Boumann/Backline.

[Cynic]

I can say exactly the same thing about Collingwood defense. If they go in too tall N.Brown, Tarrant, Maxwell and Reid. Then Rioli, Puopolo, Breust and Osborne will have a field day!

Agreed. But turning the game into Russian roulette through the midfield doesn't sound like a safe move to me.

 

[sohsam]

That looks a little better, especially for the Pies.

I think it is too tall as well, max play 3 of the 4 talls, if had two big guys at FB, CHB you could only play 2. Gibson is most flexible out of the those 4, can play on the mid sized and do a good job.

It is interesting that Port Adelaide arguably has one of the best FB,CHB in Caplin/Carlile, they are 192cm/197cm about 100 kg each, yet they are in bottom 4 and we are in top 4.

I can understand the argument of putting roughead in backline to do a job something like carlile does and I also understand people value FF/CHF more, roughead being drafted at no2 whereas chaplin / frawley somewhere 10-15 range.

Even though our midfield is said to be one paced, it is great and probably one of the main differences between our teams.

 

[halfback dasher]

If we go in too tall Blair, Fasolo & Didak will have a field day

Injured ....

 

[Bardo State]

Looks like Clarko has all but confirmed that Roughy will be playing back if does play in round 1. He said something along the lines of "We're not sure whether he'll play, it'll depend on the team Collingwood name and what their structure is up forward.

So with that it looks like Bouman is a very slim chance of playing. Surely we can't play all of Roughy, Schoe, Stratton, Gibson and Bouman?

Looks like we will be going:

Burgoyne - Roughead - Guerra
Gibson
Birchal - Schoe - Stratton

 

[SHAKESPEARE]

Looks like Clarko has all but confirmed that Roughy will be playing back if does play in round 1. He said something along the lines of "We're not sure whether he'll play, it'll depend on the team Collingwood name and what their structure is up forward.

So with that it looks like Bouman is a very slim chance of playing. Surely we can't play all of Roughy, Schoe, Stratton, Gibson and Bouman?

Looks like we will be going:

Burgoyne - Roughead - Guerra
Gibson
Birchal - Schoe - Stratton

Include Boumann and Tommy Murphy...that's some decent depth in the back half.

 

[tommyk72]

Where's Suckers? I'd put my money on him playing, and I'd be surprised if it was on a wing.

 

[KOLOKOTRONIS]

For those who have seen Bouman play, has he ever rucked. Seems to have a good leap on him. Does he have the tank?

KOLOKOTRONIS

 

[Bardo State]

Where's Suckers? I'd put my money on him playing, and I'd be surprised if it was on a wing.

Just couldn't fit him in with Burgers back there. In that defnec he would need to push Burgoyne/Birchal out. We need Guerra to take the best small and he certainly can't play KP. I would possibly have him as a sub.

 

[Hodgepodge]

Yeah we have too many options in defence, so someone has to move out. I think Burgoyne is the most likely, so he goes into the midfield, meaning Suckers goes half-back. Everybody wins.

 

[Brant]

Yeah we have too many options in defence, so someone has to move out. I think Burgoyne is the most likely, so he goes into the midfield, meaning Suckers goes half-back. Everybody wins.

In 2011 we seemed to do everything possible to keep him out of the middle. He started at HFF until we got injuries & then moved to defence on HBF.

Especially with our reliance on precision kicking, I don't think Burgoyne will be leaving the Backline.

 

[WWSD]

IMO Burgoyne offers us more in the midfield/forward role then down back. Not saying he isn't good down back for us, he is! But when he plays in the midfield and forward line he is 'more influential'. Take last year for example he started with 7 goals in 2 weeks while winning the a lot of the ball. Suckling offers us more down back, so keep Burgoyne in the midfield/forward. He could possibly have his best year as a Hawk!

 

[Bardo State]

Yeh, I'd also prefer Burgoyne as a HF/mid but that defence was what I expected, not what I wanted and Clarko did say that he wanted Burgoyne down back to "prolong his career."

 

[Brant]

Looks like we will be going:

Burgoyne - Roughead - Guerra
Gibson
Birchal - Schoe - Stratton

I don't like the idea of Gibson playing as the "7th Defender". I see the point of having him loose so he can both '3rd man spoil' as well as rebound; but IMO, he is our best defender. I think that playing him without a man removes his best attribute.

In 2011 Gibson was arguably our best rebounder, this whilst playing as our best defender at FB. If he moves from FB, we lose 2011's best defender to gain some potency on the rebound. I would much rather see us play someone else as the 'rebound guy' (say a 'superboot' like Suckling) & keep our best defender on an opponent.

Also, we appear to use the 7th defender to cover space & for the rebound - not to affect marking contests. So, IMO, our brief to the 7th defender is akin to: "be where the drop of the ball isn't & wait for someone to give it to you. Then run, kick it & hit a target." Playing Gibson in this role would be to remove defensive duties from him, effectively just making him a rebounder - something that Suckling would be brilliant at, especially as his (Sucko's) lack of a defensive edge wouldn't be tested.

FB: Stratton Roughead Guerra
7th: ........... Suckling ...............
HB: Burgoyne Gibson Birchall
* Rough & Gibbo interchangeable based on match-ups.

If Schoey plays in defence (CHB) then it's Gibbo vs Goo for the 'small defender' role.

FB: Stratton Roughead Gibson
7th: ........... Suckling ..............
HB: Burgoyne Schoenmakers Birchall

 

[Roby]

As you can see our team is very flexible. We don't necessarily have to play everyone in their same positions all the time.

For example, Burgoyne at the start of last year was very effective as mid/forward, only Buddy was more effective as player in the AFL. So much so, opposition teams started to put more work into him, hence why he was then allowed to play behind the ball. I dare say his kind of thing will happen through out the season and our views of who plays where will change over time.

 

[Bardo State]

FB: Stratton Roughead Guerra
7th: ........... Suckling ...............
HB: Burgoyne Gibson Birchall
* Rough & Gibbo interchangeable based on match-ups.

If Schoey plays in defence (CHB) then it's Gibbo vs Goo for the 'small defender' role.

FB: Stratton Roughead Gibson
7th: ........... Suckling ..............
HB: Burgoyne Schoenmakers Birchall

I didn't really specify role with Gibbo as that 7th man. I just named the 7 guys who I would like to take into defense in round 1. Just named Gibbo there because I would like him to play deep and peel off his man to be 3rd up when avbailable.

In an ideal world I wouldn't play Roughy in defense and have Schoe taking the KP forwards around the 50 and up on the wing whilst also providing drive from half back and have Stratts and Gibbo as the deep KP defenders peeling off their men to affect the contest.

But alas, Clarko looks set to play Gibbo down back at least early in the season. Therefore I would have Roughy taking the deep big man with Gibbo and Stratts floating and taking the resting ruckman/third talls while trying to affect as many contests as they can. Then you have then need for covering the small defenders which can be done by Guerra and Burgoyne, and rebounding which can be accomplished by Guerra and Birch.

I just don't see Suckers getting a game ahead of Guerra. Guerra has a great boot too and is a bujillion times the 'defender' that Suckers is.

 

[Roger Rogerson]

Is Gibbo a certainty to play round 1?

 

[Brant]

I just don't see Suckers getting a game ahead of Guerra. Guerra has a great boot too and is a bujillion times the 'defender' that Suckers is.

That has been my thinking until I watched the game vs. the Dees, but durig that game, it seemed to me that we went through Suckling at almost every opportunity, even (a couple of times) when it meant crossing from 1 side of the field to the other to get to him.

I agree that Guerra is a far better defender & if given the choice of 1 or the other, I would play Guerra. However, I think it more likely that we are going to play both (or even Murphy in Goo's place) & will play 7 guys in the back half (not necessarily the back 50m). I think the 7th guy will be playing without a man as much as possible.

 

[Brant]

Is Gibbo a certainty to play round 1?

God, I hope so... Same with Shiels.

 

[halfback dasher]

Goo .. Boumann ..Gibbo ( pending fitness )
Birch ..Shoey ..Stratts
Next in line ...Suckers , Poppy , Berg's
All match ups covered ....Remember people , clubs will try too stretch us with resting ruckman like they did last yr . E.g
Cloke , Daws and a resting Jolly
Hawkins , Pod's and a resting West
Wait , Hampson and a resting Kruzer
With respect to Gibbo , he can't take resting ruck's ......but he can mid AND tall sized Fwd's.
At 197 Boumann , CAN play on resting ruck's ( Clarke 201cm ) Showed that .We lose nothing if Boumann has too move over onto a ruckman and Gibbo then moves to the second tall Fwd ..

 

[halfback dasher]

Is Gibbo a certainty to play round 1?

No ...

 

[savagelunchbox]

Goo .. Boumann ..Gibbo ( pending fitness )
Birch ..Shoey ..Stratts
Next in line ...Suckers , Poppy , Berg's
All match ups covered ....Remember people , clubs will try too stretch us with resting ruckman like they did last yr . E.g
Cloke , Daws and a resting Jolly
Hawkins , Pod's and a resting West
Wait , Hampson and a resting Kruzer
With respect to Gibbo , he can't take resting ruck's ......but he can mid AND tall sized Fwd's.
At 197 Boumann , CAN play on resting ruck's ( Clarke 201cm ) Showed that .We lose nothing if Boumann has too move over onto a ruckman and Gibbo then moves to the second tall Fwd ..

I was going to suggest Boseley, but I think you have it covered.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Surely if Gibbo doesn't play then Schoey, Stratts and Boumann start down back with Goo/Suckers and Birch and they rotate Bugers and Hodge down there for experience.

???

 

[PenAndPaper]

Murphy--Gibson--Guerra
--Stratton--
Suckling--Schoenmakers--Birchall

That would be my round 1 backline although im not big on the 7 man defence because that only causes the other teams to go in with 7 men defences which imo does not help us at all with too much congestion in our forward line. Boumann doesnt get in because he just isn't good enough just yet, i haven't been as impressed with his NAB cup form that some of you seem to be and i would play Schoey over him.
​

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Murphy--Gibson--Guerra
--Stratton--
Suckling--Schoenmakers--Birchall

​

All a bit left footed across half back for mine, which I don't like as we often don't use the whole width down back when we get caught like that.

Also, Clarko has identified that like last year they will use Burgers in the back half and give him bursts on the ball. It seemed to work well with him being moved into the middle in the last third of the game when some of the pace had gone out.

I therefore think he needs to at least start in the 6 or 7 defenders.

​

Agree on Boumann though and think Schoey has shown big progress.

 

[spotthedot]

Murphy--Gibson--Guerra

--Stratton--
Suckling--Schoenmakers--Birchall​

That would be my round 1 backline although im not big on the 7 man defence because that only causes the other teams to go in with 7 men defences which imo does not help us at all with too much congestion in our forward line. Boumann doesnt get in because he just isn't good enough just yet, i haven't been as impressed with his NAB cup form that some of you seem to be and i would play Schoey over him.​

have you watched any games of the pre-season?
murphy...you are on another planet...boumann has been 100x better than clarko's love child
against freo he was the reason they got close...he was an absolute embarrassment...all the freo supporters around us were pissing themselves because they couldnt believe how hapless he was!