 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Stupied
Joined: 14 Mar 2013
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Dave The Man wrote: | | Reid will have to play Back now Anyway |
Why? Just because brown is out? Pretty sure that Frost and Keeffe are more than capable at holding down KPD positions. Reid will be playing forward and used as a swingman if needed. No change to the plans. |
|
|
|
 |
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Time for one of Witts or Grundy to go back to the VFL and White to take on some rucking duties.
While he's kicked more goals than Cloke this season they've dried up of late and unlike Travis doesn't really play the role of a true kp forward.
If he's going to be in the side I'd rather have him in the duel role of forward/ruck so if not contributing as a forward he at least will provide some ruck relief and open up a place in our 22.
At present we are getting very little from all 3 put together when it comes to scoreboard impact and possessions so for me it's a no brainer.
Like Rudeboy I like the sound of having Karnezis, Fasolo and Elliott up forward to give us some finishing class on goal and genuine creative forward ability.
Kennedy is the other who if ever given a full game might prove useful as a quick crumbing type forward.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
So, we're accepting the premise without question? I don't buy it. I wouldn't say our forward line is sparkling, but it's not failing, it's not being given a chance to fail. Where we are failing is up the field. Clearances and ball movement from defense. These have been so poor the last two games, the forwards never had a chance.
And without that chance what did we do? Against the Eagles we kicked a winning score. A remarkable effort. The forward line that did fail was the Eagles'. 66 inside 50s, plenty of free ball movement, a quality tall forward against smaller opponents. Kennedy, with all those chances, only having 6 disposals and 1 goal. That's what a fail looks like. We had very little quick ball movement forward all game, with the first two entries being an exception. On those, we kicked two goals. So no, I don't accept that our forward line is failing.
Rudeboy's changes may still be good ones, not because the forward line sucks so badly, but for a better balance. If our struggles up the field continue, a quicker, smaller forward line up could be beneficial. Against the Eagles we were forced into a counter attack style almost all game. This meant we rarely had our full forward structure in place when going forward and had to rely on whoever had got back in time from defense. But if we start winning clearances and get some free ball, the taller lineup could be the better option.
Another thing to consider: over 70% of our score on Saturday came from turnovers. With that being the case you do need to be a little careful about bringing in more offensive players with a tendency to drift and without a great defensive ethic. We all like to see quality offensive players, but the selection committee needs to look at the full picture.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
jackcass 
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | So, we're accepting the premise without question? I don't buy it. I wouldn't say our forward line is sparkling, but it's not failing, it's not being given a chance to fail. Where we are failing is up the field. Clearances and ball movement from defense. These have been so poor the last two games, the forwards never had a chance.
And without that chance what did we do? Against the Eagles we kicked a winning score. A remarkable effort. The forward line that did fail was the Eagles'. 66 inside 50s, plenty of free ball movement, a quality tall forward against smaller opponents. Kennedy, with all those chances, only having 6 disposals and 1 goal. That's what a fail looks like. We had very little quick ball movement forward all game, with the first two entries being an exception. On those, we kicked two goals. So no, I don't accept that our forward line is failing.
Rudeboy's changes may still be good ones, not because the forward line sucks so badly, but for a better balance. If our struggles up the field continue, a quicker, smaller forward line up could be beneficial. Against the Eagles we were forced into a counter attack style almost all game. This meant we rarely had our full forward structure in place when going forward and had to rely on whoever had got back in time from defense. But if we start winning clearances and get some free ball, the taller lineup could be the better option.
Another thing to consider: over 70% of our score on Saturday came from turnovers. With that being the case you do need to be a little careful about bringing in more offensive players with a tendency to drift and without a great defensive ethic. We all like to see quality offensive players, but the selection committee needs to look at the full picture. |
Well said. |
|
|
|
|
swoop42
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
When I talk about forward problems it isn't just about the makeup of the forward 6 it's about the delivery to and structure of that 6.
Dermie IMO was absolutely correct in his commentary on Saturday about his concerns that all of our goals were seemingly coming from turnovers or just opportunistic moments rather than good ball movement and finding targets within f50.
While it's important to be creating and taking advantage of the opportunities that arise against the best sides those chances lessen so we need to get a lot better at creating our own opportunities with fluent ball movement and structures that hold up under pressure.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^^The main reason for that though was because we weren't winning the ball out of the middle. Most of the game was counter attack from the backline. We had few opportunities to deliver the ball into a full forward line. Maybe that means we were dropping too many players back, but we did need it in the second half being so undermanned. Whatever the case, the ball winning and delivering needs to be addressed before we can assess the forward line. And I'm not talking about lack of skill, just a better system. We were getting there, but since the bye have gone back to 2013 levels.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
innocent_criminal
Joined: 06 Oct 2004
|
| Post subject: | |
|
You could put Royce Hart, Leigh Matthews & Garry Ablett Snr up forward for us and watch our ball users kick it at their feet, 5 m either side or 3m over their heads.
_________________
Assistant Coach # 23,738 |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | So, we're accepting the premise without question? I don't buy it. I wouldn't say our forward line is sparkling, but it's not failing, it's not being given a chance to fail. Where we are failing is up the field. Clearances and ball movement from defense. These have been so poor the last two games, the forwards never had a chance.
And without that chance what did we do? Against the Eagles we kicked a winning score. A remarkable effort. The forward line that did fail was the Eagles'. 66 inside 50s, plenty of free ball movement, a quality tall forward against smaller opponents. Kennedy, with all those chances, only having 6 disposals and 1 goal. That's what a fail looks like. We had very little quick ball movement forward all game, with the first two entries being an exception. On those, we kicked two goals. So no, I don't accept that our forward line is failing.
Rudeboy's changes may still be good ones, not because the forward line sucks so badly, but for a better balance. If our struggles up the field continue, a quicker, smaller forward line up could be beneficial. Against the Eagles we were forced into a counter attack style almost all game. This meant we rarely had our full forward structure in place when going forward and had to rely on whoever had got back in time from defense. But if we start winning clearances and get some free ball, the taller lineup could be the better option.
Another thing to consider: over 70% of our score on Saturday came from turnovers. With that being the case you do need to be a little careful about bringing in more offensive players with a tendency to drift and without a great defensive ethic. We all like to see quality offensive players, but the selection committee needs to look at the full picture. |
I agree that the quality of our forward entries are making it difficult for our forwards. But let's not swallow the Demir Cloke line that all our problems are due to our midfielders. Let's not let Cloke and our other key forwards off the hook. Cloke is playing pathetically atm and White is not getting to enough contests. Witts is giving us very little. The bottom line is we need our midfielders to win first use of the ball out of the centre more often so we can get the ball down to our forwards quickly. But our forwards have to start leading toward the ball. Brereton recently said that Cloke's problem is that he's presently running away from the ball, not toward it. He aint going to get the ball running away from it.
But despite all this, all I'm proposing is one change to our forward set up - Witts out, Karnezis in. Furthermore, I want to see White used more in the ruck. It seems a no brainer to me. But wtf would I know? |
|
|
|
|
derkd
Joined: 29 May 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | | AN_Inkling wrote: | So, we're accepting the premise without question? I don't buy it. I wouldn't say our forward line is sparkling, but it's not failing, it's not being given a chance to fail. Where we are failing is up the field. Clearances and ball movement from defense. These have been so poor the last two games, the forwards never had a chance.
And without that chance what did we do? Against the Eagles we kicked a winning score. A remarkable effort. The forward line that did fail was the Eagles'. 66 inside 50s, plenty of free ball movement, a quality tall forward against smaller opponents. Kennedy, with all those chances, only having 6 disposals and 1 goal. That's what a fail looks like. We had very little quick ball movement forward all game, with the first two entries being an exception. On those, we kicked two goals. So no, I don't accept that our forward line is failing.
Rudeboy's changes may still be good ones, not because the forward line sucks so badly, but for a better balance. If our struggles up the field continue, a quicker, smaller forward line up could be beneficial. Against the Eagles we were forced into a counter attack style almost all game. This meant we rarely had our full forward structure in place when going forward and had to rely on whoever had got back in time from defense. But if we start winning clearances and get some free ball, the taller lineup could be the better option.
Another thing to consider: over 70% of our score on Saturday came from turnovers. With that being the case you do need to be a little careful about bringing in more offensive players with a tendency to drift and without a great defensive ethic. We all like to see quality offensive players, but the selection committee needs to look at the full picture. |
I agree that the quality of our forward entries are making it difficult for our forwards. But let's not swallow the Demir Cloke line that all our problems are due to our midfielders. Let's not let Cloke and our other key forwards off the hook. Cloke is playing pathetically atm and White is not getting to enough contests. Witts is giving us very little. The bottom line is we need our midfielders to win first use of the ball out of the centre more often so we can get the ball down to our forwards quickly. But our forwards have to start leading toward the ball. Brereton recently said that Cloke's problem is that he's presently running away from the ball, not toward it. He aint going to get the ball running away from it.
But despite all this, all I'm proposing is one change to our forward set up - Witts out, Karnezis in. Furthermore, I want to see White used more in the ruck. It seems a no brainer to me. But wtf would I know? |
I can see a confluence of both arguments. I would argue perhaps our form line this year is a far more a product of whole team effort rather than just "this player" or "this part of the ground" not preforming. If we look at a simple mark of pressure...say tackles per game, the break down below hints in my mind to far more of the root of the problem.
Round 10: 92 tackles (win)
Round 9: 71 tackles (loss)
Round 8: N/A
Round 7: 65 tackles (win)
Round 6: 98 tackles (win)
Round 5: 64 tackles (win)* (in this match we out possessed North easily)
Round 4: 80 tackles (win)
Round 3: 55 tackles (lost)
Round 2: 74 tackles (win)
Round 1: 83 tackles (lost)
So typically, (but not always the rule), when we can get above the 75 odd tackle mark per match we win. It is the sign of a side that is playing consistent pressure Football. We have this season been a tad up and down...as to be expected from a young side. |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| DaVe86 wrote: | | jackcass wrote: | | DaVe86 wrote: | I think Witts has been great and the development has been fantastic, but agree it's time for him to be dropped.
We looked better with White backup rucking and a smaller forward line.
Pending the fitness of Karnezis, he has definitely done enough to earn the spot until Reid is fit.
I genuinely think though the form of our forward line will improve when our midfield starts winning clearances. We have been smashed in this area the last 2 weeks. Our defence has done an awesome job to keep us so close in games, however good sides are going to tear us apart if we allow so many easy clearances.
Get the ball in there quickly with our players one out and see how we go.
Some decent delivery will help too. |
Both Grundy and Witts played forward the majority of the time White was rucking so I don't see how that equates to "a smaller forward line".
And yes, we did start to click when White went onto the ball. Don't know why this doesn't happen more often even when/if both Witts and Grundy are playing. Just another change up to keep the opposition guessing.
And I agree, forward line will start to function better when we start dominating clearances again. A stable defense wouldn't hurt either. |
Fair enough. I suppose the point is that the majority of our goals came from smalls so I'd structure up with guys like Fasolo, Elliott, Karnezis, Blair and Goldsack rotating up forward and Cloke and White the talls. I reckon that makes us way more dangerous as Fasolo, Karnezis and Elliott are dead eyes on goal. |
Don't disagree with you, just a bit of a chicken and egg discussion. Did the smalls get these goal kicking opportunites because of the work done by the bigs? From memory it was Witts 3rd man up at a ruck contest that knocked the footy to Ball which he flicked to Beams for his shot on goal from the pocket. I haven't seen a replay but I'm assuming there were other instances where Cloke, White, Witts and Grundy were part of the scoring chain. I guess we won't know unless the MC opt to change up the structure so time will tell. I agree, based purely on scoreboard contribution in terms of goals kicked it'd be nice for the bigs to have greater input but it's not as critical as long as they are contributing goal assists. And all 4 of the bigs did kick a goal.
Last edited by jackcass on Tue May 27, 2014 3:26 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| derkd wrote: | I can see a confluence of both arguments. I would argue perhaps our form line this year is a far more a product of whole team effort rather than just "this player" or "this part of the ground" not preforming. If we look at a simple mark of pressure...say tackles per game, the break down below hints in my mind to far more of the root of the problem.
Round 10: 92 tackles (win)
Round 9: 71 tackles (loss)
Round 8: N/A
Round 7: 65 tackles (win)
Round 6: 98 tackles (win)
Round 5: 64 tackles (win)* (in this match we out possessed North easily)
Round 4: 80 tackles (win)
Round 3: 55 tackles (lost)
Round 2: 74 tackles (win)
Round 1: 83 tackles (lost)
So typically, (but not always the rule), when we can get above the 75 odd tackle mark per match we win. It is the sign of a side that is playing consistent pressure Football. We have this season been a tad up and down...as to be expected from a young side. |
Tackles are an interesting one. The quantum at once measures team intensity but equally possession of the footy insomuch as you only tackle when you haven't got it. I haven't done any research but my assumption is that when we win the tackle count we generally win, the actual number of tackles is less important. And sadly this season good tackles aren't being rewarded by the umps. |
|
|
|
|
Lazza
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| jackcass wrote: | | derkd wrote: | I can see a confluence of both arguments. I would argue perhaps our form line this year is a far more a product of whole team effort rather than just "this player" or "this part of the ground" not preforming. If we look at a simple mark of pressure...say tackles per game, the break down below hints in my mind to far more of the root of the problem.
Round 10: 92 tackles (win)
Round 9: 71 tackles (loss)
Round 8: N/A
Round 7: 65 tackles (win)
Round 6: 98 tackles (win)
Round 5: 64 tackles (win)* (in this match we out possessed North easily)
Round 4: 80 tackles (win)
Round 3: 55 tackles (lost)
Round 2: 74 tackles (win)
Round 1: 83 tackles (lost)
So typically, (but not always the rule), when we can get above the 75 odd tackle mark per match we win. It is the sign of a side that is playing consistent pressure Football. We have this season been a tad up and down...as to be expected from a young side. |
Tackles are an interesting one. The quantum at once measures team intensity but equally possession of the footy insomuch as you only tackle when you haven't got it. I haven't done any research but my assumption is that when we win the tackle count we generally win, the actual number of tackles is less important. And sadly this season good tackles aren't being rewarded by the umps. |
THIS.
It is bloody rediculous how many brilliant tackles are not being rewarded this season. Far too many umpires take the piss easy option of a ball up without looking at the efforts of the tackler..  |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Lazza wrote: | THIS.
It is bloody rediculous how many brilliant tackles are not being rewarded this season. Far too many umpires take the piss easy option of a ball up without looking at the efforts of the tackler.. |
Tough one Laz. The shift away from rewarding tackles came about because supporters wanted to see the bloke who goes and gets the footy given more latitude so it's supporter driven. In todays interpretations there is just as much reward for someone to actually go and get the footy themselves as there is to sweat on someone else to do it. |
|
|
|
|
Lazza
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| jackcass wrote: | | Lazza wrote: | THIS.
It is bloody rediculous how many brilliant tackles are not being rewarded this season. Far too many umpires take the piss easy option of a ball up without looking at the efforts of the tackler.. |
Tough one Laz. The shift away from rewarding tackles came about because supporters wanted to see the bloke who goes and gets the footy given more latitude so it's supporter driven. In todays interpretations there is just as much reward for someone to actually go and get the footy themselves as there is to sweat on someone else to do it. |
My issue is that the tackler should be rewarded when tackling a player who purposely ducks his head to get a free for high contact, especially when the tackling technique has been perfect. This frustrates me no end Daz....  |
|
|
|
|
3rd degree 
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Location: John Wren's tote
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I think Karnezis will give us something different and make Trav work a bit harder !
_________________
" Ohhh Banksy and out comes the Note Book".
www.facebook/the hybernators |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
