View Full Version : Roughy Forward or Back?
Everyone is had there opinion, me personally thinks that he should stay forward he is the only guy other than croady and bob that can take a pack mark, keep him up forward!!!!
what does everyone else think?
RangaInTeal
6 Feb 2008, 14:43
Forward! Him at Full forward with Rioli and Williams at his feet... Thorpe and Franklin probing around 50 and Dew pushing well up the field... makes for exciting time at Hawthorn!
kevieyang
6 Feb 2008, 14:50
Picked defence only as we need to give Williams and Buddy space. Boyle and Thorp to be the tall marking options.
Hopefully Roughie's kicking at goal has improved over the summer.
cschreuder61
6 Feb 2008, 14:54
This has been talked about a lot but:
At the end of the day we've got a heap of developing forwards and arguably one tall defender short so something may have to give.
Dowler:
Will be under pressure to get a spot, let alone transform into a defender, I doubt he'll play defence.
Boyle:
May be a chance, played defense a little for Box Hill, but probably think he's more use up forward.
Franklin: No
Williams: No
Thorp: Can play at both ends. Is ear-marked us our future mobile CHF. But has all the qualities that a quality defender requires as well.
Roughead: Strong, our strongest in a contest, quick for his size off the lead, good kick in field general play. Can create forward chances by big marking, kicking for goal is letting him down.
Renouf: A ruckman, but is mobile, and raw. Too early to tell but could be a long term project player, or may end up in the ruck still.
I'd say its out of Roughead and Thorp.
Thorp is still trying to get into the side though, so I think we'll start with the box type formation of Williams, Franklin, Boyle and Roughead, then eventually try to ease Thorp into the forward half, and swing Roughead back.
Premiership sides generally have very strong defences, and a complete spine, and we are lacking the extra tall in defense still.
NAB cup will be a good time to trial Roughie in defence.
Number 24
6 Feb 2008, 14:54
My opinion is that he should play back for the next couple of years subject to this caveat. Dowler and Thorp both have to step up and be genuine options for a place on the forward line.
As forwards we have Buddy, Willo, Boiler, Cyril, Roughie, Hodge, Dowler, Thorp, maybe big bob, Tails and even Big Max and Renouf, assisted by Crawf, Laddo, Dew and god knows how many others.
But down back there is only Croad as a big bodied backman. Therefore if the many forwards can cut the mustard roughie should go down back and be the second big bugger down there, with Gil as a genuine third tall.
Roughie can play a role similar to big Al Lynch or Justin Leppich
Number 24
6 Feb 2008, 14:56
This has been talked about a lot but:
At the end of the day we've got a heap of developing forwards and arguably one tall defender short so something may have to give.
Dowler:
Will be under pressure to get a spot, let alone transform into a defender, I doubt he'll play defence.
Boyle:
May be a chance, played defense a little for Box Hill, but probably think he's more use up forward.
Franklin: No
Williams: No
Thorp: Can play at both ends. Is ear-marked us our future mobile CHF. But has all the qualities that a quality defender requires as well.
Roughead: Strong, our strongest in a contest, quick for his size off the lead, good kick in field general play. Can create forward chances by big marking, kicking for goal is letting him down.
Renouf: A ruckman, but is mobile, and raw. Too early to tell but could be a long term project player, or may end up in the ruck still.
I'd say its out of Roughead and Thorp.
Thorp is still trying to get into the side though, so I think we'll start with the box type formation of Williams, Franklin, Boyle and Roughead, then eventually try to ease Thorp into the forward half, and swing Roughead back.
Premiership sides generally have very strong defences, and a complete spine, and we are lacking the extra tall in defense still.
NAB cup will be a good time to trial Roughie in defence.
Spot on !!
Brishawk
6 Feb 2008, 15:30
Even if he becomes a permanent forward, we need flexibility in our team. Currently, Croad is the only KPP that can play forward or back. Roughead is the most likely to be given time in defence this season given our other players all appear to be a little restricted in the roles they can play. Maybe Thorp and Dowler can develop the same felxibility but that has not been demonstrated to date. Teams lke Brisbne had a raft of players that could be moved forard and back when required Leppa, White and Pike etc.).
Gilham WILL be our fullback in 2008. I still dont think Brown has been ruled out on playing on some talls aswell (lucas, pav, riewoldt etc)
Roughie at full forward. Roughie is a gun forward, he will be a fullforward that could slot in any team
Hawkers Hero
6 Feb 2008, 15:49
The question is - How many teams do you need two big bodied defenders against?
Most teams have;
one brute type forward (i.e. Brown, Fev, Rocca, Hall etc.)
one mobile tall forward (i.e. Reiwoldt and Pavlich)
2 mid forwards (i.e. Johnson and Chapman, Ebert and Westhoff etc.)
1 small crumber
I would think with a little extra weight (i.e. a big off-season) Gilham could take the mobile forward leaving Croad the brute and the other defenders take the other forwards.
If the need arises to have two bigger backman then swing Roughie back for a game here and there but he should play predominately forward.
Personally I think he should play forward all this year while we are blooding Thorp and Dowler before shifting back next year to 'learn the trade' in order to replace Croad in the future.
Also dont forget Cougar is a chance to play back in the coming year :)
Not that this topic has been discussed much before.. lol!
I know ppl are divided about this topic, I still am but I think I'm favouring Roughy as a forward player.
To date Thorp and Dowler - both expected by most to play a forward role haven't proved their worth in the forward line. Converseley - Roughy has. And he's really good! He has abilities that could make him a great player.
I don't really think transferring him to play as a backman solely for the reason that we have too many potential forwards is valid.. enough!
On the other hand I think this topic has been debated so much because ppl have the belief that we lack a big defender in addition to Croad, which is true but may not be as important as we think. A lot of sides don't have two gorillas! Also I think ppl are under the illussion that we are thin in our backline, which probably isn't true. Only in comparison to our forward stocks!
I actually think Dawson will prove to be a great defender, probably similiar to Dustin Fletcher - who wasn't a big defender but does have the abilities to play on big forwards. I don't actually think it is vital for a defender to be large as long as they have other special qualities. Regardless is the opinion of supporters who believe he won't be a backman because the coaches will be trialing him, therefore filling one more position in the back line for at least a number of weeks.
In addition we have Gilham who is of fair size, include Croad and it seems we have a fair size of strength and talent above many other teams. I still have hopes for Murphy - not overly tall but strong and very competent. As well as Brown. PLUS all the potential not taking into account: Thorp, Boyle, Renouf.
To me we are traveling along a path that success is highly probable and failure is unlikely!
But that's just my opinion! Either way we're still going to win a premiership this season! :)
HaloHawk
6 Feb 2008, 16:30
This has been talked about a lot but:
At the end of the day we've got a heap of developing forwards and arguably one tall defender short so something may have to give.
Dowler:
Will be under pressure to get a spot, let alone transform into a defender, I doubt he'll play defence.
Boyle:
May be a chance, played defense a little for Box Hill, but probably think he's more use up forward.
Franklin: No
Williams: No
Thorp: Can play at both ends. Is ear-marked us our future mobile CHF. But has all the qualities that a quality defender requires as well.
Roughead: Strong, our strongest in a contest, quick for his size off the lead, good kick in field general play. Can create forward chances by big marking, kicking for goal is letting him down.
Renouf: A ruckman, but is mobile, and raw. Too early to tell but could be a long term project player, or may end up in the ruck still.
I'd say its out of Roughead and Thorp.
Thorp is still trying to get into the side though, so I think we'll start with the box type formation of Williams, Franklin, Boyle and Roughead, then eventually try to ease Thorp into the forward half, and swing Roughead back.
Premiership sides generally have very strong defences, and a complete spine, and we are lacking the extra tall in defense still.
NAB cup will be a good time to trial Roughie in defence.
Boyle is the one who needs to make way in the forward line for Thorp. He should be earmarked for a defensive position this year.
Brishawk
6 Feb 2008, 16:55
The question is - How many teams do you need two big bodied defenders against?
Most teams have;
one brute type forward (i.e. Brown, Fev, Rocca, Hall etc.)
one mobile tall forward (i.e. Reiwoldt and Pavlich)
2 mid forwards (i.e. Johnson and Chapman, Ebert and Westhoff etc.)
1 small crumber
I would think with a little extra weight (i.e. a big off-season) Gilham could take the mobile forward leaving Croad the brute and the other defenders take the other forwards.
If the need arises to have two bigger backman then swing Roughie back for a game here and there but he should play predominately forward.
Personally I think he should play forward all this year while we are blooding Thorp and Dowler before shifting back next year to 'learn the trade' in order to replace Croad in the future.
Also dont forget Cougar is a chance to play back in the coming year :)
If you don't have options teams can push an extra tall forward and we have to suffer a mismatch. For exmple, the below teams have the personel to casue trouble for the Hawks:
St Kilda - Gehrig, Reiwoldt, Kozitski
Brisbane - Bradshaw, Brown, Clark, Charman/Leunberger
Geelong - Mooney, Ottens, Hawkins
Collingwood - Cloke, Rocca, Fraser
West Coast - Lynch, Hansen, Cox (Kennedy, Brown)
Essendon - Llyod, Lucas, Hill
North - Petrie, Thompson, Hale/McIntosh
Port - Treadrea, White, Westhoff, Lade
That is half of the teams in the league right there. If we don't have a regular option then we are faced with winning the midfield battle convincingly to win matches.
(PS. Westhoff is about 198 cm. Fev is not a brute type forward)
If you don't have options teams can push an extra tall forward and we have to suffer a mismatch. For exmple, the below teams have the personel to casue trouble for the Hawks:
St Kilda - Gehrig, Reiwoldt, Kozitski
Brisbane - Bradshaw, Brown, Clark, Charman/Leunberger
Geelong - Mooney, Ottens, Hawkins
Collingwood - Cloke, Rocca, Fraser
West Coast - Lynch, Hansen, Cox (Kennedy, Brown)
Essendon - Llyod, Lucas, Hill
North - Petrie, Thompson, Hale/McIntosh
Port - Treadrea, White, Westhoff, Lade
That is half of the teams in the league right there. If we don't have a regular option then we are faced with winning the midfield battle convincingly to win matches.
(PS. Westhoff is about 198 cm. Fev is not a brute type forward)
these guys are all ruckmen if they go forwrd put Robbie Campbell on them. Ruckman on a ruckman.
If you don't have options teams can push an extra tall forward and we have to suffer a mismatch. For exmple, the below teams have the personel to casue trouble for the Hawks:
St Kilda - Gehrig, Reiwoldt, Kozitski
Brisbane - Bradshaw, Brown, Clark,Charman/Leunberger
Geelong - Mooney, Ottens, Hawkins
Collingwood - Cloke, Rocca, Fraser
West Coast - Lynch, Hansen, Cox (Kennedy, Brown)
Essendon - Llyod, Lucas, Hill
North - Petrie, Thompson, Hale/McIntosh
Port - Treadrea, White, Westhoff, Lade
That is half of the teams in the league right there. If we don't have a regular option then we are faced with winning the midfield battle convincingly to win matches.
(PS. Westhoff is about 198 cm. Fev is not a brute type forward)
The guys I have put in bold are either unproven up forward (kennedy, brown) or arent a serious threat. I am confident in having Campbell run with any of those resting rucks in defence. As I am also confident in Birchall being able to do a decent job on these resting talls. Out of them all Kozi and Ottens are really the only third tall types I worry about. Brown will still get tall match ups, Gilham is bigger and I believe he will be our fullback, we still have Birchall who can do a tall job on third talls, or we could even see Murphy/DJ brought into the side to take on thrid tall options.
Line in the Sand
6 Feb 2008, 18:10
I think this year will have huge implications for the next 3 or 4. Our forward line, givin the right development this year will be a shit fight to get into.
Franklin
Roughy
Williams
CR
Thorp
Dowler
Dew
Crawf
Boyle
I think everyone needs to come to the fact that not everyone we draft will make it, most wont.
The way i see our forward line is Williams playing at FF, Buddy doing his thing and Thorp becoming the leading CHF just like Cloke, Cyril the crummer and boyle being the thind tall. Crawf and Dew on the flank.
Brishawk
6 Feb 2008, 18:11
Granted that a player like Mitch Clark and some of the others are unproven but teams are trying to assemble forwardlines with three talls in them and ruckman who can move forward and kick goals. They don't have to be a champion forward if they are been matched up on by Brown or Gurerra becasue they will have a huge height advantage.
Hill and Charman have both caused us trouble in the past (along with the players that have not been marked in bold) and teams will continue to try and exploit our backline in this way unless we can develop an option to counter the tactic. I do not belive that our first option should be to take our best ruckman and play him as a defender nor do I believe Campbell is a good option down back.
Fat Tony
6 Feb 2008, 18:15
Lot of people have been talking about putting Roughy down back but who does he replace?
Gilham? no because gilly has cemented his spot at FB as a result of his 07 performances
Croad? no for number of reason including his AA in 05 playing CHB and the fact he has proven to be inconsistent up forward.
Birchall? no because he has more pace and can arguably read the play better than Roughead.
Considering that he kicked 40 goals up forward last year i say let the man do what he does best instead of disrupting his form and concentration by sending him down back.
Hill and Charman have both caused us trouble in the past (along with the players that have not been marked in bold) and teams will continue to try and exploit our backline in this way unless we can develop an option to counter the tactic. I do not belive that our first option should be to take our best ruckman and play him as a defender nor do I believe Campbell is a good option down back.
The Last time Hille kicked more then 1 goal on us was 14th August 2005. After then he has only managed a total of 1 goal and 2 behinds. Throw in our team in 2005 I guess you wouldnt call Hille the most effective third tall.
Charman has been more affective against Hawthorn but in 2007 he managed 1goal against a much improved hawthorn defence.
I honestly think there is not much difference between Taylor and Campbell. Robbie plays more time but only averages 2 more disposals and hitouts against Taylor. You dont think Hawthorn should drag our ruckman to match up against Charman or Hille who are hands down their teams best ruck man at the moment. I honestly believe Taylor is the best back up ruckman after Spida who plays behind Jolly. We CAN afford to drop Campbell back on opposition rucks to get a rest because Taylor is just as good in the ruck as Robbie.
Death Cab
6 Feb 2008, 19:14
Potentially we have sooooo many good forwards that the supply to each player will be limited simply due to the abundance of other options. With limited opportunity (relatively), it becomes essential that our forwards seize their opportunity and kick straight. On what I've seen:
Willo - gun barrel straight, lock in for the forward line.
Boyle - Generally very accurate and reliable. Suited to making the most of limited opportunities.
Buddy - can be a loose cannon, but clearly belongs in the forward line anyway.
Roughy - a proven great forward but whose accuracy is only average.
Thorp - unproven (to me)
Dowler - " "
Croad - fantastic mark whose goal kicking is woeful and hopefully will never have to play forward again.
I think that to guarantee a home in the forward line, Roughy needs to improve his accuracy. He will have more competition for supply this year, which I think may make it more difficult for him to match his superb effort of 40 goals from 2007.
So a question for Box Hill watchers... How accurate kicks at goal are Dowler and Thorp? How do they compare to Roughy?
Brishawk
6 Feb 2008, 22:56
The Last time Hille kicked more then 1 goal on us was 14th August 2005. After then he has only managed a total of 1 goal and 2 behinds. Throw in our team in 2005 I guess you wouldnt call Hille the most effective third tall.
Charman has been more affective against Hawthorn but in 2007 he managed 1goal against a much improved hawthorn defence.
I honestly think there is not much difference between Taylor and Campbell. Robbie plays more time but only averages 2 more disposals and hitouts against Taylor. You dont think Hawthorn should drag our ruckman to match up against Charman or Hille who are hands down their teams best ruck man at the moment. I honestly believe Taylor is the best back up ruckman after Spida who plays behind Jolly. We CAN afford to drop Campbell back on opposition rucks to get a rest because Taylor is just as good in the ruck as Robbie.
My argument is not just that we have trouble matching up a couple of ruckman that push forward, it is that teams are building taller forwardlines (3 talls - we are doing it too) and ruckman are a particular problem for us due to our limited ability to match up on tall players. I have already said that I don't think Campbell is a good defender and I don't see, from a structural point of view, the best solution being to take your ruckman out of the ruck to cover a hole in the defence when the teams capable of exploiting this weakness is at least half the league. Why play a sub-standard defender on an opposition forward (every second week) when you can have a good quality defender? We have on our list a player capable of playing forward and back and I don't see why it is in anything but our best interest to develp his defensive skills so that he can be moved back when needed.
Hodge2Franklin
7 Feb 2008, 02:41
This is the ultimate riddle isn't it.
I had a thread about this about 6 months also, along with many of you and it is I think just so important to our success. The answer I think lies in the future as we really don't know yet.
One thing that I hold true is this. There are natural forwards and natural defenders. Natural forwards tend to love a goal, ala Franklin, Williams, Jnr, and natural defenders just have that fierce competitiveness and just hate to be beaten in a contest. Some players take time to find their inner calling and Roughy is possibly one of them.
My hope and I know I am boring is that Renouf becomes the next Langford. Remember Langers was drafted as a ruckmen and for the first few years played on the wing, ruck, forward etc, and we didn't know what to do with him. Ring a similar bell?
I really hope Renouf is the next Mitchell, as I believe and an undiscovered champion. If Renouf makes it at CHB or FB, we are gonna destroy sides.
But this is just boring broken record H2F again, sorry ... :)
Consumed
7 Feb 2008, 03:52
One criticism I hear of Roughy playing down back is that he isn't quick enough for some explosive forwards. However, numerous times during last season he made turnovers happen by chasing down players. Against Carlton, Murphy is one that comes to mind. I think he has the speed for a good key back, maybe just not the reaction time.
As a forward he keeps getting better and better, his marking against Brisbane was excellent. The only real asset he lacks up forward is accuracy for goal. This needs to improve tremendously.
I still believe Zac has a chance to come on as a KPP. Good Speed, good height. And hopefully he will get AFL ready by the time he's 23/24. Keeping him on the list until then is a luxury, but one I like.
Currently Gilham & Croad fit the bill. Both are relatively short for KPP (@190/191 cm) but Gilham has bulked up, and both seem to be very good players. Gilham as a junior was highly considered, it just took him a little longer to reach the grade. I think 08 will be a break out year for him.
Death Cab
7 Feb 2008, 07:11
I agree with the idea that our current defensive structure fails to cover very tall forwars - 197cm plus. Croad is a very 'tall' 190cm due to his jump, but is generally used on the no. 1 power forward. Gilham is very reliable and an effective defender but does not seem to me to have the versatility to take those really tall blokes. Robbie Cambell is one possibility, Zac is another (how tall is he exactly? 195cm? 197cm?). Roughy, at 193cm, does not necessarily give us something that is substantially different from Croad or Gilham. I do thing though that Roughie needs to master the defensive caper so that he can fill in for Croad or Gilham if they go down.
Mervyn Beasley
7 Feb 2008, 09:00
I'll let you know after about rnd 6
Potentially we have sooooo many good forwards that the supply to each player will be limited simply due to the abundance of other options. With limited opportunity (relatively), it becomes essential that our forwards seize their opportunity and kick straight. On what I've seen:
Willo - gun barrel straight, lock in for the forward line.
Boyle - Generally very accurate and reliable. Suited to making the most of limited opportunities.
Buddy - can be a loose cannon, but clearly belongs in the forward line anyway.
Roughy - a proven great forward but whose accuracy is only average.
Thorp - unproven (to me)
Dowler - " "
Croad - fantastic mark whose goal kicking is woeful and hopefully will never have to play forward again.
I think that to guarantee a home in the forward line, Roughy needs to improve his accuracy. He will have more competition for supply this year, which I think may make it more difficult for him to match his superb effort of 40 goals from 2007.
So a question for Box Hill watchers... How accurate kicks at goal are Dowler and Thorp? How do they compare to Roughy?
Well said. Roughy is a forward, he just needs to improve his accuracy and consistency. He is dangerous, and a great contrast for Buddy.
I hope Thorp(e?) is great, but right now he's unproven and shouldn't push Roughead out of that forward line.
No backline for Roughy!
Forward Forever.
That's where his heart and head are at.
Easy.... Both
ahhhhhhhh......yes
Why are the rest of you so hung up on one or the other. Versatilty is a great assett to any player and team.
Roughy has the abilty and should be further developed to play at either end depending on:
The opposition
Match Ups
Injuries
Weather
Form
Momentum / run ons
match up swithches
C'mon guys its not under 12s anymore. All our players should be able to play forward or back. Bar a full forward and maybe a full back every players is a forward or back these days. When they have we are all backs and we we have it we are all midfielders or forwards.
hawka4eva
7 Feb 2008, 15:42
Roughy down back!! We need a 2 big bodied defenders against certain teams (stkilda gerig,riewoldt&kosi, magpies cloke &rocca,freo tarrant and Pav) Depends on the team but Croad and Roughy on those blokes rather than Croad and browny or gilham, brown gets best small forward each week except Lucas :)
carltonlover3
7 Feb 2008, 16:02
Forward! Him at Full forward with Rioli and Williams at his feet... Thorpe and Franklin probing around 50 and Dew pushing well up the field... makes for exciting time at Hawthorn!
thats a scary forward line.
i'm fairly sure i've NEVER heard Clarko say we are a big backman down!
its a complete fairy tail..... roughy needs to play forward, you dont move in form forwards back...:mad:
Collins-Langford-Ayres
7 Feb 2008, 23:27
Surely this post needs a third option - Forward preferred by can go back if required?
fishbowl
8 Feb 2008, 11:17
If you don't have options teams can push an extra tall forward and we have to suffer a mismatch. For exmple, the below teams have the personel to casue trouble for the Hawks:
St Kilda - Gehrig, Reiwoldt, Kozitski
Brisbane - Bradshaw, Brown, Clark, Charman/Leunberger
Geelong - Mooney, Ottens, Hawkins
Collingwood - Cloke, Rocca, Fraser
West Coast - Lynch, Hansen, Cox (Kennedy, Brown)
Essendon - Llyod, Lucas, Hill
North - Petrie, Thompson, Hale/McIntosh
Port - Treadrea, White, Westhoff, Lade
That is half of the teams in the league right there. If we don't have a regular option then we are faced with winning the midfield battle convincingly to win matches.
(PS. Westhoff is about 198 cm. Fev is not a brute type forward)
St Kilda are rubbish, Gehrig can be beaten by Croad, Riewoldt can be beaten by Brown. Kossie can be stopped.
The only player that can really hurt us, is a player that has not been mentioned. Corey Jones, has made a mess of us.
We can do more damage to these teams than they can do to us. Lloyd is a farce, Lucas was beaten by Campbell Brown and Hille is a ruckman.
Dudley Hawkins is a joke, he can be stopped by Zac Dawson. That say alot about him.
kevieyang
8 Feb 2008, 15:33
St Kilda are rubbish, Gehrig can be beaten by Croad, Riewoldt can be beaten by Brown. Kossie can be stopped.
The only player that can really hurt us, is a player that has not been mentioned. Corey Jones, has made a mess of us.
We can do more damage to these teams than they can do to us. Lloyd is a farce, Lucas was beaten by Campbell Brown and Hille is a ruckman.
Dudley Hawkins is a joke, he can be stopped by Zac Dawson. That say alot about him.
Bit harsh on a player that was in his first season.
lethalselbow
8 Feb 2008, 19:19
Forward. For sure!
He kicked a lazy 40 goals last year... around the same as Riewoldt, Robertson, Hall, T. Cloke.
40 goals isn't a bad return... and he's only going to get better.
Why waste time developing him as a Key Forward only to switch him back?? :confused:
I think he should stay forward, in saying that he can still go down back on occasions to help out
his big body forward is to invaluable! just thinking about that goal that he just bushed off three or four players like flies and kicked a goal! his body power will only get beter
philhawk
9 Feb 2008, 12:41
I think we need to bite the bullet and play him as a back in the long-term.
In the short-term, as Thorp and Dowler develop, we can afford to play him in the forward line (not to mention the fact that doing so is excellent for his development).
But by Season 2010 (at the latest), he should be playing as a rebounding CHB, with Thorp and Dowler fighting for the CHF position.