Our forward line Strucutre [Archive]

Stiffy_18

23 Feb 2004, 20:06

Do we have the right mix of players in our forward line. I have said before on a number of occasions that Carey and Perrie don't function well together and it was again evident againt St. Kilda in the Wizard Cup.

When Carey plays, Perrie goes missing. When Carey is benched or is not playing Perrie plays a very good game wher ehe presents marks and kicks goals. Whats the deal with this??????

Do we play Perrie at CHF and Carey out of FF or is it just oneof those cases where 2 players can't play well together in the same forward line, ala Hodges and Modra??????

How do we fix this, do we change the personel or come with a completely different structure to teh one we have?

Thoughts??????

Wayne's-World

23 Feb 2004, 20:23

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Do we have the right mix of players in our forward line. I have said before on a number of occasions that Carey and Perrie don't function well together and it was again evident againt St. Kilda in the Wizard Cup.

When Carey plays, Perrie goes missing. When Carey is benched or is not playing Perrie plays a very good game wher ehe presents marks and kicks goals. Whats the deal with this??????

Do we play Perrie at CHF and Carey out of FF or is it just oneof those cases where 2 players can't play well together in the same forward line, ala Hodges and Modra??????

How do we fix this, do we change the personel or come with a completely different structure to teh one we have?

Thoughts??????
If you were running through the centre with the ball, looked up and saw the option of Perrie or Carey, who would you choose.?
Its as simple as that. Carey attracts the ball, both through his reading of the game, positioning, and his reputation.
If both in the side, I would put Perrie at CHF, and play Carey as we originally intended at FF, with Walsh at his side.

macca23

23 Feb 2004, 20:34

You've stolen my thought process Stiffy. I was going to start a similar thread on the same topic.

The heart of the problem is playing Carey at CHF. He can't mark overhead, and leads non-stop to the flanks. Remember the days of Blight playing Robran at CHF. It was called structure. Robran would sometimes hardly touch leather, but he had to stay in a very confined area at CHF to force our players to go straight down the ground. Robran's job was to get the ball to ground and the crumbers knew where the ball would be.

Remember when we recruited Carey. The powers that be said we needed someone to take contested marks to straighten us up and Carey was it . Stupid really, because of his shoulders he can't mark overhead.

On top of that Perrie seems to drop out of the game with Carey in front of him.

Carey still has something to offer but it can't be at CHF IMO. We must straighten up our attacks at all cost. And we don't have Mark Stevens to take on that role.

Carey should be the icing on the cake - not the cake.

One solution would be to play Perrie at CHF, Burton at FF and Carey in the pocket. That would make the last line of attack Carey, Burton and Welsh which would give options, options, options.

Perrie would have to be the focus at CHF and be supported by crumbers in Johncock and Edwards. A quick line which would trouble most opposing HB lines.

That would leave the wings to be manned by Begley and Reilly with Doughty and Ladhams trying to get a spot there as well.

That's one potential forward line, which I think has more potency.

Your thoughts??

Wayne's-World

23 Feb 2004, 20:43

Macca, that forward line would be ideal, except I think we need Burtons pace and marking around the midfield.
He can certainly be used as shock value as we dis last year, but Carey at FF, with Welsh coming over the top, or Welsh the leading target, and Carey in for the long bomb.

Question: is Carey leading to the flanks part of the gameplan to open up the CHF area, Perrie played the same way last year at CHF. The difference is that our blokes, instead of ignoring the leads, and using the space he's created behind him, honour all his leads, simply because of who he is?

spindoctor

23 Feb 2004, 20:47

I put in a vote for Rutten at full-forward. He didn't have much to do yesterday but I think he looked good when I did see him.

Stiffy_18

23 Feb 2004, 20:47

macca23, if I stole your thougths on starting this thread, you stole mine about our forward line structure. I was thinking along the same lines as you.

We can't have Carey at CHF and build the forward line around him. I am extremely tempted to play Burton at FF and he is the only geniune option who can kick 50 goals for us and most importantly he is unpredictable. Full forward line of Carey, Burtomn and Welsh would be pretty hard to keep under control.

Perrie at CHF will always give you a contest and will lead generaly lead into the right spots. The only query with this is that he is not very good with his field kicking so his delivery to the forward line could be a problem. Carey is much better at this but he can't take an overhead mark. Surround Perrie with a couple of good quick crumbers and go on from there. Ladhams, Johncock and Schuback are all good options. I think Edwards will be needed in defence.

Losing Burton from the wing will be a minor loss as I think Reilly could handle that role well and should give him plenty of game time. I also think we could be very dangerous with Reilly and Johncock on each wing.

F: _ 2. Wayne Carey _ 24. Brett Burton _ 17. Scott Welsh
HF: _ 40. Chris Ladhams _ 22. Ian Perrie _ 18. Graham Johncock / 26. Jacob Schuback

Stiffy_18

23 Feb 2004, 20:51

Originally posted by Wayne's-World
Macca, that forward line would be ideal, except I think we need Burtons pace and marking around the midfield.
He can certainly be used as shock value as we dis last year, but Carey at FF, with Welsh coming over the top, or Welsh the leading target, and Carey in for the long bomb.

Question: is Carey leading to the flanks part of the gameplan to open up the CHF area, Perrie played the same way last year at CHF. The difference is that our blokes, instead of ignoring the leads, and using the space he's created behind him, honour all his leads, simply because of who he is? Are you suggesting that we are trying to use our CHF as a decoy to lead to the flanks and we carry the ball a bit further forward thruogh the corridor and kick it straight to FF??????

macca23

23 Feb 2004, 21:37

My thoughts will probably change week by week, but at this stage my best 22 would be

F: Carey, Burton, Welsh

HF: Johncock Perrie Ladhams

C: Begley Ricciuto Reilly

HB: Hentschel McGregor Smart

B: Edwards Bassett Hart

R: Clarke Goodwin McLeod

I: Biglands, Stenglein, Bode, Massie

Emerg: Stevens, Torney, Shirley, Schuback

Stiffy_18

23 Feb 2004, 21:47

Wayne's-World

23 Feb 2004, 22:13

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Are you suggesting that we are trying to use our CHF as a decoy to lead to the flanks and we carry the ball a bit further forward thruogh the corridor and kick it straight to FF??????
What I'm suggesting is there are a couple of ways of playing CHF, the stay at home type, or the mobile CHF who opens up spaces behind him.
I'm not saying the role is as a decoy, but it seems in Careys case we honour his lead every time.
IMO Robran played the position very similarly.
Carey cannot play as M .Stevens played the position due to the toll on his body, for that fact neither can Stevens anymore.

Stiffy_18

23 Feb 2004, 22:22

Originally posted by Wayne's-World
Carey cannot play as M .Stevens played the position due to the toll on his body, for that fact neither can Stevens anymore. But Perrie can. We always look better when we kick it to a leading CHF instead of our CHF opening up the space and us kicking into it.

I still think Carey is better of in a pocket with Burton at FF and Perrie at CHF surrounded by quick crumbers.

macca23

23 Feb 2004, 22:29

Originally posted by Wayne's-World
What I'm suggesting is there are a couple of ways of playing CHF, the stay at home type, or the mobile CHF who opens up spaces behind him.
I'm not saying the role is as a decoy, but it seems in Careys case we honour his lead every time.
IMO Robran played the position very similarly.
Carey cannot play as M .Stevens played the position due to the toll on his body, for that fact neither can Stevens anymore.

Agreed there are 2 styles of playing CHF. IMO Stevens played it much more in the Robran mould , ie a stay at home CHF, than Carey does.

Carey can't mark ovehead like he used to and he's leading wide trying to take chest marks. Unfortunately the players seem to honour that all the time rather than look for the player in the best position.

That's why Carey should NOT be the CHF, but play closer to goal to use his footy smarts. With Perrie at CHF the club can choose which role they prefer him to play, as he's capable of either role.

Stiffy_18

23 Feb 2004, 23:01

Originally posted by spindoctor
I put in a vote for Rutten at full-forward. He didn't have much to do yesterday but I think he looked good when I did see him. I don't know if he would make our best side but with the departure of Bradshaw and Ablett from Westies, Rutten will get his fair share of opportunities up forward with Westies. Hopefully at FF where I think he could be very damaging.

Fergus

24 Feb 2004, 08:52

I couldn't agree more with macca23. I reckon that forward structure provides flexibility and more importantly a bit of unpredictability.

Carey has the best football brain in our forward line but unfortunately does not have the physical qualities to go with it now. That's why it's important that he plays as close to goal as possible because he will create as many opportunities for others as he does for himself and doesn't need that same pace and agility to do so if he is at CHF.

Perrie somehow has to get himself out of Carey's shadow. He is more than capable but for some reason mentally goes missing when they play together. He is the longer term option so should be given the pivotal role and let Carey work around him. Carey is smart enough to do this, Perrie has proven he isn't or doesn't have the confidence to. Perrie might not mark everything but will provide a strong contest that the flankers can feed off.

Burton provides the unpredictable part. He doesn't know what he is going to do so it's pretty hard to plan against him. He is dynamic up forward and whilst it robs our drive off a wing he can always have a run down there if things are not working forward.

Stiffy_18

24 Feb 2004, 11:46

Originally posted by Fergus
...whilst it robs our drive off a wing he can always have a run down there if things are not working forward. There is no question Burton is an extremely damaging wingman as was illustrated by his 2nd half of the season last year. However, he is also a very damaging forward. He is only one of 2 forward options (Welsh being another one) who is capable of kicking 50 goals in a year if injuries and form permit.

Whilst we would lose some of his drive from the wing, I am sure that someone like Reilly and Johncock would provide plenty of run themselves. At the end of last year we were told that we will give a lot more opportunities to our youngsters and move Stiffy into midfield. Why not move Birdman to FF and play Reilly on one wing and Johncock on the other. Both of these fellas can play as linkman as both of them are good overhead marks. Not as good as Burton but not bad either.

Both Reilly and Johncock are the type of players that break through the lines and caryy the ball well. Giving these 2 youngsters more responsibility and a bit more freedom would do wonders for their development while at the same time it would give a lot more potency to our forward line by playing Burton out of a goal square.

Birdman is very difficult to match up on. Play a tall on him and he will beat then at ground level. Play a medium on him and he will outmark them. Brent Mongomery is the only player in the league who could negate him as he is also very good in the air.

The way I see it, playing Burton in the forward line, we don't lose anything. In fact I think we gain a hell of a lot more.

Stiffy_18

24 Feb 2004, 11:49

Originally posted by macca23
HB: Hentschel McGregor Smart

B: Edwards Bassett Hart The beauty of that backline is that 3 players (Smart, Hart and Hentschel) can all play on bigs and smalls. One weakness is that we still don't have anyone to play on bigger forwards. I guess we will need to come up with a defensive strategy that would keep those forwards quiet not beacause one of our defenders beats them but because backline does it as a unitl.

naughty monkey

24 Feb 2004, 11:50

What a steaming hot load of horse****, can't believe people want Perrie at CHF and Burton at FF.

Burton has shown last year just how good he can be on the wing. With an aerobic capacity the size of Phar lap leave him there and tell him to run himself silly! He'll get enough goals running through half forward. When he does play forward he just tries to take speccies - and almost always doesn't. There is nothing he does at FF that Welsh can't do.

As for Perrie, all he does is lead, mark, kick a goal. It is his one asset as a forward. That won't work at CHF. He does not have the nous to play CHF ala Robran, Stevens or Carey. And he can't go body on body. Then there's the small matter of his ground skills.

My line up:-

Welsh Perrie Burns (the good one!)/Schuback
Stiffy Carey Bode
Reilley/Gags Roo Burton
Smart McGregor Goodwin
Edwards Bassett Hart
Biglands McLeod Bode
Stenglein other Ruckman Massie Hentschel

The biggest thing is to get the midfielders and forwards to work together to execute the gameplan better. On Sunday's effort this could be a long year waiting.

Stiffy_18

24 Feb 2004, 11:58

Originally posted by naughty monkey
What a steaming hot load of horse****, can't believe people want Perrie at CHF and Burton at FF.

As for Perrie, all he does is lead, mark, kick a goal. It is his one asset as a forward. That won't work at CHF. Bit harsh. Perrie has played some of his best footy at CHF when there was no Carey in the side. When ever he plays with Carey he goes missing. He did a pretty good job against Geelong last year (opposed to Scarlett) and against Brisbane where he took to cleaners both Lepptisch AND Michael at the Gabba. Granted his ground skills are not up to it and he is not the smartest footballer running around BUT he will always prove a contest and at worst he will bring the ball to the ground and give the crumbers around him plenty of opportunities.

Last year Burton was fantastic on the wing but his 2002 form where he spent 2 thirds of the season as a FF ws very good as well. He has shown in the past he plays the ppsition well as he has kicked 50 goals in a season. Something no one else in the forward line has done (bar Carey of the Nth Melb version)

Kane McGoodwin

24 Feb 2004, 12:05

IMO, Burton goes missing too often for long period when he has to stay at home as a FF (better of being used as pinch hitter if the forward line is struggling or resting him for small periods from the wing). I would play both him & Reilly on the wings as they will contribute goals from there & give us 2 attacking wingmen who can cover lots of ground. We need to rely on our midfield kicking plenty of goals, not just our forwards.

I agree are better off playing Perrie at CHF as he is more suited playing on the lead & can then make space for himself. Whereas Carey can stay at home at FF & use his strength. Welshy should play as a roaming forward.

B: Bassett, Hentschel, Edwards
HB: Hart, McGregor, Stenglein
C: Burton, Ricciuto, Reilly
HF: Goodwin, Perrie, Ladhams
F: Johncock, Carey, Welsh
R: Biglands, Shirley, McLeod
I: Clarke, Smart, Massie, Schuback

(I'm sure I have missed someone obvious).

Stiffy_18

24 Feb 2004, 12:15

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
B: Bassett, Hentschel, Edwards
HB: Hart, McGregor, Stenglein
C: Burton, Ricciuto, Reilly
HF: Goodwin, Perrie, Ladhams
F: Johncock, Carey, Welsh
R: Biglands, Shirley, McLeod
I: Clarke, Smart, Massie, Schuback

(I'm sure I have missed someone obvious). Another couple of player that I think can't co-exist in the same side are Shirley and Stenglein. Tey play the game pretty much the same way. They play the same role which either means that we are going too defensive, hence not wanting to win at all costs or we are effectively running a player short because they both offer the same things.

Kane McGoodwin

24 Feb 2004, 12:18

Stiffy_18

24 Feb 2004, 12:22

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
IMO they can co-exist, but not both in the midfield at the same time. And thats my point all along because neither Stenglein or Shirley can play well as defenders and they can't play as forwards. The only place left for them is as midfielders. Hence, my statement before hand that they can't co-exist in the same side.

Wayne's-World

24 Feb 2004, 14:26

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
IMO, Burton goes missing too often for long period when he has to stay at home as a FF (better of being used as pinch hitter if the forward line is struggling or resting him for small periods from the wing). I would play both him & Reilly on the wings as they will contribute goals from there & give us 2 attacking wingmen who can cover lots of ground. We need to rely on our midfield kicking plenty of goals, not just our forwards.

I agree are better off playing Perrie at CHF as he is more suited playing on the lead & can then make space for himself. Whereas Carey can stay at home at FF & use his strength. Welshy should play as a roaming forward.

B: Bassett, Hentschel, Edwards
HB: Hart, McGregor, Stenglein
C: Burton, Ricciuto, Reilly
HF: Goodwin, Perrie, Ladhams
F: Johncock, Carey, Welsh
R: Biglands, Shirley, McLeod
I: Clarke, Smart, Massie, Schuback

(I'm sure I have missed someone obvious).

Kane, thats pretty spot on.
We have had a shortage of pace in the midfield, Stiffy into midfield rotation, Burton and Reilly on the wings helps to overcome this problem. The playing of Ronnie Burns up around the centre is also IMO designed to get a bit more pace in the midfield.
You haven't put Bode in the side, and I would say he could struggle to get in unless he does something soon

Also the first to put Stenglen on HBF - thats where I would play and develop him for when Smart leaves us.

Wayne's-World

24 Feb 2004, 14:31

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Another couple of player that I think can't co-exist in the same side are Shirley and Stenglein. Tey play the game pretty much the same way. They play the same role which either means that we are going too defensive, hence not wanting to win at all costs or we are effectively running a player short because they both offer the same things.

Everone has commented about our delivery into the forward line.
Both Stenglein and Shirley are very ordinary in that regard, are not quick, and I agree have both been playing the same role.
Can't go on!
Stenglein to a HBF, Shirley stays in the midfield as the tagger.

If as you say Stiffy with these two we are effectively running a player short, and if by having Biglands and Clarke we are effectively a player short - question; do we have enough players to make up a team;)

Stiffy_18

24 Feb 2004, 14:42

Originally posted by Wayne's-World
Everone has commented about our delivery into the forward line.
Both Stenglein and Shirley are very ordinary in that regard, are not quick, and I agree have both been playing the same role.
Can't go on!
Stenglein to a HBF, Shirley stays in the midfield as the tagger.

If as you say Stiffy with these two we are effectively running a player short, and if by having Biglands and Clarke we are effectively a player short - question; do we have enough players to make up a team;) How is Shirley better midfielder than Stenglein??????

After one quiet season from Stenglein and half a good season from Shirley we label Stenglein as not a good midfielder and we put Shirley in the midfield.

Shirley is not as good a tagger as Stenglein especially on bigger midfielders. He tends to go well in a half of footy then get tashed after half time. Quite frankly, I would choose Stenglein over Shirley every time.

Playing 2 taggers robs us of our midfield drive.

Burns further up the field is the greatest illusion known to a man. He is not a midfielder. He has pace BUT he burns the ball whenever he gets it further up the field. His best work is done out of a forward pocket.

I can't understand how people (read coaching staff) don't recognise that it DOESN'T work.

Either Shirley on Stenglein in the side. They cannot both co-exists in the same side. We have hentschel to groom to take over from Nigel. Also Jericho would be better option to groom to take over from Nige, than Stenglein.

Wayne's-World

24 Feb 2004, 15:21

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
How is Shirley better midfielder than Stenglein??????

After one quiet season from Stenglein and half a good season from Shirley we label Stenglein as not a good midfielder and we put Shirley in the midfield.

Shirley is not as good a tagger as Stenglein especially on bigger midfielders. He tends to go well in a half of footy then get tashed after half time. Quite frankly, I would choose Stenglein over Shirley every time.

Burns further up the field is the greatest illusion known to a man. He is not a midfielder. He has pace BUT he burns the ball whenever he gets it further up the field. His best work is done out of a forward pocket.

I can't understand how people (read coaching staff) don't recognise that it DOESN'T work.

Either Shirley on Stenglein in the side. They cannot both co-exists in the same side. We have hentschel to groom to take over from Nigel. Also Jericho would be better option to groom to take over from Nige, than Stenglein.

To quote a phrase; your only as good as your last game. We don't know how the players are going to perform this year, so our opinions are based on recent history.
On that basis, yes i prefer Shirley as a midfielder to Stenglein. As a 190cm player, who has learnt the game as a tagger, he should now move into our defence (or is he going to be a tagger for the next 7 years?). Remember with Shirley, he came into the side after half a season with the Eagles, his match conditioning for AFL football would have been well down. Not surprisingly his fitness levels in games would drop off - he'll be much better this year for that experience.
Stenglein has shown he can play tall and small as a tagger, I would actually prefer Stenglein alongside a new FB on the last line ( bassett ?), maybe Parker or Hudson? just throwing up names because there's no obvious choice.

With Burns, I think the coaching staff see it the way I do. Yes he holds the ball, draws defenders to him, yes gets caught or turns the ball over, but also he is a playmaker and a gamewinner.

Stiffy_18

24 Feb 2004, 17:40

Originally posted by Wayne's-World
With Burns, I think the coaching staff see it the way I do. Yes he holds the ball, draws defenders to him, yes gets caught or turns the ball over, but also he is a playmaker and a gamewinner. That my friend is the funniest thing I have heard in years. As I said in the other thread, Ronnie can be a match winner as a forward pocket, he is as bad a midfielder as one David Gallagher.

Ronnie a playmaker?????? You have got to be kidding. He doesn't know th emeaning of the word.

Wayne's-World

24 Feb 2004, 17:50

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
That my friend is the funniest thing I have heard in years. As I said in the other thread, Ronnie can be a match winner as a forward pocket, he is as bad a midfielder as one David Gallagher.

Ronnie a playmaker?????? You have got to be kidding. He doesn't know th emeaning of the word.
We'll have to agree to disagree on Ronnie.
IMO he was hopeless in his last season with Geelong, looked totally disinterested. His season with us last year was similar to Careys, hot and very cold.
But I'll stand by my comments - he'll either be very good for us, or your comments will be vindicated.
The actions of the coaches thus far tend to support my view.

Stiffy_18

24 Feb 2004, 17:54

Originally posted by Wayne's-World
The actions of the coaches thus far tend to support my view. That doesn't make it right. We all know how dumb and stubborn our coaching staff can be. Ronnie can be a match winner in the forward pocket bur as a midfielder he is as useless as David Gallagher was.

Wayne's-World

24 Feb 2004, 18:06

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
That doesn't make it right. We all know how dumb and stubborn our coaching staff can be. Ronnie can be a match winner in the forward pocket bur as a midfielder he is as useless as David Gallagher was.

Now Stiffy in the thread "ranking players for 2004" did you not make the following comments?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dogga
1 Ricciuto
2 McLeod
3 Carey
4 Burton
5 Goodwin
6 Edwards
7 M Stevens
8 John(ock
9 Hart
10 Welsh
11 McGregor
12 Biglands
13 Bode
14 Smart
15 Stenglein
16 Clarke
17 Bassett
18 Torney
19 Shirley
20 Perrie
21 Massie
22 Reilly
23 Ladhams
24 Begley
25 Burns
26 Schuback
27 Hudson
28 Watts
29 S Stevens
30 Hentschel
31 Skipworth
32 Rutten
33 Gallagher
34 Doughty
35 Bock
36 Krueger
37 Mattner
38 Jericho
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.
Quote from Stiffy
This is the best rating I have seen here. I would move Krueger to Skipworth's spot and shift everyone down one spot.

I know McLeod is a freak but I cannot understand how is he more important to our team than Roo. Bunji drifts in and out of the games too often for me to rank him at #1. Roo is consistent and you always know what you are going to get from him. With McLeod its not as straight forward as that.

I think you agreed with having Burns ranked over Schuback, Hentschell, Skipworth....
Whats changed your view?

Stiffy_18

24 Feb 2004, 18:37

Originally posted by Wayne's-World
Now Stiffy in the thread "ranking players for 2004" did you not make the following comments?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dogga
1 Ricciuto
2 McLeod
3 Carey
4 Burton
5 Goodwin
6 Edwards
7 M Stevens
8 John(ock
9 Hart
10 Welsh
11 McGregor
12 Biglands
13 Bode
14 Smart
15 Stenglein
16 Clarke
17 Bassett
18 Torney
19 Shirley
20 Perrie
21 Massie
22 Reilly
23 Ladhams
24 Begley
25 Burns
26 Schuback
27 Hudson
28 Watts
29 S Stevens
30 Hentschel
31 Skipworth
32 Rutten
33 Gallagher
34 Doughty
35 Bock
36 Krueger
37 Mattner
38 Jericho
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you agreed with having Burns ranked over Schuback, Hentschell, Skipworth....
Whats changed your view? The fact that I quoted someone means that I couldn't be stuffed doing my own ratings.:)

As I said Burns as a FP can be a match winner but we are playing him makes him inefective hence his rating is dropping down the order. I would still play Schuey, Skippy and Hentsch before him for a number of reasons.

1) they are not one dimesional
2) they are the future of the club Ronnie is in his last season
3) they need game time.

Face the facts that Ronnie is finished and his efforts a midfielder are pathetic to say the least. I just cannot comprehend that you actually think playing him in the midfield has some merit.

macca23

24 Feb 2004, 18:45

I can't answer for Stiffy, but here's where I ranked Burns importance to the side this year, by comparison to last year.

29 Burns -(20)
30 Doughty -(21)
31 Krueger -
32 Hudson -
33 Skipworth-
34 Bock -(33)
35 Rutten -(28)
36 Mattner -(24)
37 Jericho -
38 Gallagher-(27)

If I were to do it again today, Burns would drop even lower as Hudson would go in front of him in my rankings and I'd have a good think about Skippy and Gallagher as well.

There is as much sense IMO in trying to make a wingman out of Burns as there is in belting your head repeatedly with a mallett.

He will never be a matchwinner up the ground. Ronnie has one unique value when he's really on - he can kick goals and could win a game on those occasions.

But at the moment he's done nothing to warrant even being in our best 24 let alone our best 22. Others have earned that right.

When he has earned it, for me, it's FP or nothing.

Wayne's-World

24 Feb 2004, 19:20

Originally posted by macca23

There is as much sense IMO in trying to make a wingman out of Burns as there is in belting your head repeatedly with a mallett.

He will never be a matchwinner up the ground. Ronnie has one unique value when he's really on - he can kick goals and could win a game on those occasions.

But at the moment he's done nothing to warrant even being in our best 24 let alone our best 22. Others have earned that right.

When he has earned it, for me, it's FP or nothing.
I have not stated that he should be played on the wing.
What i have said is that for short periods last year he was thrown into the midfield rotation (its hard to tell exactly where they do play sometimes). I believe, and still do, that he's got some value to the club, other than FP, if he plays to somewhere near to his potential. And that is the coaches job.
The club is not in rebuilding phase, the coach is in the last year of his contract, believe me, players will be played this year on what they can contribute now.

Kane McGoodwin

24 Feb 2004, 21:24

Kane McGoodwin

24 Feb 2004, 21:28

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
The fact that I quoted someone means that I couldn't be stuffed doing my own ratings.:)

As I said Burns as a FP can be a match winner but we are playing him makes him inefective hence his rating is dropping down the order. I would still play Schuey, Skippy and Hentsch before him for a number of reasons.

1) they are not one dimesional
2) they are the future of the club Ronnie is in his last season
3) they need game time.

Face the facts that Ronnie is finished and his efforts a midfielder are pathetic to say the least. I just cannot comprehend that you actually think playing him in the midfield has some merit.
I'm also not convinced Ronnie is a midfielder. IMO we have many better options. However, I still reckon he has good value as an instinctive forward. His decision making is far better around goals than further up the field.

macca23

27 Feb 2004, 23:03

Originally posted by macca23
My thoughts will probably change week by week, but at this stage my best 22 would be

F: Carey, Burton, Welsh

HF: Johncock Perrie Ladhams

C: Begley Ricciuto Reilly

HB: Hentschel McGregor Smart

B: Edwards Bassett Hart

R: Clarke Goodwin McLeod

I: Biglands, Stenglein, Bode, Massie

Emerg: Stevens, Torney, Shirley, Schuback

Interesting to hear Neil Kerley talking on this very topic on 5AA tonight.

His first point was that Perrie has to play CHF so that he is in front of Carey. That way he will just play his own game rather than watching and worrying about what Carey is doing. Johncock on one flank and a host of other players for the other

His second point was that Carey is not the answer at CHF any more. He can't take overhead marks and the opposition run off of him too easily. He should be close to goal, preferably in the FP.

His next point was that Burton should play FF, because he would be our most dangerous player in that spot. He said this is the maximum value position for Burton, because on the wing he wastes the ball by poor delivery (true!!).

He went on to say that Ronnie Burns is a FP or nothing who can average 2 to 3 goals a game - forget this crap about playing in the midfield or on a wing.

He finished by saying that this would give a potent forward line.

I'm on his side - as can be seen from the above. I think the alternatives are frightening.