- Banned
- #726
Players too good for the Vfl: Thurlow BewsNo he's just too good for the vfl hence you won't see him there and as such won't get a chance to sook
Players in the vfl: thurlow Bews
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Players too good for the Vfl: Thurlow BewsNo he's just too good for the vfl hence you won't see him there and as such won't get a chance to sook
If we're going to start kicking the ball 8-10m, why not just go back to our high handpassing to kicking ratio game? By the time you drop the ball onto your foot to kick it, you could've got the handpass away and you won't be relying on the umpire to give you the benefit of the doubt with the length of your kick. Yeah, the Cats players probably won't get away with it as often as the Hawks players do- there must be a knack to how they deceive with the length of the kick- if you move on from where you've marked it quickly enough, perhaps the umpire second-guesses his estimate of the length you've kicked it.
Obviously, after you've taken possession from a handpass, you don't have the benefit of having taken a mark but then how often do our boys want to go back and kick over the mark anyway? We seem to want to move the ball on at all costs so, in that case, a quick handpass fired off will give a similar result to a short kick.
good players kick accurately both from 10 and 20 metresSo it's easier to kick more accurately over 20 metres than 10? Definitely do not agree, but happy to leave it at that.
What I mean by the comments above were that if the kick is deemed too short, their teammate will have the ball anyway and be able to dispose quite well even if under pressure as they have the ball, not their opponent. Hope this makes sense. Works in my head
good players kick accurately both from 10 and 20 metres
When you are paid the mark, it gives you a few seconds to set up the next play if need be. If there's a handball option, use it sure, but if not, then it allows you to go back and try to find a target. I just think that Hawthorn use this short kick often and it is extremely effective. They have won the last 2 premierships so I'm just trying to work out what it is that they do differently to us. This is an area I believe that they are ahead of other teams and if we can't find a way to beat it, then maybe we need to copy it to some extent.
As I said. No where near as many as Hawthorn.Agreed, and we have plenty of good players.
As I said. No where near as many as Hawthorn.
Best 22 players out of the club Bundy, Varcoe.Players too good for the Vfl: Thurlow Bews
Players in the vfl: thurlow Bews
Lmfao you honestly suggesting to remove blitz for Stanley? I'd prefer Stanley over Clark if any.Best 22 players out of the club Bundy, Varcoe.
Clark in for Walker, Stanley to fight it out with Blitz....
..... So your not actually advocating SJ to play vfl are you?
That's your call, doesn't change that SJ is best 22 and you can't think of a credible reason for him not to be (after all that is what we're arguing).Lmfao you honestly suggesting to remove blitz for Stanley? I'd prefer Stanley over Clark if any.
If Blitz goes HB then I have no problem but omitting him for a nobody (tho I like Stanley) is ridiculous.That's your call, doesn't change that SJ is best 22 and you can't think of a credible reason for him not to be (after all that is what we're arguing).
Fitness permitting Clark should play CHF and like I said Blitz and Stanley to duke it out for 2nd ruck. However Stanley's manager has hinted at Stanley being forward ruck while Blitz to be used in the back half.
+ a good ruck to get the ball to our mids? ???Our I50 figures were good, and our conversion rates from I50s were good.
We were hammered out of the middle, not out of our F50.
We need more good mids, especially big inside mids.
Without competent rucks, we relied on turnovers, as the ball was heading to the oppo team's forward line. As for our poor second halves, I'm going to jump on my hobby horse again - inaccurate goal kicking! Clangers from set shots, or players snapping wildly instead of taking a second to gather themselves + kick goals. I think another thing that's killing us at times is the long bomb to Tomahawk, with five defenders hanging off him! He is so much more effective when he runs out on the lead + marks the ball. Well, that's my two cents worthOur clearance numbers were very poor, no doubt. I don't think they were specifically responsible for our poor second halves though. However, they definitely contributed to our lack of run and overall performance.
My thinking is that we are good at applying pressure to the Hawks. Their game is based on having their players in open space, to move the ball quickly. When we crowd them, they crumble. If we have a player say, between the handballer + the Midget, we can intercept. I think YPO made a good point - "notice if anyone kicks a couple of quick goal on them straight away you will see Roughead and Gunston down back until they regain the momentum" + conversely, they always seem to have a player who can move forward quickly, so there is a player who can take an I50 mark + goal.I certainly didn't mean to sell them short YPO. Obviously they are a great team, well coached with a lot of very good players. But they are beatable IMO. I think their coach is a master tactician and wish he'd piss off to be honest, but I also think they can be beaten by a good game plan. I think ours can beat them as it has worked so many times over the past few years. Yes they have improved and we declined a little, but I still think (rightly or wrongly) that our game plan can beat them. Interesting times ahead.
And you weren't butting in. I addressed the question to Fred but am happy to hear from anyone that wishes to contribute.
It's not surprising that Hawthorn + Clark have focused on beating us. We've been their nemesis until 2013. Now, we need to do the hard work + focus on beating the teams above us - as you expressed so well - "As far as I'm concerned, any team that finishes above us on ladder by definition has qualities we could and should try to learn from." For how long now, have teams played hard against us to gauge their progress?Even early this season I might have agreed. But the last two occasions we've played them they've picked us apart pretty easily. They've got a better spread of talent, far better skills, and they work harder. Plus, until I see otherwise I'd say Clarkson has Scott's measure fairly comfortably right now as well.
My thinking is that we are good at applying pressure to the Hawks. Their game is based on having their players in open space, to move the ball quickly. When we crowd them, they crumble. If we have a player say, between the handballer + the Midget, we can intercept. I think YPO made a good point - "notice if anyone kicks a couple of quick goal on them straight away you will see Roughead and Gunston down back until they regain the momentum" + conversely, they always seem to have a player who can move forward quickly, so there is a player who can take an I50 mark + goal.
How about our strength playing through the corridor? I'm asking because I can't recall how effective we were last season, with that strategy? Poor old brain is fading.So by the looks of it, you guys think our game plan isn't up to it? Should we be just tweaking then or should we look to try to implement a form of the short kicking game which appears to work so well?
I'm in the tweaking camp as I think there certainly is some merit to our game plan and it's effectiveness. Maybe the game has gone past our game plan, maybe it hasn't. I think it can still work. Shoot me.
I agree WAG, it's the best, dissecting + discussing! I'm going to re-read your original comment, perhaps I've misunderstood. Do you remember when Guthrie used to stay back + when the ball was going back, he'd be there to snaffle it + boot it forward? That's a strategy, which was effective. I agree, with you + Partridge, no harm in looking at the other clubs' strategies at all, besides that's what the other teams have been doing with us, studying our game + using our strategies! + it's that, well I think, which has evened the competition.Yeah I hadn't really noticed Gunston down back much, but Roughead certainly roams around a bit. Also didn't really realise that they do this on a regular basis after a couple of goals kicked. Will check it out next year. Interesting though and sounds like a good plan. Maybe as others have suggested we don't need to follow Hawthorn's game plan, but I can't see any harm in looking at what the better clubs are doing and trying to either offset it with a tactic of our own or adapting it in some way. I'm sure the club has people looking at this stuff all the time anyway. Obviously it makes no difference what we say on here, I just think it's interesting to dissect.
How about our strength playing through the corridor? I'm asking because I can't recall how effective we were last season, with that strategy? Poor old brain is fading.
Being reliant on opposition turnovers is not sustainable. Highly skilled teams like Hawthorn crucify us because they simply don't turnover the ball often enough. Our ruckmen have a lot to answer for but our midfielders aren't without blame either.Without competent rucks, we relied on turnovers, as the ball was heading to the oppo team's forward line. As for our poor second halves, I'm going to jump on my hobby horse again - inaccurate goal kicking! Clangers from set shots, or players snapping wildly instead of taking a second to gather themselves + kick goals. I think another thing that's killing us at times is the long bomb to Tomahawk, with five defenders hanging off him! He is so much more effective when he runs out on the lead + marks the ball. Well, that's my two cents worth
I think there are a few posters who agree with your thoughts on Stanley as #1 ruck, Eudey. Recruiting him solely as a forward doesn't make sense, as we have Hawkins, we've just grabbed Clark, and the MC seem to love Vardy. We seem to also have a few blokes who can be good #2 rucks. We didn't appear to look at trading for a known young #1 and neither Simpson nor HMac are guarantees to play a full season at this stage.Does anyone else think they'll play Stanley as #1 ruck?
He had some praises for his ruck work this year as a back up. Maybe the GFC see him as a more mobile ruck that'll rest forward
I would actual like to see this as I think one aspect we struggled all year was with our kick ins.
Often when you have no options, you go long to the talls (ala freo to Sandy), and their height and obvious making advantage is like a "get out of jail free" card.
I noticed wherever we did this, Hmac or Simpson couldn't mark squat. At least Stanley has a good pair of hands