View Full Version : Our Defence
kelvin_sheedy
19 Apr 2009, 20:54
New topic born out of the thread by MWNN. being hijacked..
In terms of our defensive structure. I'm not sure how we can go into a game and expect to win when we have the following.
(Age, games)
Pears(19,9) Daniher(19,6) Slattery(23,56)
Dempsey(21,14) Fletcher(1000, 999) Quinn (19, 2)
Way too inexperienced and young. We need stronger bodies to help the kids out.
What stronger body tall defenders do we have to change that ??
Easy to say they are way too young but who do you bring in ?
NLM who has proven to be a disapointment in the back half before or who else ?
The next in line on form is Hooker.
saladin
19 Apr 2009, 22:53
we need hurley back. his one game and 19years should fix it :thumbsu::)
BringBackCransberg
19 Apr 2009, 22:55
It (including Myers) did pretty well against Freo and Carlton. We didn't lose today because of our backline. Our skills, inaccuracy and the fact that we didn't want the win as bad as NM -- they were the problems.
There did seem to be a lot of strong marks by NM in their forward 50, but (I'm no expert) our gameplan seems to be focused on other things, and when that gameplan comes off it doesn't require us to worry so much about that sort of thing. Of course it can't be forgotten, but we don't yet have the experience to dominate every aspect of the game. And right now the kids are getting that experience, whilst not, IMO, costing us games now. It's other things. We could've easily won with the side on the paddock today. That's obvious I reckon.
OzBomber
19 Apr 2009, 23:14
New topic born out of the thread by MWNN. being hijacked..
In terms of our defensive structure. I'm not sure how we can go into a game and expect to win when we have the following.
(Age, games)
Pears(19,9) Daniher(19,6) Slattery(23,56)
Dempsey(21,14) Fletcher(1000, 999) Quinn (19, 2)
Way too inexperienced and young. We need stronger bodies to help the kids out.Awesome, can't wait to see Fletch play his 1000th game this week. ;)
With a full squad we could probably afford to put McVeigh back there. But we need him at the coal face to give Jobe support ATM.
I would not be too aggressive with the changes anyway, as we need the backline to become a group and that only happens when they play games as a group.
bOmBeR_BoY1
19 Apr 2009, 23:30
I actually think our defensive structure has improved dramatically compared with last year, despite what people may think regarding the age & experience of the players playing down there... and may improve further once Hurley returns (big wraps on a kid who has played the 1 game, granted, but the guy is a gem)...
I know we lost today, but I think it was more due to errors (not just defensive, but all around the ground, particularly goal kicking) but we restricted North to 10 goals in perfect conditions when they got a lot more of the ball (we had more scoring shots and really should of polished them off and perhaps had a win, but that's another story). In the first four games, we are in the top 5 or 6 defensively for points conceded, this time last year I am pretty sure we were lingering right near the bottom. It's only early, but a good start. We will go places quicker with a more sound defensive structure than allowing our opposition to kick 20-25 goals per game and hoping we kick 26.
The forward line, in my opinion, seems to be a bigger concern right at the moment. Particularly a couple of our more experienced players who may need a break elsewhere to recapture some form. No need to name names.
warney7
19 Apr 2009, 23:41
How exactly is this a new topic?
We ALL know that our defence is young and inexperienced.
We ALL know that it is vital that Fletcher plays on in 2010
We ALL hope that these kids (Hurley, Pears, Daniher, Myers, Dempsey) are good enough to be a Premiership Defence down the track.
It's all a matter of time, and there's no other option but to keep playing the kids.
james_omahoney
20 Apr 2009, 00:11
Useless thread.
New topic born out of the thread by MWNN. being hijacked..
In terms of our defensive structure. I'm not sure how we can go into a game and expect to win when we have the following.
(Age, games)
Pears(19,9) Daniher(19,6) Slattery(23,56)
Dempsey(21,14) Fletcher(1000, 999) Quinn (19, 2)
Way too inexperienced and young. We need stronger bodies to help the kids out.
Are you anally retentive.
EFC didn't lose the game because of our backline.
I guarantee that if EFC hold teams to 10 goals every week, they will at least 17 to 18 wins.
Useless thread.I'll co-sign that. :cool:
Kelvin_Sheedy, I am actually going to agree with ant555 on this one; you continually mention the negatives within the team, yet offer no solution. Who are these older, more experienced and stronger players you suggest we bring in?
I only watched and listened to parts of the game today, so I can't comment too much (unlike some, I believe in seeing a game before forcing my opinion on it to others), but from what I heard it sounded as though our general field kicking was what let us down; not our backline.
stay true
20 Apr 2009, 04:34
New topic born out of the thread by MWNN. being hijacked..
In terms of our defensive structure. I'm not sure how we can go into a game and expect to win when we have the following.
(Age, games)
Pears(19,9) Daniher(19,6) Slattery(23,56)
Dempsey(21,14) Fletcher(1000, 999) Quinn (19, 2)
Way too inexperienced and young. We need stronger bodies to help the kids out.
The more games we get into these kids the better. I see no reason why we shouldn't persist with them.
It's not like it was their fault we lost to North. They consistantly got let down by their team mates who turned the ball over on too many occasions.
Bomberlicious
20 Apr 2009, 09:33
I guarantee that if EFC hold teams to 10 goals every week, they will at least 17 to 18 wins.
Seconded.
If you kept a team to 69 points every game, you'd concede 1518 points for the year, which is 252 points less than in 2000 when we destroyed everyone.
Thanks for the evocative thery, kelvin :rolleyes:
kelvin_sheedy
20 Apr 2009, 09:44
What stronger body tall defenders do we have to change that ??
Easy to say they are way too young but who do you bring in ?
NLM who has proven to be a disapointment in the back half before or who else ?
The next in line on form is Hooker.
NLM has played some good footy down back. Are we forgetting that or we just hanging him out to dry for being played out of position in the second half of last year.
His stronger body could make the difference and provide a better contest then some of the kids.
As for the the others that think our defence is ok then look at the goals yesterday. North kicked 10 and of those 9 came from marks. Pretty lopsided and it highlights their games plan.
What people don't understand in this thread is we didn't keep em down to 69. They kept us down and won the game. It was brilliant work by Laidley. He knew he couldnt' go head to head with us and decided to exploit our weakness. Slowed the game right down and then relied on his big guys to outmuscle our defenders.
As for selections well we either have to play NLM down back or look at McVeigh back there in a Hodge type role. Stronger bodies next to the kids makes them more confident.
NLM has played some good footy down back. Are we forgetting that or we just hanging him out to dry for being played out of position in the second half of last year.
His stronger body could make the difference and provide a better contest then some of the kids.
As for the the others that think our defence is ok then look at the goals yesterday. North kicked 10 and of those 9 came from marks. Pretty lopsided and it highlights their games plan.
What people don't understand in this thread is we didn't keep em down to 69. They kept us down and won the game. It was brilliant work by Laidley. He knew he couldnt' go head to head with us and decided to exploit our weakness. Slowed the game right down and then relied on his big guys to outmuscle our defenders.
As for selections well we either have to play NLM down back or look at McVeigh back there in a Hodge type role. Stronger bodies next to the kids makes them more confident.
NLM has played some very poor footy down back as well.
I do not know why you are pinning your hopes on Natrat. He can be just as big of a problem in defence as Nash can be.
You have offered up one name that has a checkered history as a defender.
I do not know how you can even say it was a brilliant effort by Laidley.
If our kicking efficiency was even 5% better we win the game.
SirJimi05
20 Apr 2009, 10:33
NLM has played some good footy down back. Are we forgetting that or we just hanging him out to dry for being played out of position in the second half of last year.
His stronger body could make the difference and provide a better contest then some of the kids.
I think i have said this on more than one occasion now but i will say it again. You are losing the plot, if in infact it isn't already lost.
a. Our defence is the least of our concerns at the monent. We are not going to be challenging for a flag anytime soon so it is important that we get games into the youngsters and i think we can safely say that Pears, Daniher and Hurley have all shown promising signs.
b. NLM is not a defenders asshole. He is weak ass piss, way to loose, and then when he does manage to find his opponents he is easily pushed out of the contest or fails to even make any contact with the man or the ball. I am absolutely shocked that you think he is a decent defender. Sure, he goes ok as a forward but a defender? Get off the drugs.
This is almost as bad as your call last season where you rubbished me for starting a thread saying that Michael is finished and needs to be dropped and then 2 weeks later he was out of the team for good.
Instead of always getting stuck into our youngsters why dont you take a close look at the senior players who should be leading the way.
Lucas has been a champ and i love the guy but i dont think we can make excuses for him any longer and i dont know how long Knights patient approach can last. He is a liability to the team at the moment and i would rather see a young kid such as Hooker have a crack and get some game time.
james_omahoney
20 Apr 2009, 10:49
a. Our defence is the least of our concerns at the monent. We are not going to be challenging for a flag anytime soon so it is important that we get games into the youngsters and i think we can safely say that Pears, Daniher and Hurley have all shown promising signs.
b. NLM is not a defenders asshole. He is weak ass piss, way to loose, and then when he does manage to find his opponents he is easily pushed out of the contest or fails to even make any contact with the man or the ball. I am absolutely shocked that you think he is a decent defender. Sure, he goes ok as a forward but a defender? Get off the drugs.
This is almost as bad as your call last season where you rubbished me for starting a thread saying that Michael is finished and needs to be dropped and then 2 weeks later he was out of the team for good.
I pretty much agree that our defence is the least of our worries and that NLM isn't an alternative. I felt the same about Michael too.
Well who are we going to play down back then Kelvin_Sheedy.
Have a look at all our defenders:
Jarrod Atkinson, 24 y.o, 5 games, 192cm, 81kg,
Darcy Daniher, 19 y.o, 7 games, 191cm, 89kg,
Courtenay Dempsey, 21 y.o, 14 games, 186cm, 82kg,
Dustin Fletcher, 34 y.o, 298games, 198cm, 93kg,
Michael Hurley, 18 y.o, 2 games, 193cm, 91kg,
Cale Hooker, 20 y.o, 2 games, 196cm, 93kg,
Nathan Lovett-Murray, 26 y.o, 85 games, 190cm, 85kg,
David Myers, 19 y.o, 9 games, 190cm, 85kg,
Jay Nash, 23 y.o, 45 games, 188cm, 84kg,
Tayte Pears, 19 y.o, 9 games, 191,cm, 91kg,
Patrick Ryder, 20 y.o, 56 games, 197cm, 90kg,
Tyson Slattery, 18 y.o, 189cm, 81kg,
Henry Slattery, 23 y.o, 56 games, 185cm, 86kg,
Out of all those players who do you play with real genuine experience, there is no one there (bar Fletcher) who has played in defence at AFL level on a consistant basis, and done well.
Your explanation of NLM is flawed and he has let the team down on occasions, he is just going to be a gap filler this year, and when the likes of T.Slattery, J.Atkinson, D.Daniher, C.Hooker come into their own as utilities, it would not sadden me to see the back of him.
One thing that Matthew Knights has implored is the growing of youth, especially with the defensive back 6, yes Fletcher is still our best defender at 34, but the other "kids" have not really had a go there, so get games into them and see them grow Kelvin_Sheedy, it may actually surprise you to see the improvement in these kids, hopefully sooner rather than later in life:rolleyes:
NOTE: it is hard to get games into Jay Neagle and Scott Gumbleton when they are injured or do not warrant selection.
I would think the bigger problem with our defence is some of them (Pears, Slatts & Quinn) are not exactly the best of kicks...
kelvin_sheedy
20 Apr 2009, 12:34
Your explanation of NLM is flawed and he has let the team down on occasions, he is just going to be a gap filler this year, and when the likes of T.Slattery, J.Atkinson, D.Daniher, C.Hooker come into their own as utilities, it would not sadden me to see the back of him.
Like I said already - NLM must play for strength or experience or we need to use McVeigh in a sweeper type role.
As for him being a gap filler then what makes you think any of those kids listed will be better than him. He has played better footy then all of them. The likely hood is only one, maybe 2 will make it.
Why do people assume kids will automatically be better than players we have.
I can recall people saying the same about Ryder being our next best ruck, Gumby our saviour, Myers our elite mid and rubbishing the likes of Stanton, Watson, Winderlich, etc, etc.
Like I said already - NLM must play for strength or experience or we need to use McVeigh in a sweeper type role.
As for him being a gap filler then what makes you think any of those kids listed will be better than him. He has played better footy then all of them. The likely hood is only one, maybe 2 will make it.
Why do people assume kids will automatically be better than players we have.
I can recall people saying the same about Ryder being our next best ruck, Gumby our saviour, Myers our elite mid and rubbishing the likes of Stanton, Watson, Winderlich, etc, etc.
I never said that at all, how do we know if they are no good if we dont give them game time...:rolleyes: NatRat gives a contest but it is his decison making, not just with the ball in his hands but also when he doesnt that costs the team.
I think we need to play another stronger body down back. What lost us the game yesterday was our kicking efficiency, but 2nd was our defence. There were at least eight-ten times were Daniher/Pears got outmarked where if Ryder/Fletcher were in that position they would of spoiled.
Where that body comes from is another matter, I have liked us playing Ryder forward but against the kanga/blues he hasn't shown much. IMO he doesn't get enough of the ball in the forward line. Knights said that he wanted Ryder up forward, which I did agree with, but with Hurley getting injured then Myers finding himself in the 2nds, I don't think Knights reacted properly. If Fletcher played on Hale and Ryder went to Petrie then I think we would of won.
McPhee is our other option but I feel as though he is doing enough in roaming up the flanks. He is a much better player in the forward line.
Oh, and I don't want NLM back in our side, he doesn't fit our game style at all. All he does is chip 20m kicks sideways and is crappy in 1-1 contests.
I can handle Daniher/Pears getting outmarked as they are young and dont have the strength.
However, does anyone remember the play where Daniher was rebounding on the 50m line...we turned it over and instead of Daniher running back to pick up his man who was standing in the goal square by himself, he followed the ball back into the centre of the ground. Kangaroos got the ball and kicked it straight down to his man (I think it was Hale at the time).
That was perplexing.
Oh, and I don't want NLM back in our side, he doesn't fit our game style at all. All he does is chip 20m kicks sideways and is crappy in 1-1 contests.
Surely him or Atkinson is a better option than Quinn at this stage.
I love that we have a young defense week in and week out. These kids will form a cohesive unit with 50+ games under their belts. Have a look at the cats backline 10 years ago, Scarlett ,Hunt, Milburn, Harley etc. Milburn the oldest at 21/22.
nothing wrong throwing them to the wolves, id rather lose with kids who'll be good than win with blokes who will always be ordinary.
saladin
20 Apr 2009, 14:14
Why do people assume kids will automatically be better than players we have.
question: can i assume that you are not talking about the KP kids, but rather the half-back sized guys like slatts and dempsey? if not, NLM should not even enter the discussion.
and in any case, we have seen what the "players we have" can do, and they either haven't or can't cut the mustard. so do we play known quantities that are average at best, or throw the ball to the kids and see what they have got? Pears and Daniher were no worse in defence yesterday than mcphee. Play the future, not a failed past.
I never said that at all, how do we know if they are no good if we dont give them game time...:rolleyes: NatRat gives a contest but it is his decison making, not just with the ball in his hands but also when he doesnt that costs the team.
NLM has 2 big issues in his game and one is pertinent in playing defence
1) His decision making is questionable when he has ball in hands. This is not a disaster when in defence.
2) He plays short for his height and is weak in the air. The opposition drag him back to the goal square to exploit one on one opportunities.
All this dribble about stronger bodies.
Fact the most dangerous players up forward for North where Hale , Petrie and McIntosh. They where the three that at various stages looked the most dangers.
Noe Kelvin tell me again how good NLM has been when he has played as a tall defneder ?
He has been no good at all so don't offer him up as an option becasue he has already been proven as a flop when it comes to stopp KP players.
I have not asumed anything. NLM is an ordinary defender who should be delisted at the end of the year.
The next part you come up with is McVeigh player the sweeper role. Well that is ok except for one thing. McVeigh was always going to be a bit rusty in his first game for the year and his match fitness was never going allow him to fill that role yesterday.
I dont know what you are crapping on about the defence now for. It has been as obvious as black balls on a white dog that we where going to have defensive issues at various stages this year for a long while.
You keep making up some sort of theory about things that most could see was going to happen anyway and then the funny part is you like to crow about being right.
It is like making up some sort of theory that says black and red will always win at roulette when everyone already knows the obvious result.
Of course we where going to lose games this year. Our list is not that good.
kelvin_sheedy
20 Apr 2009, 17:13
The bottom line is Ant if you pick Quinn to play AFL at this stage and overlook other guys then you are putting yourself under the microscope.
Knights is a lucky man that the media is baying after Terry's blood right now because if they'd analyse some of Knights work it is not pretty. Lloyd benched for 10 or so mins... wtf?
Picking that young a backline is madness. Picking a guy who has barely played the game is ridiculous.
To support that back line supports the tanking notion. It's a shame it's come to this and most of you now accept it.
I don't know about you but I thought our defensive unit would have been pretty good this year. I assumed Ryder would settle into CHB, Fletch and one of Pears and Daniher would play and NLM and Demspey would provide something.
I thought it was an area that we could settle and have some sort of consistency. Now it's all over the shop again and we seem to be changing tack every few weeks.
kelvin_sheedy
20 Apr 2009, 17:15
And as for NLM being delisted well he is currently a better player than Nash, Dyson, Skipworth, Houli, Jetta, Myers, Williams, Magin, Atkinson, Monfries just to name a few.
Sir James
20 Apr 2009, 17:27
The bottom line is Ant if you pick Quinn to play AFL at this stage and overlook other guys then you are putting yourself under the microscope.
Knights is a lucky man that the media is baying after Terry's blood right now because if they'd analyse some of Knights work it is not pretty. Lloyd benched for 10 or so mins... wtf?
Picking that young a backline is madness. Picking a guy who has barely played the game is ridiculous.
To support that back line supports the tanking notion. It's a shame it's come to this and most of you now accept it.
I don't know about you but I thought our defensive unit would have been pretty good this year. I assumed Ryder would settle into CHB, Fletch and one of Pears and Daniher would play and NLM and Demspey would provide something.
I thought it was an area that we could settle and have some sort of consistency. Now it's all over the shop again and we seem to be changing tack every few weeks.
Totally agree:thumbsu:
Skeeta Olly
20 Apr 2009, 17:31
Kelvin, you're doing more circle work than an ethnic in a VL Commodore.
We;re going around in circles, accept that we have a young and developing backline. Players are being rewarding for hard work with games, while others that don't show what is needed are forced to work harder.
If I was Houli, I'd be working hard to get my spot in that team off Quinn. Hooker is stepping up in the VFL. NLM is not good enough for the role you want him to play, simple as that.
Stop looking at the negative aspects.
Skeeta Olly
20 Apr 2009, 17:35
And as for NLM being delisted well he is currently a better player than Nash, Dyson, Skipworth, Houli, Jetta, Myers, Williams, Magin, Atkinson, Monfries just to name a few.
Comparing apples with oranges.
NLM - 3rd tall
Nash - Rebounding Defender (?)
Dyson - Mid
Skipworth - Mid/Fwd
Houli - Def/mid
Myers - Def/Mid
Williams - Fwd
Magin - Mid
Atkinson - Rebounding Defender
Monfires - Fwd/Mid
Your opinion is fine if you think he is a better play than the above, but there is no point in comparing them.
The bottom line is Ant if you pick Quinn to play AFL at this stage and overlook other guys then you are putting yourself under the microscope.
Quinn played on Campbell.
Campbell 4 disposals befoe elaving the ground in the last quarter with a hammy problem.
As a defender Quinn did his job.
Knights is a lucky man that the media is baying after Terry's blood right now because if they'd analyse some of Knights work it is not pretty. Lloyd benched for 10 or so mins... wtf?
I agree on both points. The media may well have been on us a bit more if Richmond and Freo where not so pathetic and i mentioned to friends i was sitting with at the game that i had no idea why they keep sending Lloyd to the bench when he is playing well.
Picking that young a backline is madness. Picking a guy who has barely played the game is ridiculous.
Yes but the problem is we don't have any older KP defenders. Who else after Fletcher has experience as a KP defender ? Only Ryder but with Laycock being injured and Bellchambers not showing enough for Bendigo where do you go with that ?
To support that back line supports the tanking notion. It's a shame it's come to this and most of you now accept it.
No it does not. As i previously said problems with Laycock and Bellchambers has forced our second best tall defender into the ruck (and one could question if Ryder could be called a genuine defender anyway )
That leaves us with Fletcher and his band of 10 gamers in Daniher ,Pears and Hurley (when back ) to pick up the talls.
The rest was made up of Dempsey , Quinn and Slattery (after an early job on harvey ) and Young who all did a good job defensively on Campbell , Thomas and Lower plus Nash.
The only change that could have been made was NLM for Quinn but as i said before the game on this issue Quinn would not cost us the game and he did not. His man got 4 touches in 3 and a 1/2 quarters.
I don't know about you but I thought our defensive unit would have been pretty good this year. I assumed Ryder would settle into CHB, Fletch and one of Pears and Daniher would play and NLM and Demspey would provide something.
I thought it was an area that we could settle and have some sort of consistency. Now it's all over the shop again and we seem to be changing tack every few weeks
Well go back and have a look at all the comments made during December and January. Everyone else was thinking that we could have problems with defence becasue Fletcher was the only really experienced defender.
I never assumed Ryder would settle down and take hold of CHB becasue i have question marks on him as a defender. I have been saying for ages he should be played forward. He has got by as a defender because of natural athletisism and his leap. He has no idea about playing close man on man and has shown no signs that the penny will drop any time soon.
He also plays with a lack of intensity which is fatal for a defender.
So far the only reason things have changed is we have had injuires so there has not been the oppertunity for us to settle into a regular back 6.
And as for NLM being delisted well he is currently a better player than Nash, Dyson, Skipworth, Houli, Jetta, Myers, Williams, Magin, Atkinson, Monfries just to name a few.
Well that is your opinion. Not sure what you base it on.
For me NLM, Nash, Dyson and Williams would be the 4 i would be letting go at the end of the year.
Totally agree:thumbsu:
Did Quinn cost us the game. No !!!
Kaiser Powser
20 Apr 2009, 18:06
With a full squad we could probably afford to put McVeigh back there. But we need him at the coal face to give Jobe support ATM.
I would not be too aggressive with the changes anyway, as we need the backline to become a group and that only happens when they play games as a group.
I reckon that is a solid point.
McVeigh did not seem fully fit or inform on the weekend, perhaps a stink in the backline would be a good way to ease him back to full fitness. He is a great leader, and could take one of Collingwoods dangerous small forwards Didak or Medhurst.
Kaiser Powser
20 Apr 2009, 18:13
For me NLM, Nash, Dyson and Williams would be the 4 i would be letting go at the end of the year.
Totally agree with that, however if Dyson has survived this far, it is hard to see Knights delisting him now.
kelvin_sheedy
20 Apr 2009, 18:22
Did Quinn cost us the game. No !!!
How does a player cost you the game these days anyway? It's pretty much nigh on impossible to single anyone out.
The question we need to ask is "Did the selection of Quinn make our team stronger" The answer is unequivocally no.
In a tight 12 point game with not many goals I would suggest that it could have played a large bearing on the result when we put out a weakened team due to selection experimentation.
Quinn played on Campbell.
Campbell 4 disposals befoe elaving the ground in the last quarter with a hammy problem.
As a defender Quinn did his job.
Yes, but wasn't his job to provide run and carry as per what you said a few days ago. Knights game plan and all that.
Anyway I think this topic has been done to death now and Skeeta Olly says it best with "Kelvin, you're doing more circle work than an ethnic in a VL Commodore." :D
Ben the Gooner
20 Apr 2009, 18:23
To be fair though, kelvin, would you rather Darcy and Tayte (and Hurley for that matter) be thrown to the wolves this year with Fletch floating around and helping out, or next year (or 2011) when there's no Fletch to help out?
From the other thread. Thoughts kelvin?
bruce29
20 Apr 2009, 19:15
I like the idea of having the young backs down there with Fletch tutoring them.
My biggest concern is up forward, where we don't have enough young talent coming through under the tutelage of Lloydy and Scotty.
I like the idea of having the young backs down there with Fletch tutoring them.
My biggest concern is up forward, where we don't have enough young talent coming through under the tutelage of Lloydy and Scotty.
we do, it's just injured/not doing enough to get into the side.
also i agree, having our future key backs play under the guidance of fletcher should have some great long term benefits.
Darealrath
20 Apr 2009, 20:22
I love that we have a young defense week in and week out. These kids will form a cohesive unit with 50+ games under their belts. Have a look at the cats backline 10 years ago, Scarlett ,Hunt, Milburn, Harley etc. Milburn the oldest at 21/22.
nothing wrong throwing them to the wolves, id rather lose with kids who'll be good than win with blokes who will always be ordinary.
Completely agree. Defence definately wasn't the problem anyway.
One thing I'd like to see in the next season or two (or three) when Fletch retires is for one of McVeigh and Welsh to go back to defence to provide some generalship. Our midfield should be good enough to not need both by then.
kelvin_sheedy
20 Apr 2009, 22:00
From the other thread. Thoughts kelvin?
I would like a balance.
Pears and Daniher have had a chance to learn of Fletch and Mal last year. They train together and should be learning all the time. Hurley is touted as a very smart footballer.
Throwing them to the wolves like we did on Saturday punishes the team and your chance of winning when you take into account the collective back 6.
If we had a strong backline, say for example we had Hardwick or Solly then throwing two kids in there might be ok. Having 4 of your back 6 inexperienced does not do your chances of winning any good.
The fact is kids develop better around stronger bodies and winning cultures. I'd rather look at winning first, developing kids second because if you get the first one right the second one will happen a lot easier.
Ben the Gooner
20 Apr 2009, 22:07
But who do we bring in?
NLM is the only experienced defender who isn't playing, and it's very debatable whether he offers more from a defensive point of view than Pears, whose place he would take.
It's not like Dimma or Solly are rotting at Bendigo - this is probably one player (Hurley in for Quinn, Pears to BP) away from our best backline.
kelvin_sheedy
20 Apr 2009, 22:15
I love that we have a young defense week in and week out. These kids will form a cohesive unit with 50+ games under their belts. Have a look at the cats backline 10 years ago, Scarlett ,Hunt, Milburn, Harley etc. Milburn the oldest at 21/22.
nothing wrong throwing them to the wolves, id rather lose with kids who'll be good than win with blokes who will always be ordinary.
10 years ago the Cats backline was:
Graham, Milburn, Stoneham, Sanderson, Sholl, McGrath
Graham, McGrath, Stoneham, Sanderson, Sholl all played in 2000.
Scarlett played 1 game in his first year, 5 in his second before cementing a regular place.
Milburn was in hist 4th year by the time Scarlett cemented a place in the side.
Harley was turning 22 before he cemented his place at the Cats.
It's complete rubbish to compare them to what we are doing now.
The bolded line is surely a joke. If you actually analyse it.. it doesn't make sense. Lose with good kids but win with bad players. Hmmmm :confused:
The bolded line is surely a joke. If you actually analyse it.. it doesn't make sense. Lose with good kids but win with bad players. Hmmmm :confused:
well if you replace win with lose in that sentence it brings up a good point. why waste time with players who have had their chance to prove themselves yet haven't proven themselves while you can take a chance with kids with heaps of potential and try to get the most out of them? although, that question is heavily opinion based, surely you could see the point of it.
kelvin_sheedy
20 Apr 2009, 22:22
But who do we bring in?
NLM is the only experienced defender who isn't playing, and it's very debatable whether he offers more from a defensive point of view than Pears, whose place he would take.
It's not like Dimma or Solly are rotting at Bendigo - this is probably one player (Hurley in for Quinn, Pears to BP) away from our best backline.
In terms of big men... we have no one. So we are stuck with Pears and Daniher or Hurley.
What we have to do is add a bit more steel around them. Enter NLM. Exit stage left Quinn.
Why does everyone assume NLM takes a tall?
Possibly look at McVeigh in a Hodge type role if we get our midfield going with Watson, Lonergan, Winders and Lovett.
kelvin_sheedy
20 Apr 2009, 22:27
well if you replace win with lose in that sentence it brings up a good point. why waste time with players who have had their chance to prove themselves yet haven't proven themselves while you can take a chance with kids with heaps of potential and try to get the most out of them? although, that question is heavily opinion based, surely you could see the point of it.
The problem with the statement is that at any point in time you can make the same claims about the past few premiership sides.
Geelong a few years ago had run their race according to most and were too slow and had too many one paced mids..... well that changed quickly.
Swans were never going to win with their battlers and game style and should have played more kids..... they showed us.
We should be worried about winning the next 4 weeks rather than trying to win the premiership in 4 years.
Ben the Gooner
20 Apr 2009, 22:31
In terms of big men... we have no one. So we are stuck with Pears and Daniher or Hurley.
What we have to do is add a bit more steel around them. Enter NLM. Exit stage left Quinn.
Why does everyone assume NLM takes a tall?
Possibly look at McVeigh in a Hodge type role if we get our midfield going with Watson, Lonergan, Winders and Lovett.
NLM is in between a tall and a small, and would be third tall (as with Pears) in a full strength backline.
I think McVeigh could play the quarterback role very well, but I'd like to see Hurley play there when he gets back. He has the aerial ability and the footskills to play there, and can read the play as well as any kid can.
FWIW, full strength:
B: Slattery - Hurley - Pears
HB: Fletcher - Daniher - Dempsey
Pears plays on the third tall forwards, either tall or small (like Josh Smith, or Ryan Houlihan), and Fletcher plays effectively as a loose man/attacking HBF. Hurley and Daniher take the two main key forwards, Slattery takes the main small forward, and Dempsey keeps doing what he's doing.
In that back 6, you have a 5th year player with a hardened body, as big a first year player as you'll see, a 2nd year player built like a tank, a 34 year old, a skinny 2nd year player and a 4th year player.
To be honest, there's not a lot of physical ground conceded there.
BringBackCransberg
20 Apr 2009, 22:33
It might only be partially relevant to all this "big bodied player", but I thought this was interesting:
NLM: 190cm, 87kg
Pears: 191cm, 91kg
Daniher: 191, 89kg
Hurley: 193cm, 91kg
I dunno if there's technical considerations (e.g. fat vs muscle). But, with those kids at least, perhaps it's more of a confidence/hard-at-it attitude thing that is needed to satisfy what you (Kelvin) think our defence needs? If so, that sort of thing, I reckon, requires AFL experience -- VFL won't do it. And, in the meantime, they're not doing that bad. They beat Freo's attack, they matched Carlton's attack, and, IMO, they almost matched NM's attack. And it's obvious that Pears and Daniher are getting better all the time.
BringBackCransberg
20 Apr 2009, 22:36
In terms of big men... we have no one. So we are stuck with Pears and Daniher or Hurley.
What we have to do is add a bit more steel around them. Enter NLM. Exit stage left Quinn.
That pretty much answers my query. Too bad I'm a slow typer at a slow computer.
The bottom line is Ant if you pick Quinn to play AFL at this stage and overlook other guys then you are putting yourself under the microscope.
Knights is a lucky man that the media is baying after Terry's blood right now because if they'd analyse some of Knights work it is not pretty. Lloyd benched for 10 or so mins... wtf?
Picking that young a backline is madness. Picking a guy who has barely played the game is ridiculous.
To support that back line supports the tanking notion. It's a shame it's come to this and most of you now accept it.
I don't know about you but I thought our defensive unit would have been pretty good this year. I assumed Ryder would settle into CHB, Fletch and one of Pears and Daniher would play and NLM and Demspey would provide something.
I thought it was an area that we could settle and have some sort of consistency. Now it's all over the shop again and we seem to be changing tack every few weeks.
EFC have conceded 10 goals on 2 occasions this year.
Good goinf for a young backline.
I reckon that is a solid point.
McVeigh did not seem fully fit or inform on the weekend, perhaps a stink in the backline would be a good way to ease him back to full fitness. He is a great leader, and could take one of Collingwoods dangerous small forwards Didak or Medhurst.
Do people watch games.
Mcveigh during his AFL career has taken 3 weeks to regain his form AFTER incurring a 3 week + injury.
He loses touch quickly when not playing the game.
He is usually okay after missing one maybe 2 games,
I would like a balance.
Pears and Daniher have had a chance to learn of Fletch and Mal last year. They train together and should be learning all the time. Hurley is touted as a very smart footballer.
Throwing them to the wolves like we did on Saturday punishes the team and your chance of winning when you take into account the collective back 6.
If we had a strong backline, say for example we had Hardwick or Solly then throwing two kids in there might be ok. Having 4 of your back 6 inexperienced does not do your chances of winning any good.
The fact is kids develop better around stronger bodies and winning cultures. I'd rather look at winning first, developing kids second because if you get the first one right the second one will happen a lot easier.
Hardwick and Solly may have been run off their feet by the likes of Campbellm Thomas etc.
In terms of big men... we have no one. So we are stuck with Pears and Daniher or Hurley.
What we have to do is add a bit more steel around them. Enter NLM. Exit stage left Quinn.
Why does everyone assume NLM takes a tall?
Possibly look at McVeigh in a Hodge type role if we get our midfield going with Watson, Lonergan, Winders and Lovett.
Kelvin
Why did Essendon lose to the Kangaroos ?
Because the Kangaroos played the game on their terms and Essendon couldn't play on their terms.
Opposition coaches know that NLM is vulnerable in the air ( to bigger or smaller players ) and will drag him back to the goalsquare.
A perfect example is the game in 2008 VS Richmond, when NLM had 7 goals kicked on him by players such as Brown, Morton.
You may have noticed a smaller and a key position type.
Richmond continually dragged NLM back to the goal square.
stay true
21 Apr 2009, 02:14
I'd hate to think what people would be saying if we were 0-4...
resurrector
21 Apr 2009, 02:59
why not throw lucas down back while he's struggling to kick goals? he's shown in the past that he can play back there, and he went pretty close to all australian CHB one year i'm pretty sure....i'm sure he could handle the bigger body types like fev or rocca or cam mooney
10 years ago the Cats backline was:
Graham, Milburn, Stoneham, Sanderson, Sholl, McGrath
Graham, McGrath, Stoneham, Sanderson, Sholl all played in 2000.
Stoneham wasnt playing in defence in 2000. and mcgraths career was just about done by the end of 2000.
Between 2000 and 2001 they made 4 young and inexperienced players permanent fixtures.
The bolded line is surely a joke. If you actually analyse it.. it doesn't make sense. Lose with good kids but win with bad players. Hmmmm :confused:
Kids will improve, average players will always be average. You can use guys who are good enough to win you some games and you can eek out a 9th to 12th finish. or you can bite the bullet and play some guys who can lift you beyond mediocre. The last few years have shown that the current group of senior players arent good enough to lift us anymore.
In terms of big men... we have no one. So we are stuck with Pears and Daniher or Hurley.
What we have to do is add a bit more steel around them. Enter NLM. Exit stage left Quinn.
Why does everyone assume NLM takes a tall?
Possibly look at McVeigh in a Hodge type role if we get our midfield going with Watson, Lonergan, Winders and Lovett.
Ok come on hear and give me examples of the great games NLM has played in defence!
He has played about 15 good games and 60 ordianry ones.
Natrat does not make a toss of difference to yesterdays result.
How does having him in the side stop turnovers that expose our defenders to one on one contests ?
kelvin_sheedy
21 Apr 2009, 10:37
Stoneham wasnt playing in defence in 2000. and mcgraths career was just about done by the end of 2000.
Between 2000 and 2001 they made 4 young and inexperienced players permanent fixtures.
They were all into their 3rd,4th,5th season by then. They were 20/21/22 and not 19 like our guys Pears, Daniher, Hurley, Quinn.
A year or two for KPP's is a hug difference and we are a year or two out for the right balance.
Houli to Neagle
21 Apr 2009, 10:43
I would play McPhee back there. That's where he played his best footy!
How does a player cost you the game these days anyway? It's pretty much nigh on impossible to single anyone out.
You did before the game. You said Quinn would cost us the game. You where wrong.
The question we need to ask is "Did the selection of Quinn make our team stronger" The answer is unequivocally no.
In your opinion. NLM could have played and pulled his usual zoning off trick and Campbell could have kicked 3 goals.
There is no way you can say we would have done any better with NLM in the side.
In a tight 12 point game with not many goals I would suggest that it could have played a large bearing on the result when we put out a weakened team due to selection experimentation.
Why do you keep on about selecting one player. Yes it is about looking towards the future but you seem to go on about it like we selected 4 players who where unproven. The fact is we had three changes and two of the ins where 100 plus game players.
Yes, but wasn't his job to provide run and carry as per what you said a few days ago. Knights game plan and all that.
Yes it is part of his job but defence comes first. Dempsey had the same problem. He also had an opponent that he had to look after.
Having not seen the game you can not comment on what Quinn did anyway.
He did not have a lot of the ball but he was available as an option a number of times. Some day the footy is not on your side of the ground a lot and you are playing on a small forward who can be dangerous.
If it was Tom German promoted of the rookie list and he kept Campbell to 4 possessions you would be saying what a great job he did as a small defender.
The reason thing go around in circles with you Kelvin is you never adress the questions people ask.
kelvin_sheedy
21 Apr 2009, 10:47
Ok come on hear and give me examples of the great games NLM has played in defence!
He has played about 15 good games and 60 ordianry ones.
Natrat does not make a toss of difference to yesterdays result.
How does having him in the side stop turnovers that expose our defenders to one on one contests ?
He completely shut out Dale Thomas last year in one game I remember and had a number of other good games.
He is a guy off the rookie list and in his 6th season at 26. Why can't he improve like any other player?
He is at the point where he should be playing his best footy, right age bracket and games. He deserves a game or two to show us that he can produce some of his better games more consistently.
He showed a lot of improvement in his 3rd year and was a pretty good player for us. He got injuries in 07 and didn't play that many and last year he was asked to do jobs beyond him due to injuries and Knights experimentation.
I would play McPhee back there. That's where he played his best footy!
So 2006, 2007 and parts of 2008 have been wiped from your memory.
McPhee was awfull as a defender.
He won AA selection playing half back flank and floating across the contest to take 10 to 15 marks a game.
Since then he has gone backwards. Hell he drops every second mark he goes for.
What you said is right in he played his best footy there but that is a distant memory. He has not shown that form for 5 years.
If you want dropped marks, poor decisons with the ball, u turns, continual kicking sideways and fumbles then go ahead and put McPhee in defence.
Houli to Neagle
21 Apr 2009, 10:52
So 2006, 2007 and parts of 2008 have been wiped from your memory.
McPhee was awfull as a defender.
He won AA selection playing half back flank and floating across the contest to take 10 to 15 marks a game.
Since then he has gone backwards. Hell he drops every second mark he goes for.
What you said is right in he played his best footy there but that is a distant memory. He has not shown that form for 5 years.
If you want dropped marks, poor decisons with the ball, u turns, continual kicking sideways and fumbles then go ahead and put McPhee in defence.
So we drop him then?
You are making out like he is our worst player?
So we drop him then?
You are making out like he is our worst player?
I am telling you how it is with him as a defender.
The proof is in the games he has played there in the last 3 or 4 years.
Don't put words in my mouth. If you read any thread about McPhee you would have seen that i have defended his spot in the side as a forward becasue we do not have anyone else who provides the work rate and presents as a target like he does.
If he could hold his marks he would be classed as a very good half forward becasue he never stops presenting and the position is not that complicated for him. He does not have to make too many decisions under pressure there.
The dropped marks and fumbles really hurt us but until Neagle or Gumby are in a position to play better than him then no you do not drop him.
The simple fact is you can not use hi AA form in any discussion of him being a defender in 2009 becasue he has never recaptured that form and he spent a two years stint through 2006 and 2007 ( plus parts of 2008) in defence and he was ordinary there.
James Hird commented on McPhee last night on Fox . He said he is a player that has not lived up to his potential he showed in 2004.
He said he plays his best footy when he does not have to think about the game too much and can play a free flowing game. When the comment was made that todays footy involves a lot of thinking about what you are doing Hirdy replied "well he is going to be in a lot of trouble "
I remember either Merv or Ant555 mentioned a downside to being Mod was that you have to read every thread and post, even if you really don't want to. I now understand that pain :(.
He completely shut out Dale Thomas last year in one game I remember and had a number of other good games.
Well seems you mentioned it lets look at last year. He played 20 games last year and he really only did well in 6 of them. Are you saying that it is acceptable for a player who has played 85 games to only perform in around 20% of them.
He went into last year with a solid pre season , 65 games experience behind him.
He is a guy off the rookie list and in his 6th season at 26. Why can't he improve like any other player?
So you have different standards for different players.
Dyson a late pick in the draft in his 6th season is a total waste of space and can not improve yet NLM who has played more games can ?
And no i am not suggesting that Dyson is any good.
He is at the point where he should be playing his best footy, right age bracket and games. He deserves a game or two to show us that he can produce some of his better games more consistently.
You know what, yes he is. He was ready last year. Had 65 games under his belt. Got through a good pre season after having a groin opperation mid 2007 and had shown some form in the last 5 games of that year.
Then he comes out last year and plays 20 games with 14 or 15 of them being nothing special. Is that the road you want us to keep going down. Playing guys who are nothing special so we can win the odd close game during the year.
He showed a lot of improvement in his 3rd year and was a pretty good player for us. He got injuries in 07 and didn't play that many and last year he was asked to do jobs beyond him due to injuries and Knights experimentation
Did he not play half back most of last year ?
Was it not your suggestion he play half back in place of Quinn ?
I doubt i would pick Quinn this week becasue Anzac Day is a different sort of game. NLM may well get the nod but that does not change the fact that the result of last weeks game was not affected in any way by the selection of Quinn in front of NLM.
I remember either Merv or Ant555 mentioned a downside to being Mod was that you have to read every thread and post, even if you really don't want to. I now understand that pain :(.
Yep one part of being a mod i don't miss.
kelvin_sheedy
21 Apr 2009, 14:02
Well seems you mentioned it lets look at last year. He played 20 games last year and he really only did well in 6 of them. Are you saying that it is acceptable for a player who has played 85 games to only perform in around 20% of them.
He went into last year with a solid pre season , 65 games experience behind him.
He was played out of position a fair bit and most of his bad games were when our side was terrible and the midfield was getting smashed. The defence had no chance. Slattery got mauled just as much if not more than him.
His 20% is already better than Quinns 0% or do we just forgot about Quinns mistakes?
He's played his best footy as a running defender and forward.
He played 19 odd games in 06 averaging 19 possessions as a running defender.
So you have different standards for different players.
Dyson a late pick in the draft in his 6th season is a total waste of space and can not improve yet NLM who has played more games can ?
And no i am not suggesting that Dyson is any good.
No. NLM to Dyson's good games are about 4-1... and I'm being generous there.
You know what, yes he is. He was ready last year. Had 65 games under his belt. Got through a good pre season after having a groin opperation mid 2007 and had shown some form in the last 5 games of that year.
Then he comes out last year and plays 20 games with 14 or 15 of them being nothing special. Is that the road you want us to keep going down. Playing guys who are nothing special so we can win the odd close game during the year.
How can you take anything away from last year when we had so many injuries and the defence was crucified. He got asked to do too many jobs and it was unfair on him - Reiwoldt is one I remember.
Did he not play half back most of last year ?
Was it not your suggestion he play half back in place of Quinn ?
He played on the third tall and at times he played on the tall. He was not used as a running defender but more a negating one.
I doubt i would pick Quinn this week becasue Anzac Day is a different sort of game. NLM may well get the nod but that does not change the fact that the result of last weeks game was not affected in any way by the selection of Quinn in front of NLM.
In a close game I reckon it might have been the difference. He kicked 4 last year and if we swung him forward he might have done something. Only place you could swing Quinn was onto the bench.
Well you keep pumping up the tyres of a player that has had his chance KS.
Quinn will more than likely go back to Bendigo at some stage now he has had some exposure to AFL level but he did not cost us the game.
If you think the future is in NLM then good for you. If we go down that road ,waiting for an 26 year old with 85 games under his belt to improve then we may be a premiership chance in about 2020.