Opinion Pick your Round 1 side

[steady2]

Two of the NAB cup games featured Hawkins, Clark and Kersten. So they were definitely trialling three big forwards. Kersten wasn't bringing anything to the table and was send back to VFL - but it does show that the MC are looking at this option as their Plan A (trialling it twice in a row). So an in form Kersten would have kept his spot in that forward line. Obviously Kersten and Walker are different - but they are not too different.

Walker doesn't have to push past Mitch Clark. He just has to take Kersten's spot - and do the role the Kersten was expected to do.

Not necessarily. I don't think the coaches, nor I or many others consider Kersten a key position forward, it was tough for him last year trying to play CHF at 191cm. Walker on the other hand is a genuine key position player and I cannot see all three playing on the forward line, while there are also two ruckmen and three KPD+Mackie, way top heavy. It has been said a few times 'wouldn't it be great if Clarke could hold a ruck spot while Walker teams with Hawkins' and I concur, but I do not think it will happen in Round 1.

 

[steady2]

Was just chanelling a bit of Steve Brule steady, didn't mean any offence.

With respect to your initial comment, i don't think it does stand. You said he wasnt considered "good enough for any of the AFL NAB games". He wasnt considered for a single NAB game because he was ill for two weeks and couldnt train. Not because he wasnt good enough. No one is 'not good enough' for a NAB game.

Not offended just unused to that stuff (getting old). I said a lot more than "wasn't good enough" and you are cherry picking if you single out that one half comment. I stated that since he has had little pre-season and Clarke has been the success story it is unrealistic to expect Walker to push Clarke out and picking three big forwards would make us way top heavy, I don't like it, but more importantly I do not think the MC will like it either.

 

[catempire]

Not offended just unused to that stuff (getting old). I said a lot more than "wasn't good enough" and you are cherry picking if you single out that one half comment. I stated that since he has had little pre-season and Clarke has been the success story it is unrealistic to expect Walker to push Clarke out and picking three big forwards would make us way top heavy, I don't like it, but more importantly I do not think the MC will like it either.

What you say here is all well and good. I must admit, I took "not considered good enough" exactly as Claude Balls did - it seemed you didn't appreciate Walker had been ill.

 

[AWOL]

I'll have a crack.
B: Bews Lonergan Rivers
HB: Mackie Taylor Enright
C: Duncan Selwood Motlop
HF: Cockatoo Hawkins SJ
F: Walker Clark Stokes
Foll: HMac Guthrie Caddy
I/from: Kelly Bartel Blicavz Lang

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Walker is definitely a smoky for Round 1… I like the idea of 3 falls against the Hawks. Will keep Frawley, Lake and Gibson guessing….and I would suggest, reaching to match ours overhead….

Don't you think that it could upset the chemistry that Hawk and Clark seem to have built in a short time over the pre-season though?

Or is that sort of stuff a little bit over rated perhaps?

 

[David the Cat]

Possible Stan I guess…I was working on the basis they were professional footballers and could carry out a game plan….

LOL….too much to hope for?

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Possible Stan I guess…I was working on the basis they were professional footballers and could carry out a game plan….

LOL….too much to hope for?

Haha nah I don't think that's too much to hope for, but I'm just a bit worried that if all 3 of them were to play then Walker might just get in their way a little bit and make it harder for them to find space inside 50. I'd rather we just stuck with what has worked over the pre-season and play an extra small to provide more pressure once/if the ball hits the deck.

I'm not saying that we should never do it, but just not in round 1 IMO.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

The side that I'd like to see on Easter Monday.

Bews Lonergan Rivers
Enright Taylor Mackie
Guthrie Bartel Duncan
Stokes Hawk Motlop
Lang Clark Cockatoo
McIntosh SJ Selwood

Blitz Caddy Kelly

Sub: H-S

Emerg: Smedts Murdoch Walker

 

[kanyewest]

The side that I'd like to see on Easter Monday.

Bews Lonergan Rivers
Enright Taylor Mackie
Guthrie Bartel Duncan
Stokes Hawk Motlop
Lang Clark Cockatoo
McIntosh SJ Selwood

Blitz Caddy Kelly

Sub: H-S

Emerg: Smedts Murdoch Walker

I like the side, but I'd switch Lang for Walker. Having three talls forward doesn't always work, but against Hawthorn it seems smart strategically. Lake has clearly helped them, and now they have added Frawley too, so I just think the taller the better. It would also be good to have Gibson accountable. Bobby also makes a good point about the size differentials too. And dare I say it, I reckon Walker goes OK in the ruck.

And not that positions really mean much anymore, but I would actually like to see Cockatoo start inside the square

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Two of the NAB cup games featured Hawkins, Clark and Kersten. So they were definitely trialling three big forwards. Kersten wasn't bringing anything to the table and was send back to VFL - but it does show that the MC are looking at this option as their Plan A (trialling it twice in a row). So an in form Kersten would have kept his spot in that forward line. Obviously Kersten and Walker are different - but they are not too different.

Walker doesn't have to push past Mitch Clark. He just has to take Kersten's spot - and do the role the Kersten was expected to do.

Not really (well for round 1 yes because Stanley is injured but not long term) as long term they wont play 3 KPFs and both Stanley as a 2nd ruck and Blicavs. I don't doubt Walker will push past Kersten but to get regular games he has to push either Stanley or Blicavs out also, and I'm not so sure that is going to happen.

 

[Vdubs]

I like the side, but I'd switch Lang for Walker. Having three talls forward doesn't always work, but against Hawthorn it seems smart strategically. Lake has clearly helped them, and now they have added Frawley too, so I just think the taller the better. It would also be good to have Gibson accountable. Bobby also makes a good point about the size differentials too. And dare I say it, I reckon Walker goes OK in the ruck.

And not that positions really mean much anymore, but I would actually like to see Cockatoo start inside the square

I like Walker, but not in the ruck. He seems to lack timing and nous. And height. He seems dangerous enough lurking around the fwd line with his mobility, aggression, and pack marking. Imagine the choice of Clark/Hawkins/ Walker. All can take great grabs. I hope we can make Hodge more accountable than we have recently. If he has to play as a tallish defender, which he isn't, excellent.
May come down to the weather. If we cop a rare April wet/windy day, it could be too top heavy.

 

[witsend]

Wont happen just yet but if Walker comes in and does ok he may end up at CHF and Clark in the ruck. Clark taps well, uses his body in the ruck well, he tackles, harasses opposition players at clearance contests, shepherds and can take mark around the ground - as well as being pretty quick for a guy his size. There is a lot to like about him going into the first ruck position.

So if Walker can clunk a few, split a few packs, run all day and be willing to spoil, chase and tackle - do all the 1 %ers - then this move could work out.

Walker will be no Clark at CHF - but if he is 75 % as effective and Clark makes our midfield 25 % better - then that would be a huge win for us.

Then we await to see if Stanley can add anything to the team.

3 way rotation..Walker/Clark/HMac-CHF/Ruck/Bench

 

[Vdubs]

3 way rotation..Walker/Clark/HMac-CHF/Ruck/Bench

I don't like the HMc part of that trio, but I think you are spot-on. My preference is DS, but his relative lack of performance on the fwd line will give the nod to HMc, and your suggestion, imo, will eventuate.

 

[witsend]

I don't like the HMc part of that trio, but I think you are spot-on. My preference is DS, but his relative lack of performance on the fwd line will give the nod to HMc, and your suggestion, imo, will eventuate.

I agree on HMac, but those kind of 3 way rotations are very common in AFL now with subtle variations. I would think HMac may go deeper with Hawkins pushing up when he's nominally CHF. Also throw Blicavs into that mix off a wing and it's somewhat of a match up nightmare. I actually have this strange feeling that they are gonna keep adding quick athletic talks (within reason). Wouldn't it be interesting to see a side with Hawkins/Clark/Vardy/Blicavs/Stanley/Walker and one of HMac and Simpson, along with Taylor and Lonners at FB/CHB? Because of Blicavs athleticism and Stanley's genuine pace, one could mount a case that whilst being "tall" you don't necessarily lose run or pace with either in the team? Of course it could also be a disaster? Could Geelong end up being a poster child for NBA-ish height?

 

[Vdubs]

I agree on HMac, but those kind of 3 way rotations are very common in AFL now with subtle variations. I would think HMac may go deeper with Hawkins pushing up when he's nominally CHF. Also throw Blicavs into that mix off a wing and it's somewhat of a match up nightmare. I actually have this strange feeling that they are gonna keep adding quick athletic talks (within reason). Wouldn't it be interesting to see a side with Hawkins/Clark/Vardy/Blicavs/Stanley/Walker and one of HMac and Simpson, along with Taylor and Lonners at FB/CHB? Because of Blicavs athleticism and Stanley's genuine pace, one could mount a case that whilst being "tall" you don't necessarily lose run or pace with either in the team? Of course it could also be a disaster? Could Geelong end up being a poster child for NBA-ish height?

We have had a record for innovation and starting new trends. Ideal for a team based at Etihad, maybe not so good down at Geelong in some conditions.

 

[Claude Balls]

Not offended just unused to that stuff (getting old). I said a lot more than "wasn't good enough" and you are cherry picking if you single out that one half comment. I stated that since he has had little pre-season and Clarke has been the success story it is unrealistic to expect Walker to push Clarke out and picking three big forwards would make us way top heavy, I don't like it, but more importantly I do not think the MC will like it either.

I dare say most are unaccustomed to being called a turkey... for the record, it was meant to be light hearted. Look up Steve Brule on youtube and you'll see where I was coming from

Anyway, I did see what you wrote subsequently and acknowledge your broader point of view on Walker. As for 'cherry picking', one could only infer very clearly, from what you wrote initially, that you believed Walker had not been picked because the MC didn't consider him good enough. I was simply disagreeing with that statement.

 

[Claude Balls]

Our recruiting in the offseason kind of suggests otherwise. He played in the VFL match against Collingwood a week earlier, didn't he?

Sorry MC, I'm not sure what you're getting at by 'suggests otherwise'. I wasn't commenting on the degree to which they rate Walker as a prospect...

 

[Partridge]

Frawley is not a jumper and neither is Lake. Gibson is, he has terrific hops and would keep Walker honest but let's not forget the size differences - Hawkins 198cm/107kg, Clark 200cm/103kg, Walker 196cm/100kg and as for Hawthorn - Frawley 193cm/94kg, Lake 195cm/98kg, Gibson 189cm/95kg.

True, but the flipside is they may all be quicker at ground level too.

Notable size difference and as we saw last year, Spangher was struggling to contain Walker because of his leaping and general size.

Initially yes. But don't forget, after two terrific early marks (personally I thought Walker's second mark was mark of the year), Walker took one more mark for the match right on half time. None after the break. So while he certainly troubled him early, much like the whole team, once Spangher tightened up Walker had little influence.

 

[catempire]

True, but the flipside is they may all be quicker at ground level too.



Initially yes. But don't forget, after two terrific early marks (personally I thought Walker's second mark was mark of the year), Walker took one more mark for the match right on half time. None after the break. So while he certainly troubled him early, much like the whole team, once Spangher tightened up Walker had little influence.

It also coincided with Hawthorn asserting its dominance.

 

[thejester]

Walker is definitely a smoky for Round 1… I like the idea of 3 falls against the Hawks. Will keep Frawley, Lake and Gibson guessing….and I would suggest, reaching to match ours overhead….

Freudian slip mate?

 

[Lana]

And walker spending time in the ruck. Didn't he also play limited gametime like 63%?

 

[wcadams88]

True, but the flipside is they may all be quicker at ground level too.



Initially yes. But don't forget, after two terrific early marks (personally I thought Walker's second mark was mark of the year), Walker took one more mark for the match right on half time. None after the break. So while he certainly troubled him early, much like the whole team, once Spangher tightened up Walker had little influence.

If I remember correctly roughly 6 disposals aswell.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Sorry MC, I'm not sure what you're getting at by 'suggests otherwise'. I wasn't commenting on the degree to which they rate Walker as a prospect...

Well, if Walker (who turned 22 at the end of last year) was expected to continue on from his pretty impressive form last year and hold down a key forward spot this year, it's hard to understand why the Cats would recruit not one, but two ready-made senior players who would be expected to spend a lot of their time at centre half forward, without even worrying about the possibility of Shane Kersten playing as a key forward. I'm finding it hard to understand the trade for Stanley for precisely that reason. And the fact that Walker played the last two preseason games in the VFL and didn't appear in the AFL side during the preseason, even though Stanley wasn't available suggests to me that Walker is no chance of playing in Round 1, unless Clark or Hawkins gets injured in the next week and a half.

 

[catempire]

Well, if Walker (who turned 22 at the end of last year) was expected to continue on from his pretty impressive form last year and hold down a key forward spot this year, it's hard to understand why the Cats would recruit not one, but two ready-made senior players who would be expected to spend a lot of their time at centre half forward, without even worrying about the possibility of Shane Kersten playing as a key forward. I'm finding it hard to understand the trade for Stanley for precisely that reason. And the fact that Walker played the last two preseason games in the VFL and didn't appear in the AFL side during the preseason, even though Stanley wasn't available suggests to me that Walker is no chance of playing in Round 1, unless Clark or Hawkins gets injured in the next week and a half.

I reckon the recruitment of Clark says more about the quality of Clark than lack thereof in Walker. Most clubs would have jumped at opportunity to have Clark.

And Stanley I believe is earmarked as ruck support.

Agree with you that it looks tough now for Walker to break into the side. That is due as much as anything to their apparent preference for two talls rather than three, IMO. Three talls is quite an orthodox modern forward setup yet we seem uninterested in trying it. I'm not sure why.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I reckon the recruitment of Clark says more about the quality of Clark than lack thereof in Walker. Most clubs would have jumped at opportunity to have Clark.

And Stanley I believe is earmarked as ruck support.

Agree with you that it looks tough now for Walker to break into the side. That is due as much as anything to their apparent preference for two talls rather than three, IMO. Three talls is quite an orthodox modern forward setup yet we seem uninterested in trying it. I'm not sure why.

I agree with Clark. As for Stanley, I guess we'll see. I'm happy to give him a chance, but with room for only one of McIntosh or Simpson (presumably) and Blicavs and Clark looming as obvious support options for the #1 that are already in the senior side, can we afford to give an additional spot to Stanley, before even wondering whether he deserves it ahead of Walker and Vardy? It's an interesting dilemma at the moment. I would have liked to see a lot more of Walker this year than I suspect we will. However it plays out, I'd say 2-3 of these tall forward/backup ruck types need to be trimmed off the list at the end of the year. There's not enough guernseys for all of them.