View Full Version : Smalls and Talls: A 2 season perspective
Correct me if I'm wrong, but our great run toward the end of last season coincided with Bandy and Rawlings being dropped from the team.
There was no Darcy, so the only tall we are missing from the latter part of last season is Minson.
No-one could argue that we would be a better team with Bandy and Rawlings back in.
Bowden isn't doing too shabby at Richmond, but then he made it pretty clear he didn't want to play for us.
So despite the pessimism surrounding our talls and their knee injuries, our height around the ground is pretty much the same as late 2005. The biggest difference is that Murphy is gone ( that's a pretty major difference, of course.)
Is there any reason why we can't recreate that great form? Or with a 6-4 record are we performing as expected?
My main concern is that opposition coaches have worked us out. We're unlikely to be given the same freedom that allowed to us to smash teams open on a regular basis.
The thrashing of Port Adelaide a few weeks ago showed that our form of last year is still very much bubbling under the surface. If we can get a good start and force teams to chase us, and start winning some bloody clearances, there's no reason why we can't march on to the finals, despite our small stature in certain areas.
And, dare I say it, we might even scare a few teams if we get there.
I think ideally, our game style and skill level will develop to a level where it is able to run over even the better out-fits. Its still developing, but I see no reason why (with a solid training program and good list management) it can't be achieved at the dogs currently.
The height factor is of course an issue. The comparison to last year is an interesting one, however I feel at least one KPP in the forward line is a must, especially in finals football. We have managed to have success without a KPP in the forward line before, however I don't think its suited to a more pressure-intensive atmosphere, such as finals.
Given that we were using such a small forward line, losing Murphy is a huge blow. His ability to read the play, and control the ball around the 50m arch was outstanding, and he was having a great year like he did last.
I feel having Williams, Darcy and Minson in the team will give it a lot more balance. Williams would become a second KPP in defense, allowing Hargrave the third tall in defense, and Grant to go forward. Darcy could also play forward, as could Skipper and Minson who would rotate in the ruck. It may cost Street a position in the team unless he can become slightly more versatile, and really begin to dominate the clearances every week.
I do however agree that our structure does suit our style of play, and their is no reason why we cant make finals, and as you say, make some higher placed teams feel nervous. There will be a point where we can't go that bit further though, due to the lack of height in KP's. Come season's end we can hope (touches wood) to have Minson back, and possibly Williams also, which would help out structure a lot. Having Minson back at this stage would allow us to release Skipper foward, which in itself would be helpful, even if Skipper isn't statistically dominating, his presence and some good defensive work will go a long way in the forward 50.
[/small thesis]
ErnieSigley
4 Jun 2006, 23:07
Time to move on.
So despite the pessimism surrounding our talls and their knee injuries, our height around the ground is pretty much the same as late 2005. The biggest difference is that Murphy is gone ( that's a pretty major difference, of course.)
Is there any reason why we can't recreate that great form? Or with a 6-4 record are we performing as expected?
.
Theoretically we've had an extra pre-season (fitter and bigger bodies) and an extra half season's experience under Eade.
But I fear that the loss of Murphy will be telling. IMO we need not only Minson back but at least one young tall forward to show something forward.
My main concern is that opposition coaches have worked us out. We're unlikely to be given the same freedom that allowed to us to smash teams open on a regular basis.
Agreed. And we'll be found out on the half forward line and up forward in general when things get tight.
jd hot stuff
4 Jun 2006, 23:50
I think ideally, our game style and skill level will develop to a level where it is able to run over even the better out-fits. Its still developing, but I see no reason why (with a solid training program and good list management) it can't be achieved at the dogs currently.
The height factor is of course an issue. The comparison to last year is an interesting one, however I feel at least one KPP in the forward line is a must, especially in finals football. We have managed to have success without a KPP in the forward line before, however I don't think its suited to a more pressure-intensive atmosphere, such as finals.
Given that we were using such a small forward line, losing Murphy is a huge blow. His ability to read the play, and control the ball around the 50m arch was outstanding, and he was having a great year like he did last.
I feel having Williams, Darcy and Minson in the team will give it a lot more balance. Williams would become a second KPP in defense, allowing Hargrave the third tall in defense, and Grant to go forward. Darcy could also play forward, as could Skipper and Minson who would rotate in the ruck. It may cost Street a position in the team unless he can become slightly more versatile, and really begin to dominate the clearances every week.
I do however agree that our structure does suit our style of play, and their is no reason why we cant make finals, and as you say, make some higher placed teams feel nervous. There will be a point where we can't go that bit further though, due to the lack of height in KP's. Come season's end we can hope (touches wood) to have Minson back, and possibly Williams also, which would help out structure a lot. Having Minson back at this stage would allow us to release Skipper foward, which in itself would be helpful, even if Skipper isn't statistically dominating, his presence and some good defensive work will go a long way in the forward 50.
[/small thesis]
It would be ideal to have a couple of KP forwards but they will have to be able to lead quickly and have some sort of mid pace like Jonathon Brown other wise we just wont be able to hit the target that well. Our forward line at the moment is working great and with the ablity of our midfielder are great as some can go forwards and kick goals. Johnno and Grant have been our main forwards this season as they have briliant marking strength, and with Murphy and Robbins chipping in each week thats been working great. Even yesterday with Murphy out now we still had our 4 main go to guys with Monty doing most of Murphys work out isde of the 50 arc.
I just think we should just leave our forward line the wa it is and next season just gow ith Darcy as our KP forward as he has some good speed on a lead and just suits our style of play. And with the ruck i think we will see it change every few weeks between Minson, skipper and Street when Minson comes back.
Time to move on.
why are you always so negative?
Cyberdoggie
5 Jun 2006, 13:47
clearances are a real problem, we've been thrashed in this department recently. With players such as west, cross and cooney this shouldn't be happening. I'd have to say that this problem has only occured since minson has been out of the side. I have noticed that streeta tries hard but for some reason hits a lot of taps to the opposition midfielders. Also has the habit of tapping the ball towards the goal of the opposition when in a boundary throw in in their 50 metres. Doesn't seem to be getting better either.
ErnieSigley
5 Jun 2006, 16:25
why are you always so negative?
I was a bit harsh but I read bresker opener statement up to the sentence "we would be a better side with Bandy and Rawlings" and then I stopped. That sort of stuff has been done to death here and in my opinion that more negative than my throw away line.
I'm sorry if I offended Bresker but I just can't stand the dwelling the past and the "if only" rubbish.
Otherwise not sure where else I was negative.
I was a bit harsh but I read bresker opener statement up to the sentence "we would be a better side with Bandy and Rawlings" and then I stopped. That sort of stuff has been done to death here and in my opinion that more negative than my throw away line.
I'm sorry if I offended Bresker but I just can't stand the dwelling the past and the "if only" rubbish.
I'm either blind or you are.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but our great run toward the end of last season coincided with Bandy and Rawlings being dropped from the team.
If you're refering to this:
No-one could argue that we would be a better team with Bandy and Rawlings back in.
I think he means there's no justification for having thost two BACK in the side, rather than we would be a better side with them in.
Otherwise not sure where else I was negative.
I don't have the time to go through all your posts, but the list would be long.
I'm not offended. I'm trying to be positive, though. Some skillful giants would be great, but good riddance to tall rubbish.
Wind Sock
5 Jun 2006, 18:20
Just to put the height worries in perspective, people who say you can't succeed without tall KPFs don't know much VFL/AFL history. Collingwood played Brown at FF and CHF in their premiership year. Baldock was at CHF in St.Kilda's premiership year. Gary Ablett (sr) wasn't tall for FF. Melbourne won a string of flags with Athol Webb at FF. In our 1954 GF win we had Peter Box (a centreman) at CHF. They are a few of the very sucessful instances; there are plenty of others down through the years.
In bush footy, there is a tendency to play the best player in the team at CHF, regardless of height. When Eade threw Murphy up forward, I think he was just going with that theory as was Matthews in playing Brown up forward. (Obviously at AFL level it's not so much the best player as the best reader of the game who's good overhead and has really good skills. But height and build aren't of major importance.)
We'll miss Murphy a lot but that's because of his class, not his height or weight. It might take a few weeks to get a new structure in place.
Just to put the height worries in perspective, people who say you can't succeed without tall KPFs don't know much VFL/AFL history. Collingwood played Brown at FF and CHF in their premiership year. Baldock was at CHF in St.Kilda's premiership year. Gary Ablett (sr) wasn't tall for FF. Melbourne won a string of flags with Athol Webb at FF. In our 1954 GF win we had Peter Box (a centreman) at CHF. They are a few of the very sucessful instances; there are plenty of others down through the years.
In bush footy, there is a tendency to play the best player in the team at CHF, regardless of height. When Eade threw Murphy up forward, I think he was just going with that theory as was Matthews in playing Brown up forward. (Obviously at AFL level it's not so much the best player as the best reader of the game who's good overhead and has really good skills. But height and build aren't of major importance.)
We'll miss Murphy a lot but that's because of his class, not his height or weight. It might take a few weeks to get a new structure in place.
Excellent analysis. Judging where to run is the hardest part of playing CHF, and all the athleticism, speed, bulk & height will not make up for it.
FWIW I think we are found our for height in the defensive half more in the forward half - the opposition can hurt us for height with a mobile "third or fourth tall" a la Troy Schwarze in the St Kilda game. If an opposition team tries to stretch us for height with less mobile players, our HB run becomes the key factor, such as the WCE game at the MCG last year.