Cordy's output = Roughie + Minnow's output. It's not like we're going to challenge in the next 3 years either, so we may as well put more development into younger rucks, get a cheap mature-age back-up via the rookie draft, and maybe get some value out of Minnow swapping him for a second-round draft pick or a surplus young runner somewhere (looking at you, GC).

But of course, the ideal situation would be for Minnow to prove us all wrong and go on a blistering run of form for the next 15 weeks.

[LostDoggy]

Any thought of Cordy coming into the side needs to be tempered with the fact that at AFL level his rucking skills are sub-staqndard and in this regard both Minson and Roughead are ahead of him. Cordy is easily outmanoevered in man on man in ruck duels.

People are missing the point that Minson contributed to our third quarter charge significantly on Saturday though his work at centre bounces which was a vast improvement on his efforts the week before

[bornadog]

Any thought of Cordy coming into the side needs to be tempered with the fact that at AFL level his rucking skills are sub-staqndard and in this regard both Minson and Roughead are ahead of him. Cordy is easily outmanoevered in man on man in ruck duels.

People are missing the point that Minson contributed to our third quarter charge significantly on Saturday though his work at centre bounces which was a vast improvement on his efforts the week before

What I am saying is Cordy comes in purely as a FF and forget about rucking.

[Mofra]

Any thought of Cordy coming into the side needs to be tempered with the fact that at AFL level his rucking skills are sub-staqndard and in this regard both Minson and Roughead are ahead of him. Cordy is easily outmanoevered in man on man in ruck duels.
Definately yes last year, but he seems to have imporved substantially over the summer and form wise he may well earn a call-up.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Any thought of Cordy coming into the side needs to be tempered with the fact that at AFL level his rucking skills are sub-staqndard and in this regard both Minson and Roughead are ahead of him. Cordy is easily outmanoevered in man on man in ruck duels.

People are missing the point that Minson contributed to our third quarter charge significantly on Saturday though his work at centre bounces which was a vast improvement on his efforts the week before

I still maintain that we lack a General on the forward line that others will look up to and follow. That was the advantage of having a Johnno, Aker or Barry Hall to provide the maturity and experience. Reluctantly given our current set up I would still like to see Robert Murphy at CHF to provide some direction and class. Jones because of his marking strength but inferior kicking looks a better option at FF. Minson survives because of his greater experience and strength leaving Roughead in front of Cordy as your second ruck option. The other alternative would be to try Cordy at CHF. We apart from Lake lack marking power consistently around the ground which might be a good enough reason to elevate Cordy.

[Mantis]

Any thought of Cordy coming into the side needs to be tempered with the fact that at AFL level his rucking skills are sub-staqndard and in this regard both Minson and Roughead are ahead of him. Cordy is easily outmanoevered in man on man in ruck duels.



Shouldn't we give Ayce a few games before determining if his ruck skills are up to AFL standard?

[Dazza]

I'd like cordy into the side as a forward this week.

This week is as good as any to bring him in. The saints tall backmen aren't much chop and they don't have damaging running backmen provided Goddard plays in the middle.

Give him a chance this week. If it doesn't work out sub one of them off.

[Eastdog]

How's Tom Hill's progress going? Further down the track could he be an option.

[always right]

There is nothing to lose by bringing Cordy in as a third tall. If it doesn't work, what's the downside considering everyone has conceded that this is a development year? We need to take some chances to see what works.....it's a luxury that generally doesn't last past the coach's first year.

[SlimPickens]

How's Tom Hill's progress going? Further down the track could he be an option.

Played well in the Willy seniors on the weekend kicking 4. Needs an extended run at that level before getting an opportunity in the firsts. Looks ok, has plenty of size and is a food mark of the ball.

[Eastdog]

Played well in the Willy seniors on the weekend kicking 4. Needs an extended run at that level before getting an opportunity in the firsts. Looks ok, has plenty of size and is a food mark of the ball.

Do you reckon we need to recruit a forward from another club or should we continue working with what we currently have.

[LostDoggy]

We need an additional genuine KPF. As it stands and we have zero insurance if Jones gets injured. Within the current team selection Roughy or Minson would become our key forward, which would be wrong.

Cordy, Panos, Hill or Campbell need to be given the chance to assist Jonesy whether it be at FF, CHF or swapping. Cordy should be given first opportunity and a decent multi-game chance to gel with the team. Its not about winning the premiership this year unfortunately but developing a young squad and a high percentage game plan.

The ruck division is still Minno and Roughy, however, depending on the opponent, we decide who plays. Against West Coast play both, against Adelaide its just Minson etc.

[Dazza]

Should we look at trialling Williams forward when he comes back?

Has pace, strength and a defensive mindset. He can take a good grab and is a good user of the ball.

Downside is his game knowledge. Doesn't know how to play as a forward.

Thoughts?

[Eastdog]

Should we look at trialling Williams forward when he comes back?

Has pace, strength and a defensive mindset. He can take a good grab and is a good user of the ball.

Downside is his game knowledge. Doesn't know how to play as a forward.

Thoughts?

I don't think he would be the best option up forward. What do you think though of Brian Lake playing up forward occasionally?

[Dazza]

I don't think he would be the best option up forward. What do you think though of Brian Lake playing up forward occasionally?

Not a huge fan of his kicking at goal plus I think he adds too much down back as an attacking defender, whereas I think Markovic and Williams are just about on par with each other with what they provide down back.

[LostDoggy]

There is nothing to lose by bringing Cordy in as a third tall. If it doesn't work, what's the downside considering everyone has conceded that this is a development year? We need to take some chances to see what works.....it's a luxury that generally doesn't last past the coach's first year.

As I said in the other thread , bringing in Cordy as a forward is not going work within our structure , his offensive output has to be 50/50 with his defensive output

As I stated before , our structure is an oversize midfield with only two forwards and a rotating ruckman in the forward line , if we bring Cordy in to pair with Jones and Dickson we take a midfielder away from a zone rotation , as I stated before Gia, Higgins and Dahlhaus may be named in the forward line but in our current structure they are midfielders

Could a player like Barry Hall fit into Macca's structure ?

Yes but again it would still be only two forwards and a rotating ruckman , the personnel could change but the structure would not

At the moment the midfield has been given the responsibility for scoring 2/3rds of our scoring , the balance has to come from backline players pushing up the ground, the rotating ruckman and the two forwards

( I,m only using BBB as an example )

.

[LostDoggy]

Shouldn't we give Ayce a few games before determining if his ruck skills are up to AFL standard?

Unless he has improved markedly from the NAB Cup we already know of his rucking abilities. Having said that, I am not opposed to him playing a forward role if form warrants it.

The issue is, if he plays so must Roughead and Minson, which may or may not be a bad thing.

[SlimPickens]

Do you reckon we need to recruit a forward from another club or should we continue working with what we currently have.

Trading is the work of the devil! Go to the draft and recruit the best available. This year we will have a lot of picks in the draft I'd like to see us use one on a KPF.

Out of the batch we have Hill or Cordy are the two who may offer something up forward.

[Eastdog]

Trading is the work of the devil! Go to the draft and recruit the best available. This year we will have a lot of picks in the draft I'd like to see us use one on a KPF.

Out of the batch we have Hill or Cordy are the two who may offer something up forward.

Thats the best way as this year draft looks very good. We lack KP players and thats what we need.

[LostDoggy]

Thats the best way as this year draft looks very good. We lack KP players and thats what we need.

Shouldnt we determine whether any of our young big fellas are up to the task first?

[Eastdog]

Shouldnt we determine whether any of our young big fellas are up to the task first?

Absolutely. That is the first thing we should do before looking at other alternatives.

[LostDoggy]

Campbell to full forward for me. Can take a grab. Is a good size and build. Has a huge kick on him.

[LostDoggy]

Campbell to full forward for me. Can take a grab. Is a good size and build. Has a huge kick on him.

I like what I saw of Campbell but surely there is some form of 'pecking order', Cordy has been around for a while and was put forward as a KP/Ruck.
Panos is probably the next in line in maturity?
Hill and Campbell would need some more time in VFL seniors?

I apply question marks because I do not know too much about these guys first hand...

[Eastdog]

Campbell to full forward for me. Can take a grab. Is a good size and build. Has a huge kick on him.

One match in the NAB Cup Campbell showed a bit. How about Redpath as well who has a big tank.

[LostDoggy]

Sure there should be a pecking order. The order should be based on whoever's producing the goods in the 2nds at the moment, not on age or number of years on the list.

[LostDoggy]

Sure there should be a pecking order. The order should be based on whoever's producing the goods in the 2nds at the moment, not on age or number of years on the list.

I dont disagree but as far as I could tell the order matched. How do you see the order currently?

[Cyberdoggie]

We need an additional genuine KPF. As it stands and we have zero insurance if Jones gets injured. Within the current team selection Roughy or Minson would become our key forward, which would be wrong.

Cordy, Panos, Hill or Campbell need to be given the chance to assist Jonesy whether it be at FF, CHF or swapping. Cordy should be given first opportunity and a decent multi-game chance to gel with the team. Its not about winning the premiership this year unfortunately but developing a young squad and a high percentage game plan.

The ruck division is still Minno and Roughy, however, depending on the opponent, we decide who plays. Against West Coast play both, against Adelaide its just Minson etc.

Most other sides seem to be able to work a couple of key talls up forward,
ie Dawes/Cloke, Hawkins/JPod.
I think Jones is going to go backwards if we continue to try and use him the way we have this year, he needs another tall there to help, and if Roughead and Minson aren't getting there or providing that option then The others are the next logical.

It may mean that we have to swap a player like Dickson or Grant for that extra tall, as neither of these 2 are quite playing their role effectively enough at the moment.

[bornadog]

How about Redpath as well who has a big tank.

Have you read the updates in the Willi thread on Redpath? He is barely up to VFL standard at this stage.

[LostDoggy]

Most other sides seem to be able to work a couple of key talls up forward,
ie Dawes/Cloke, Hawkins/JPod.
I think Jones is going to go backwards if we continue to try and use him the way we have this year, he needs another tall there to help, and if Roughead and Minson aren't getting there or providing that option then The others are the next logical.

It may mean that we have to swap a player like Dickson or Grant for that extra tall, as neither of these 2 are quite playing their role effectively enough at the moment.

Dickson was the one I had in mind, Grant played one of his best games Ive seen on the weekend. Second efforts and all. The guy has talent.

[Rocco Jones]

Any thought of Cordy coming into the side needs to be tempered with the fact that at AFL level his rucking skills are sub-staqndard and in this regard both Minson and Roughead are ahead of him. Cordy is easily outmanoevered in man on man in ruck duels.

People are missing the point that Minson contributed to our third quarter charge significantly on Saturday though his work at centre bounces which was a vast improvement on his efforts the week before

You talk about the 2nd ruck role as if it were exclusively about ruck work where in reality, when paired with a 1st ruck like Will, it will involve about twice as much time up forward than it will in the ruck.

Many fans talk about 2nd rucks 'pinch hitting' up forward when it should be the other way. When a 2nd ruck is paired with an old school out and out ruckman like Will, they are primarily playing forward while pinch hitting in the ruck.

Cordy would allow Will/Roughy to concentrate on spending virtually all their TOG in the ruck. Ayce would only have to spend 20% or so TOG in the ruck.

Dickson having 0 tackles in 5 quarters of footy means he is competing with KP forwards (in terms of limitations) as well IMO.

[Maddog37]

I think Dickson showed a bit on the weekend and brings a bit of x factor.

[Hotdog60]

I can't see a reason not to try the old fashion FF, whether it be Cordy, Panos or Hill. If they can take 4 or 5 marks and kick as many goals haven't they done their job.

The big question is are they up for it.

[Eastdog]

Have you read the updates in the Willi thread on Redpath? He is barely up to VFL standard at this stage.

Sorry haven't read that thread a lot. From what you have said bornadog he will take a long time before he is even any chance of making the senior side so that option right now would be out of the question.

[Eastdog]

I can't see a reason not to try the old fashion FF, whether it be Cordy, Panos or Hill. If they can take 4 or 5 marks and kick as many goals haven't they done their job.

The big question is are they up for it.

Out of those three to play FF wide would go for Matthew Panos.

[Hotdog60]

Out of those three to play FF wide would go for Matthew Panos.

Noted dead eyed dick in front of goal, or he was last year.

[Eastdog]

Noted dead eyed dick in front of goal, or he was last year.

You mean from that he was shocking in front of goal. If thats the case that wouldn't be good. What is Cordy and Hill kick at goal like?

[chef]

You mean from that he was shocking in front of goal. If thats the case that wouldn't be good. What is Cordy and Hill kick at goal like?

Dead eye dick means that he is a good shot for goal.

Has Panos played forward much this season?

[Hotdog60]

You mean from that he was shocking in front of goal. If thats the case that wouldn't be good. What is Cordy and Hill kick at goal like?

It means he was very accurate in front of goals with a set shot. The only trouble with any of these players would be if they got enough of it. I would think Cordy would be the better contested mark out of them but his kicking for goal might not be as good.

As other posters have said maybe we do need to groom one or two of these guy to become the key forward and not ruck or back.

[Eastdog]

It means he was very accurate in front of goals with a set shot. The only trouble with any of these players would be if they got enough of it. I would think Cordy would be the better contested mark out of them but his kicking for goal might not be as good.

As other posters have said maybe we do need to groom one or two of these guy to become the key forward and not ruck or back.

I get it now Hotdog60 "Dead eye dick" = Great Accuracy. Yeah that might be a way into developing a player to play forward.

[GVGjr]

One match in the NAB Cup Campbell showed a bit. How about Redpath as well who has a big tank.

On form he would be battling to hold his spot in the Williamstown senior side.
Given he is a rookie he would also be a mile back in the pecking order.

[Go_Dogs]

I posted in the VFL thread that I think this week is one to try all 3 in the same side.

Looking at most of the top sides, they play 2 tall forwards and have a resting ruck or utility tall forward at times too. I know we have Grant, but given the way he plays I'm not including him in the tall forward category.

Cordy and Jones could play as our tall forwards. If our run is suffering and we substitute a ruck, or one is on the bench Cordy can provide a chop out there. That would then allow Minson and Roughead (in that order) to play the role of ruck, with the other to also spend quite a bit of time forward.

We don't have much run at the moment anyway, so I'd also question what the real term loss of run would be by replacing a small rotation with another tall? If it's not something we can overcome, fine - but let's at least give it a shot.

[LostDoggy]

I can't see a reason not to try the old fashion FF, whether it be Cordy, Panos or Hill. If they can take 4 or 5 marks and kick as many goals haven't they done their job.

The big question is are they up for it.

It's a good time to try to find out.


I posted in the VFL thread that I think this week is one to try all 3 in the same side.

Looking at most of the top sides, they play 2 tall forwards and have a resting ruck or utility tall forward at times too. I know we have Grant, but given the way he plays I'm not including him in the tall forward category.

Cordy and Jones could play as our tall forwards. If our run is suffering and we substitute a ruck, or one is on the bench Cordy can provide a chop out there. That would then allow Minson and Roughead (in that order) to play the role of ruck, with the other to also spend quite a bit of time forward.

We don't have much run at the moment anyway, so I'd also question what the real term loss of run would be by replacing a small rotation with another tall? If it's not something we can overcome, fine - but let's at least give it a shot.

I agree with this but think against certain sides we should just go in with one ruck specialist.

[DragzLS1]

I would tend to agree with the certain circumstances idea. Same games we will need more run then talls as for other we will need talls ect.. take it as it comes I say. Also am liking our tall stocks at the moment looks like any 1 of our 4 talls can step in and be competitive in the ruck against most sides. Just finding the resting ruck up forward that works well.

[chef]

I posted in the VFL thread that I think this week is one to try all 3 in the same side.

Looking at most of the top sides, they play 2 tall forwards and have a resting ruck or utility tall forward at times too. I know we have Grant, but given the way he plays I'm not including him in the tall forward category.

Cordy and Jones could play as our tall forwards. If our run is suffering and we substitute a ruck, or one is on the bench Cordy can provide a chop out there. That would then allow Minson and Roughead (in that order) to play the role of ruck, with the other to also spend quite a bit of time forward.

We don't have much run at the moment anyway, so I'd also question what the real term loss of run would be by replacing a small rotation with another tall? If it's not something we can overcome, fine - but let's at least give it a shot.

That's a problem to me as neither are very effective there and we can't play someone as a tall forward just because they are tall.

We can't play two number 1 rucks(which Will and Roughie are)IMO and it is really one or the other to me. Cordy should be given a chance to come in and play as that forward who can pinch hit in the ruck(Jones can as also help out here doing the same), but it's yet to be seen whether he is really a forward or a ruck or both.

[Ghost Dog]

That's a problem to me as neither are very effective there and we can't play someone as a tall forward just because they are tall.

We can't play two number 1 rucks(which Will and Roughie are)IMO and it is really one or the other to me. Cordy should be given a chance to come in and play as that forward who can pinch hit in the ruck(Jones can as also help out here doing the same), but it's yet to be seen whether he is really a forward or a ruck or both.

Two seems to work fine for Geelong. Why bother with three?

[LostDoggy]

I like what I saw of Campbell but surely there is some form of 'pecking order', Cordy has been around for a while and was put forward as a KP/Ruck.
Panos is probably the next in line in maturity?
Hill and Campbell would need some more time in VFL seniors?

I apply question marks because I do not know too much about these guys first hand...

I think Panos is a lead up forward and not really going to impact much in a pack situation.

Cordy again same as Panos

Pecking order? Not really sure how that works in reality because if your good enough you play. Campbell has played well for Willi and has kicked a few so no stranger to kicking goals and has the size to worry fisher.

[azabob]

Roughy and Minson have different styles but at the core of them is being a 1st ruck and IMO that means they are a poor combo/not being worth the sum of their parts.




ATM Roughy/Minson spend about 60% combined TOG up forward which is a massive liability IMO. Cordy could play as a modern 2nd ruck allowing Minson to spend pretty much all his time in the ruck.
.

Hmmm did you copy those directly from your thread last year - Using a part timer as our 2nd ruck. (it was actually 2010, not 2011) how time fly's when reading Rocco's posts...

Yet, I do agree with you. We need to try something different as our forward line is not working and we need to help out Jones and who knows if Cordy is the answer unless we try.

RJ who do you prefer as our number one ruck with Cordy riding shotgun?

[Rocco Jones]

Hmmm did you copy those directly from your thread last year - Using a part timer as our 2nd ruck. (it was actually 2010, not 2011) how time fly's when reading Rocco's posts...

Yet, I do agree with you. We need to try something different as our forward line is not working and we need to help out Jones and who knows if Cordy is the answer unless we try.

RJ who do you prefer as our number one ruck with Cordy riding shotgun?

Haha.

Will Minson is my preferred 1st ruck. Cordy as #2 would allow Will to just concentrate on ruck work.

I agree that the forward line but I think a lot of that is due to the Will/Roughy combo offering so very little up forward. If we are going to play an extra tall I would prefer to bring in Cordy and say Panos for Roughy and Dickson. Panos also gives us the option to swing back and we can sub him if match ups don't suit/we need more run. Thing is, while the role suits us, I have concerns on him actually playing the role.

BTW my preference is not to have a part timer as our 2nd ruck (I know you aren't saying that). Ideally, I want our 2nd ruckman to compete well in the ruck but also warrant selection in the side in another position. It's pretty simple IMO. When paired with an out and out ruckman like Will, the 2nd ruck is going to spend about twice as much time out of the ruck as they will in it.

[bornadog]

BTW my preference is not to have a part timer as our 2nd ruck (I know you aren't saying that). Ideally, I want our 2nd ruckman to compete well in the ruck but also warrant selection in the side in another position. It's pretty simple IMO. When paired with an out and out ruckman like Will, the 2nd ruck is going to spend about twice as much time out of the ruck as they will in it.

On Monday the Hawks had two ruckman in, but still gave Roughead a go in the centre bounce. Maybe they thought their genuine rucks were losing the hitouts. The Hawks Roughead is an ideal 2nd ruckman, but we don't have anyone like that.

[Rocco Jones]

On Monday the Hawks had two ruckman in, but still gave Roughead a go in the centre bounce. Maybe they thought their genuine rucks were losing the hitouts. The Hawks Roughead is an ideal 2nd ruckman, but we don't have anyone like that.

I think they are different in that Hale is a stronger forward option than either Will or our Roughy. Hale and their Roughead can share 2nd ruck load and forward duties. Also works in well with McCauley or Hale being subbed off.

[stefoid]

As I said in the other thread , bringing in Cordy as a forward is not going work within our structure , his offensive output has to be 50/50 with his defensive output

As I stated before , our structure is an oversize midfield with only two forwards and a rotating ruckman in the forward line , if we bring Cordy in to pair with Jones and Dickson we take a midfielder away from a zone rotation , as I stated before Gia, Higgins and Dahlhaus may be named in the forward line but in our current structure they are midfielders

Could a player like Barry Hall fit into Macca's structure ?

Yes but again it would still be only two forwards and a rotating ruckman , the personnel could change but the structure would not

At the moment the midfield has been given the responsibility for scoring 2/3rds of our scoring , the balance has to come from backline players pushing up the ground, the rotating ruckman and the two forwards

( I,m only using BBB as an example )

.

Love your work.

So bring Cordy in for Dickson then? Dickson doesnt seem much of a crumber and he certainly isnt taking any aerial pressure off Jones, nor does he seem much of a defensive pressure specialist so... wheres the bad?

Im presuming that Dicskon is currently keeping his forward specialist spot warm for Sherman, Cordy, Skinner, or even Panos, and Id like to see the switch happen sooner rather than later, even if just for general curisoity sake.

[LostDoggy]

Love your work.

So bring Cordy in for Dickson then? Dickson doesnt seem much of a crumber and he certainly isnt taking any aerial pressure off Jones, nor does he seem much of a defensive pressure specialist so... wheres the bad?

Im presuming that Dicskon is currently keeping his forward specialist spot warm for Sherman, Cordy, Skinner, or even Panos, and Id like to see the switch happen sooner rather than later, even if just for general curisoity sake.

You got me again ,again I should have said extra forward , Jones and Cordy as the two forwards fits the structure

With Dickson he has had two games and if the match committee decide that his stats don,t show the improvement that they think he should have showed then it could be he gets dropped for Cordy

I think we are getting closer to a bilateral consensus

.

[Mofra]

I think we are getting closer to a bilateral consensus
If Cordy fires we'll get a site-wide concensus :cool:

Interested to see how the three big man structure works. We get to see how far Cordy has come after his best (only?) pre-season to date.

[Eastdog]

If Cordy fires we'll get a site-wide concensus :cool:

Interested to see how the three big man structure works. We get to see how far Cordy has come after his best (only?) pre-season to date.

Looking forward to seeing how he goes. Do you think Mofra that he will play more in the seniors this year.

[DragzLS1]

If Cordy fires we'll get a site-wide concensus :cool:

Interested to see how the three big man structure works. We get to see how far Cordy has come after his best (only?) pre-season to date.


I think the 3 big man structure is going to work and am very excited to see how it all goes. Although it is his first full pre season I am still positive that he will have a decent impact this season and will play a fair few games in the senior side.

[LostDoggy]

I hope he gets a consistent crack at it rather than dropped after one match.

[Rocco Jones]

I think the 3 big man structure is going to work

I think having an extra tall forward is definitely a good idea if you are purely talking about structure. My concerns are about the actual quality the trio bring.

Cordy needs to bring enough value purely as a KPP. St.Kilda's tall forward line adds the option of going back to play on Stanley as well as playing forward.

Will and/or Roughy simply need to add more value up forward. It isn't just an old school pinch hitting up forward thing, as a combo they will just the majority of TOG there. We just aren't getting enough from them.

The sub rule suts it in a way as we can sub off one of them for extra run.

My preference would be to have Ayce as 2nd ruck and bring in another tall forward but to be honest guys like Panos just don't warrant a game. Also it's not like Dickson added much of the benefits you get from smaller players (run, pressure etc).

[Mofra]

Looking forward to seeing how he goes. Do you think Mofra that he will play more in the seniors this year.
Maybe in a different role (purely as the no 2 ruck).

Alot depends on the form of those below him - if a Skinner or Panos or Dickson push for senior selection, we'll have to make a call on Cordy vs Roughead as the no 2 ruck and Ayce must think he's a realistic chance to stay in the side.

[Greystache]

I think having an extra tall forward is definitely a good idea if you are purely talking about structure. My concerns are about the actual quality the trio bring.

Cordy needs to bring enough value purely as a KPP. St.Kilda's tall forward line adds the option of going back to play on Stanley as well as playing forward.

Will and/or Roughy simply need to add more value up forward. It isn't just an old school pinch hitting up forward thing, as a combo they will just the majority of TOG there. We just aren't getting enough from them.

The sub rule suts it in a way as we can sub off one of them for extra run.

My preference would be to have Ayce as 2nd ruck and bring in another tall forward but to be honest guys like Panos just don't warrant a game. Also it's not like Dickson added much of the benefits you get from smaller players (run, pressure etc).

What does Stanley bring to St Kilda that Cordy won't bring for us?

Neither have played much AFL football, nor are either likely to tear a game apart, yet we're talking about needing to play another tall defender to play on him (which will restrict our rebounding ability) yet WE shouldn't play a third tall because we'll get murdered on the rebound. Surely if we need an extra tall defender so will they, or they'll end up with a small defender playing on our tall forward which will expose them in the air.

While I'm highlighting your post Rocco I'm actually making more of a general comment, every week we panic about who's going to play on a third string opposition tall forward, no matter how little threat they pose, yet in the same sentence we talk about not being too tall in our forward line because their short defence will kill us on the rebound. Either we over rate opposition talls, or we just accept that our small forwards are a liability defensively to the point where opposition rebounding defenders will carve us up even when they should in theory have their hands full stopping our tall forwards.

Against the Saints we need to shut down Riewoldt, but Kosi is a spud, and Stanley is not quite as good as Kosi. If we change our entire structure to cover these two we should give up now, our coaching staff are just passengers on game day.

[Rocco Jones]

What does Stanley bring to St Kilda that Cordy won't bring for us?

Neither have played much AFL football, nor are either likely to tear a game apart, yet we're talking about needing to play another tall defender to play on him (which will restrict our rebounding ability) yet WE shouldn't play a third tall because we'll get murdered on the rebound. Surely if we need an extra tall defender so will they, or they'll end up with a small defender playing on our tall forward which will expose them in the air.

While I'm highlighting your post Rocco I'm actually making more of a general comment, every week we panic about who's going to play on a third string opposition tall forward, no matter how little threat they pose, yet in the same sentence we talk about not being too tall in our forward line because their short defence will kill us on the rebound. Either we over rate opposition talls, or we just accept that our small forwards are a liability defensively to the point where opposition rebounding defenders will carve us up even when they should in theory have their hands full stopping our tall forwards.

Against the Saints we need to shut down Riewoldt, but Kosi is a spud, and Stanley is not quite as good as Kosi. If we change our entire structure to cover these two we should give up now, our coaching staff are just passengers on game day.

I totally agree with not worrying about spud talls and actually trying to use them to create rebound. I was just commenting that Cordy has the option of going down back if he is struggling forward.

I would definitely start Ayce forward, just that Stanley has the option of going into the ruck if he is spudding it up.

[LostDoggy]

I think having an extra tall forward is definitely a good idea if you are purely talking about structure. My concerns are about the actual quality the trio bring.

Cordy needs to bring enough value purely as a KPP. St.Kilda's tall forward line adds the option of going back to play on Stanley as well as playing forward.

Will and/or Roughy simply need to add more value up forward. It isn't just an old school pinch hitting up forward thing, as a combo they will just the majority of TOG there. We just aren't getting enough from them.

The sub rule suts it in a way as we can sub off one of them for extra run.

My preference would be to have Ayce as 2nd ruck and bring in another tall forward but to be honest guys like Panos just don't warrant a game. Also it's not like Dickson added much of the benefits you get from smaller players (run, pressure etc).

I think Roughead will push back a lot into defence to free up Lake. Would not be surprised if Cordy is Sub and will replace Will or Rough.

[Bulldog4life]

What does Stanley bring to St Kilda that Cordy won't bring for us?

Neither have played much AFL football, nor are either likely to tear a game apart, yet we're talking about needing to play another tall defender to play on him (which will restrict our rebounding ability) yet WE shouldn't play a third tall because we'll get murdered on the rebound. Surely if we need an extra tall defender so will they, or they'll end up with a small defender playing on our tall forward which will expose them in the air.

While I'm highlighting your post Rocco I'm actually making more of a general comment, every week we panic about who's going to play on a third string opposition tall forward, no matter how little threat they pose, yet in the same sentence we talk about not being too tall in our forward line because their short defence will kill us on the rebound. Either we over rate opposition talls, or we just accept that our small forwards are a liability defensively to the point where opposition rebounding defenders will carve us up even when they should in theory have their hands full stopping our tall forwards.

Against the Saints we need to shut down Riewoldt, but Kosi is a spud, and Stanley is not quite as good as Kosi. If we change our entire structure to cover these two we should give up now, our coaching staff are just passengers on game day.

Good post. I've thought the same thing myself.

[bornadog]

What does Stanley bring to St Kilda that Cordy won't bring for us?

Neither have played much AFL football, nor are either likely to tear a game apart, yet we're talking about needing to play another tall defender to play on him (which will restrict our rebounding ability) yet WE shouldn't play a third tall because we'll get murdered on the rebound. Surely if we need an extra tall defender so will they, or they'll end up with a small defender playing on our tall forward which will expose them in the air.

While I'm highlighting your post Rocco I'm actually making more of a general comment, every week we panic about who's going to play on a third string opposition tall forward, no matter how little threat they pose, yet in the same sentence we talk about not being too tall in our forward line because their short defence will kill us on the rebound. Either we over rate opposition talls, or we just accept that our small forwards are a liability defensively to the point where opposition rebounding defenders will carve us up even when they should in theory have their hands full stopping our tall forwards.

Against the Saints we need to shut down Riewoldt, but Kosi is a spud, and Stanley is not quite as good as Kosi. If we change our entire structure to cover these two we should give up now, our coaching staff are just passengers on game day.

I must admit I am one of the panickers as I have seen too many Bulldogs games where these so called spuds have carved us up.

Overall though, I agree with your assessment.