View Full Version : Grover to the Midfield
Would add size and pace, what do ya rekon?
dockers_bengals
8 Aug 2006, 21:14
its an idea with his aggression he shows now,save puting pav in there and the way the defence is playing it could be an option now and again.
Couple of weeks in the WAFL see how his touch is, then decide.
Still not a bad idea.
Watching CC move the players around on the field recently he (Grover) could finish up playing anywhere.
one question....why?? isnt he supposed to be a real improved defender, why move him as he starts to become good in that position.
sabre_ac
8 Aug 2006, 23:01
No more experiementing with players and playing them out of position....He's dominated down back...that is where he stays.
McPharlin, Medhurst, Schammer to name a few of the failed experiments...NO MORE~!
theGav56
8 Aug 2006, 23:05
No more experiementing with players and playing them out of position....He's dominated down back...that is where he stays.
McPharlin, Medhurst, Schammer to name a few of the failed experiments...NO MORE~!
Pavlich, Longmuir, Murphy, Mundy to name some successes.
sabre_ac
8 Aug 2006, 23:11
Pavlich, Longmuir, Murphy, Mundy to name some successes.
Pavlich is a champion anywhere...Though his position has always been CHF...The midfield experiement in my opinon was a failure.
Longmuir playing Ruck or forward was no experiment.
Murphy down back couldnt hold his place
Mundy down back..works..as he is a backmen..Though I would entertain the thought of him in the middle.
chook2734
8 Aug 2006, 23:15
I think we still need Grover down back right now - McPharlin is not a full-back. He is better suited to CHB and let Grover take the gorillas (Richardson, Hall, Gehrig etc). If we can get Haddrill back or Johnno to put on a few more kgs, we might be able to release Grover, but at the moment, I think with Webster, Crowley and co providing the bigger bodies, the midfield is doing ok.
Pavlich, Longmuir, Murphy, Mundy to name some successes.
Not sure I'd call that group successes as experiments. Pavlich and Murphy were always supposed to be key forwards and the experiments with them were actually in other positions that did not give the greatest benefit to the team. Longmuir was always supposed to be a ruckman/forward. Mundy was always supposed to start his career at half back.
There is some merit behind the move into the middle, but Grover can stay in the backline as far as I'm concerned. Thats where he has served the team admirably.
No more experiementing with players and playing them out of position....He's dominated down back...that is where he stays.
McPharlin, Medhurst, Schammer to name a few of the failed experiments...NO MORE~!
Before Grover was injured some of us thought he was going to make the short list for AA off a back flank. IMO that shouldnt consign him to that position if we have a good functioning back line without him. He could easily slot into the midfield now and then for a run. He is just what we need, big, strong, skilled and he has the smarts. Depending on match ups he could rotate off a flank easily.
Fitting him again alonside Elvis, Rodger, Parker, Johhno and Mundy gives us a formidable back line no doubt. But never say never.
theGav56
8 Aug 2006, 23:27
Pavlich is a champion anywhere...Though his position has always been CHF...The midfield experiement in my opinon was a failure.
Longmuir playing Ruck or forward was no experiment.
Murphy down back couldnt hold his place
Mundy down back..works..as he is a backmen..Though I would entertain the thought of him in the middle.
Pav in the midfield worked a beauty last week.
So Longmuir isn't an experiment, but say Simmonds is???
Murphy couldn't hold his place in the forward line either, because he was still learning. Playing down back was part of his education.
I'd hate to think that a player such as Mundy would be limited to being a backman.
back pocket
8 Aug 2006, 23:30
Too many quality defenders at the moment, which is good but kind of annoying.
As I see it, a back 6 could contain any combination of these players and still be very strong:
Parker (still marshalling the troops down back)
Mundy (no comment required for this budding superstar)
Johnson (ditto, you've seen him in action, say no more)
Black (raking left foot, hard at it)
Hayden (genius, nuff said)
MacPharlin (great backman, takes screamers, wasted up forward, but can play up there if required)
Dodd (The team can not function without this man in it, trust me. Annoys the crap out of the opposition)
Grover (was in sensational form before injury - walk up start in defence)
Thornton (provides great rebound, is a good stopper, looks like Clive)
Hadrill (at his best is a top full back)
Polak (pull your finger out, son, but joysus he can take a grab)
Duffield (patience, he's not far away, has all the qualities of a good player)
Walker (could be gorn, is a useful back-up, but that's about all at the moment)
Some of these players will have to develop more strings to their bow, because as you can see, there is not room for all of them in the backline.
That list of players is very potent, and is an obvious strength, but nonetheless if we are getting smashed in the midfield, it is still difficult to stop goals.
Be nice to transfer some of this quality to other areas of the ground, namely midfield, but as I see it most of those players seem like natural born defenders to me.
sabre_ac
8 Aug 2006, 23:32
Pav in the midfield worked a beauty last week.
Pinch hitting....Yes
His best permenant position has been and always will be CHF for the team.
So Longmuir isn't an experiment, but say Simmonds is???
Longmuir played forward before he was drafted, putting him in the forward line isnt that much of a stretch or playing him as a ruckmen.
Simmonds probably more so as my impression of him was he only ever played ruck before he came to freo.
Murphy couldn't hold his place in the forward line either, because he was still learning. Playing down back was part of his education.
As a backmen he lacked physical prescence, made poor decisions and was beaten week in week out.
He was never left forward long enough to cement a position, futhermore at the time McPharlin was the better option.
I'd hate to think that a player such as Mundy would be limited to being a backman.
Its sad that backmen are considered to have a easier time of it than any other position on the field. That they arnt considered in as high esteem as their forward counter parts.
Mundys thinking under pressure and ability to clear the ball while having a aerial prescence make him the perfect backmen.
Pace issues limit his midfield potential.
He may make a good forward flank but height and pace again limit his potential as a forward.
theGav56
8 Aug 2006, 23:41
The best teams have players who can play a diversity of roles in a range of positions. Thank goodness that is one of the attributes we are developing. It will hold us in good stead for the future, including the remainder of this year.
Do you agree Sabre? How would you go about developing that diversity?
Grover - midfield - NO WAY
The guy has put on 5-6kg for this season in order for him to play Full Back. He will be Full Back when he returns. McPharlin alot more suited to playing CHB. Johnson can then fill around the ground, be it HBF, Wing, Back Pocket...pinch hit up forward if required.
sabre_ac
8 Aug 2006, 23:53
The best teams have players who can play a diversity of roles in a range of positions. Thank goodness that is one of the attributes we are developing. It will hold us in good stead for the future, including the remainder of this year.
Do you agree Sabre? How would you go about developing that diversity?
I believe you need players who can play a diversity of roles...You do not require a team full of them.
As the say..Jack of all trades..Master of none.
Players who can play more than one position and dominate are the stars of the game and rare.
The notion that some forwards become better forwards after spending time down back is up for debate, I am not entirely sold in the issue. Playing out of position can cause massive confidence dives. Murphy playing back poorly in my opinion stalled his development.
Schammer is an example of being played out of position, fall in confidence and his performances then suffer.
theGav56
9 Aug 2006, 00:10
I believe you need players who can play a diversity of roles...You do not require a team full of them.
As the say..Jack of all trades..Master of none.
Players who can play more than one position and dominate are the stars of the game and rare.
The notion that some forwards become better forwards after spending time down back is up for debate, I am not entirely sold in the issue. Playing out of position can cause massive confidence dives. Murphy playing back poorly in my opinion stalled his development.
Schammer is an example of being played out of position, fall in confidence and his performances then suffer.
So you do agree???
The other questions was; How would you go about developing that diversity?
Kenny_01
9 Aug 2006, 00:13
Grover can take Mundy's spot in the backline and then Mundy can be unleashed in the middle.
sabre_ac
9 Aug 2006, 00:14
So you do agree???
The other questions was; How would you go about developing that diversity?
I dont believe you have to.
Some players are naturally utlility types..Due to mainly not being overly strong in any position, or as stated earlier out and out stars.
Like I said earlier so far...Playing players out of position has only had a negative effect and resulted in confidence dives.
theGav56
9 Aug 2006, 00:15
Grover can take Mundy's spot in the backline and then Mundy can be unleashed in the middle.
Mundy could be very handy in the midfield/wing.
Mundy could be very handy in the midfield/wing.
Or Rodger.
Or Rodger.
More likely Roger than Mundy, but with the amount of running we do from the backline, last week defenders like Rog and MJ were delivering to the forward line as often as our midfield players.
Grover in midfield may work, but when he comes back in slot him in his usual role in defence. The stakes are too high for that kind of experimentation.
FreoFury
9 Aug 2006, 10:25
Rodger will spend increasing amounts of time in the mid-field as we get more defenders back ie Thornton, Haddril, Grover. Could be just what we need with his speed of execution and precision. A mid field boasting Rodger, Pav, Dessie and Heath Black and suddenly I'm alot more optimistic about our clearances and precision delivering into the forward line.
theGav56
9 Aug 2006, 12:13
A mid field boasting Rodger, Pav, Dessie and Heath Black and suddenly I'm alot more optimistic about our clearances and precision delivering into the forward line.
I have more faith in J Carr, Bell and Hasleby getting first posession. DJ, Hayden and Black would be better receiving the ball and delivering it forward. Not talking exclusively here as I am not a believer in players having only one role; like players who can play a variety of roles as required.
wires on fire.
9 Aug 2006, 12:16
this is like saying 'play pavlich in the midfield' oh wait...you already do. ahhaha.
theGav56
9 Aug 2006, 12:19
this is like saying 'play pavlich in the midfield' oh wait...you already do. ahhaha.
Things a little boring in Eagle-land? - Rhetorical question.
He's a big body, but i don't think he's got good hands in close. His strength is hard running and accountability. Basically the perfect defender. Pavlich in the midfield does a couple things. It unsettles he opposition defence. He may start playing midfield at centre bounces, but usually drifts foward not long after, this can be extremely unsettling for the defence as they rearrange their matchups. Which is a very good reason why i wouldn't like to see our defender in the middle.
To those who suggested he's at home playing against the monsters (ALA Gehrig) are mistaken. At 187cm he gives away a lot of height to some of the taller forwards. I see Grover's best role against Hamill, Robertson, Davis (Sydney), Riccuito etc. (midsized forwards).
McPharlin is a lot better suited to playing FB against the gorillas. Neitz in the past few years would physically intimidate our players, you could see our players rattled by his presence. He tried no such thing with McPharlin.
Luke may have conceded 9 goals in the last 2 weeks, but both Hawthorn and Carlton cleared a lot of space for Fevola and Williams to work with. McPharlin wasn't beaten in a wrestle, conceding nearly all his goals on he lead. Fevola got some gimmies in time on, not to mention the goals that only Fevola can kick from the centre square.
Hawthorn chose to isolate Williams and Carlton Fevola, i think if the forward line was more crowded, McPharlin would have conceded fewer goals.
So in short, Grover stays a defender, McPharlin stays a fullback, Mundy CHB, and Grover BP. Pavlich can be that big bodied midfielder on occasion. Matt Carr is doing a great job at the moment also. Dodd could be released when Grover returns to play midfield
Defence:
Parker/Grover McPharlin Hayden
Black Mundy Dodd
Don't forget that Parker is probably going to retire soon. But gee, the defence looks real solid. With Haddrill to return as backup in case anyone is injured.
Everyone keeps mentioning Mundy in the midfield, personally i don't like it. I'd prefer to see him groomed as a CHB. At 192cm he's the perfect height, and an exceptional reader of the play. His field kicking is better than McPharlins so is more valuable in that part of the ground.
Similarly Hayden, we continually got cut up by small forwards before he returned. He is invaluable and irreplaceable to the team. I wouldn't like to see him move forward or into the midfield unless we got another small defender capable of shutting down and creating so much run.
If anyone could move out of the backline, Thornton could. I'd like to see him play the Drum role at HFF. Shut down the opposition run from their backline but also be a target. His field kicking is very good and i'm sure Farmer, Pavlich, Longmuir and Murphy would be estatic seeing Thornton deliver them the ball.
theGav56
9 Aug 2006, 15:05
rgauci, you don't mention Johnson, who to me is the best option (although he is still developing) for the very talls in the backline.
You also don't have Polak down there. Does this mean that you prefer him as a forward, or do you see him way down the list somewhere on the potential trade list?
With Pavlich, Murphy and Longmuir in the forward line they aren't going to fit in there.
rgauci, you don't mention Johnson, who to me is the best option (although he is still developing) for the very talls in the backline.
You also don't have Polak down there. Does this mean that you prefer him as a forward, or do you see him way down the list somewhere on the potential trade list?
With Pavlich, Murphy and Longmuir in the forward line they aren't going to fit in there.
Your right i haven't mentioned either. Polak i see playing for another team. He could possibly be better than Murphy and Johnson, but at the moment we have pretty good depth in the talls and we need to supplement our midfield.
Johnson in my eyes is on the bench. He is only 1cm taller than Mundy, who i believe could be an AA CHB one day. Johnson is Mr. versatility, back, forward, ruck, midfield he's capable in all without dominating in 1. He seems very small across the shoulders, i'm not sure he'll bulk up adequately to shutdown a key forward. He's much better roaming around on an average opponent, you don't have that luxury against the better teams. Connolly has noticed the same thing, Johnson has been playing a defensive position from the wing.
Therefore our primary 7 talls become (everyone talks about 7 talls in a 22):
Sandilands, Longmuir, Pavlich, McPharlin, Mundy, Murphy, Johnson.
Positioning our best 22:
Grover McPharlin Hayden
Black Mundy Dodd
Peake Hasleby Bell
Headland Pavlich Thornton
Farmer Murphy Longmuir
R: Sandilands M.Carr J.Carr
INT: Johnson Crowley McManus Parker Schammer
Good luck match committee omitting one of those if all were fit. The task becomes harder when Drum, Webster, Gilmore and even Cook are playing well.
For the first time in our history we have genuine depth. It wouldn't surprise me to have Johnson even miss a game if Thornton and Grover hit top form. It'll all depend on matchups, if they cant manufacture a matchup for Johnson he may be omitted. At the moment he is 7th on the talls list. But if we are playing someone like the Dogs, it would be a mistake to go in too tall.
Good times ahead.
theGav56
9 Aug 2006, 16:36
Thornton is 191cm according to the offical site, so he would be the 8th tall. Plus Parker, Haddril and Grover (all around 189) have regularly played on the Key Forwards.
Thornton is 191cm according to the offical site, so he would be the 8th tall. Plus Parker, Haddril and Grover (all around 189) have regularly played on the Key Forwards.
But Parker, Haddrill and Grover shouldn't be playing on the talls. Thornton is built like a twig, might as well be 178cm in terms of strength.
7 talls = FB, CHB, Ruck, 2nd ruck, CHF, FF + utility tall. Anyway thats how i see it.
At Fremantle we are very lucky with a lot of our talls being very versatile.
Grover can take Mundy's spot in the backline and then Mundy can be unleashed in the middle.
The man speaks truth.