Strategy Geelong's backline 2015

[vinum coupe]

The old 'late withdrawal' is hardly a foreign concept with this club.

I was 100% confident he was playing. And I'm sure that the preview thread for that game will say as much.

ha ha. You've got me going through that thread now.

I'm only up to Thursday arvo of the game bet everyone is expecting Guthrie in, Hunt out.

Found this nice little quote though.

"Are you guys trying to convince yourselves or something?
BTW, the last time we played them Blitz had a huge 6 hit outs.
Simpson had 34.

Suggests we need an actual ruck dont you think?"

 

[vinum coupe]

Well everyone was dirty that Guthrie was not in.

The only arguing seemed to be over the rucks.
Bobby was glad that Vardy was in and West was out.
Seeds wasn't.

"We are playing Sandilands this week. I would take 4 less marks and competitiveness in the ruck vs getting absolutely slaughtered in the centre. It could singlehanded lay cost us the game. 4 extra marks will not decide a game."

 

[vinum coupe]

And a lot of people were suggesting that Guthrie would be a late in.

Mainly because they were dumbfounded that he had been left out.
The post below was common.

"Stunned at Guthrie's omission....cant fathom why he wouldn't be picked.
Suspect he will play...."

 

[Partridge]

Well everyone was dirty that Guthrie was not in.

The only arguing seemed to be over the rucks.
Bobby was glad that Vardy was in and West was out.
Seeds wasn't.

"We are playing Sandilands this week. I would take 4 less marks and competitiveness in the ruck vs getting absolutely slaughtered in the centre. It could singlehanded lay cost us the game. 4 extra marks will not decide a game."

That's not bad is it? Pretty prophetic.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Just a question why are we arguing over an MC selection decision from 2013??

Is there actually a point to it at all?

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

That's not bad is it? Pretty prophetic.

I will always feel that the two questionable decisions that they did ultimately go with were very costly and may have been the difference between a loss and a win. But the Guthrie thing, even though the sensible choice was ultimately made, pisses me off nearly as much, because it says a bit about where the match committee's mind was at in the lead-up to a final, playing some pathetic, pointless smoke and mirrors game.

 

[dazbroncos]

Just a question why are we arguing over an MC selection decision from 2013??

Is there actually a point to it at all?

to be right goddamit and claim internet glory for 7 secs…..

Go Catters

jk who knows really...

 

[Art Vandelay_]

to be right goddamit and claim internet glory for 7 secs…..

Go Catters

jk who knows really...

Funnily I actually thought being right on an Internet forum could actually be a part of it...

 

[Partridge]

Just a question why are we arguing over an MC selection decision from 2013??

Is there actually a point to it at all?

Take it up with vc, he posted it.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Take it up with vc, he posted it.

What, he's having an argument with himself is he...

Pretty sure Seeds made a comment and MC for whatever reason felt the need to correct him.....

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

Bloody hell, I wish the footy would just hurry up and start...

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

What, he's having an argument with himself is he...

Pretty sure Seeds made a comment and MC for whatever reason felt the need to correct him.....

Well, in broad terms, the 'reason' is fourfold:

1. It's a bit hard to suggest exactly what our backline will look like in the future, since the only small defender that we've developed that genuinely looked like he could become an AA in that position was swiftly moved to the midfield the following season. And given the age profile of our defence, perhaps - if anything - players should be getting shifted in the other direction if necessary.

2. Guthrie was so good in defence that his name should be coming up in this thread. A back six that includes Taylor, Bews and Guthrie as its core is just about set until Taylor hangs them up. We'd just need at least one of Stanley/Blicavs and at least one of Thurlow/Smedts to find a home there.

3. People underestimate just how good Guthrie was as a back pocket in 2013. And the reasoning that he can't have been that good because he was only a late inclusion for the Qualifying Final that year is flawed.

4. Comparing Guthrie's 2013 to Bews' 2014 is doing both a disservice, as much as we all enjoyed (and some were pleasantly surprised by) Bews' emergence. Bews was stiff when he was dropped last season. If Guthrie had missed out on selection in the 2013 Qualifying Final because Taylor Hunt was preferred, it would have been grounds for a Royal Commission (or at least the on-site drug and alcohol testing policy being updated at Geelong). It would have been the equivalent this season of him missing the Brisbane game in Round 23 and then being named as an emergency behind Smedts and that's not an exaggeration.

 

[Seeds]

Well everyone was dirty that Guthrie was not in.

The only arguing seemed to be over the rucks.
Bobby was glad that Vardy was in and West was out.
Seeds wasn't.

"We are playing Sandilands this week. I would take 4 less marks and competitiveness in the ruck vs getting absolutely slaughtered in the centre. It could singlehanded lay cost us the game. 4 extra marks will not decide a game."

Everyone was dirty that Guthrie was out including me. the fact they were dirty kind of suggests they weren't certain of him being a late change as posters are proclaiming here. I may of been wrong on the West call as I don't even think Vardy took four marks.

 

[Partridge]

Everyone was dirty that Guthrie was out including me. the fact they were dirty kind of suggests they weren't certain of him being a late change as posters are proclaiming here. I may of been wrong on the West call as I don't even think Vardy took four marks.

He did. Exactly 4. 8 disposals, 4 marks, 1 goal and 6 hitouts. Not quite the output you'd need against Sandilands.

You weren't wrong on the West call. We had one fit ruckman capable of even competing against Sandilands (demonstrably backed up by previous efforts), and due to perhaps hallucinogenics by the match committee he was left out.

To think it was only the second-most insane selection decision from that match too.

 

[Seeds]

Well, in broad terms, the 'reason' is fourfold:

1. It's a bit hard to suggest exactly what our backline will look like in the future, since the only small defender that we've developed that genuinely looked like he could become an AA in that position was swiftly moved to the midfield the following season. And given the age profile of our defence, perhaps - if anything - players should be getting shifted in the other direction if necessary.

2. Guthrie was so good in defence that his name should be coming up in this thread. A back six that includes Taylor, Bews and Guthrie as its core is just about set until Taylor hangs them up. We'd just need at least one of Stanley/Blicavs and at least one of Thurlow/Smedts to find a home there.

3. People underestimate just how good Guthrie was as a back pocket in 2013. And the reasoning that he can't have been that good because he was only a late inclusion for the Qualifying Final that year is flawed.

4. Comparing Guthrie's 2013 to Bews' 2014 is doing both a disservice, as much as we all enjoyed (and some were pleasantly surprised by) Bews' emergence. Bews was stiff when he was dropped last season. If Guthrie had missed out on selection in the 2013 Qualifying Final because Taylor Hunt was preferred, it would have been grounds for a Royal Commission (or at least the on-site drug and alcohol testing policy being updated at Geelong). It would have been the equivalent this season of him missing the Brisbane game in Round 23 and then being named as an emergency behind Smedts and that's not an exaggeration.

people underestimate how good Guthrie was as a midfielder this year. There is only massive overestimation of his role as a defender as the big footy goldfish mentality means that his last game of 2013, the Hawks prelim, is all that anyone remembers. Not the endless debates about whether Guthrie should be dropped for Hunt throughout the season which numerous posters advocated although I wasn't one of them (did a single person call for Guthrie to be dropped this year at any time?).

No one remembers the fact that Guthrie barely touched the ball in 2013. We only remember those dashes out of defence from the prelim and confuse ourselves to think that was representative of his 2013 season. I don't question his ability as a lock down defender last year. it was very good although not perfect as some imply. But his value to the team in my view far exceeded his value this year than in 2013. he stopped better players (he wasn't playing on players of the calibre of Dangerfield and Pendlebury in 2013) and also was damaging on offence which was non existent in 2013 barring one game. Do you disagree with these statements?

If Guthrie goes back to defence along with Enright don't kid yourself that they will also find room for Bews. They couldn't even find room for him last year when Guthrie wasn't there. Also who do you think should be our tagger this year?

 

[Partridge]

people underestimate how good Guthrie was as a midfielder this year. There is only massive overestimation of his role as a defender as the big footy goldfish mentality means that his last game of 2013, the Hawks prelim, is all that anyone remembers. Not the endless debates about whether Guthrie should be dropped for Hunt throughout the season which numerous posters advocated although I wasn't one of them (did a single person call for Guthrie to be dropped this year at any time?).

I don't think it's massive overestimation; it's opinion. I think he was good as a midfielder this year, but I also think he was very good as a defender last year. And in the second half of last season, very, very good.

No one remembers the fact that Guthrie barely touched the ball in 2013. We only remember those dashes out of defence from the prelim and confuse ourselves to think that was representative of his 2013 season. I don't question his ability as a lock down defender last year. it was very good although not perfect as some imply. But his value to the team in my view far exceeded his value this year than in 2013. he stopped better players (he wasn't playing on players of the calibre of Dangerfield and Pendlebury in 2013) and also was damaging on offence which was non existent in 2013 barring one game. Do you disagree with these statements?

I don't care how much he did and didn't touch the ball. I don't really care about dashes out of defence. I do care that as a defender he stopped his opponent. He played on Ballantyne, Wingard (from memory, please correct me if I'm wrong), and Rioli in the finals last year and comprehensively blanketed them all. I'll take that from a small defender anyday ahead of runs out of the backline.

If Guthrie goes back to defence along with Enright don't kid yourself that they will also find room for Bews. They couldn't even find room for him last year when Guthrie wasn't there. Also who do you think should be our tagger this year?

I'm very confident Guthrie won't go back. They seem to have made the decision that he's a midfielder now. Which is fine, and may be wonderful in time. If that is the case, Bews' inclusion to my view is absolutely essential. Put him alongside Enright and soak up that experience while he can.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

people underestimate how good Guthrie was as a midfielder this year.

I disagree. Guthrie is getting sufficient credit for his 2014 form; he is looked at as an emerging star. It's just that, for those that were paying attention, he was an emerging star a year earlier.

There is only massive overestimation of his role as a defender as the big footy goldfish mentality means that his last game of 2013, the Hawks prelim, is all that anyone remembers. Not the endless debates about whether Guthrie should be dropped for Hunt throughout the season which numerous posters advocated although I wasn't one of them (did a single person call for Guthrie to be dropped this year at any time?).

The 'endless debates' were a vocal handful of particularly stubborn posters, whom I suspect pay a bit too much attention to fantasy football points. I'm not surprised they liked what he provided in the midfield. The debate was an absolute joke by the middle of the season.

No one remembers the fact that Guthrie barely touched the ball in 2013. We only remember those dashes out of defence from the prelim and confuse ourselves to think that was representative of his 2013 season.

I'd love to know where his bad games were then. He made a two-time premiership ~200 game defender practically redundant within a couple of months.

I don't question his ability as a lock down defender last year. it was very good although not perfect as some imply. But his value to the team in my view far exceeded his value this year than in 2013. he stopped better players (he wasn't playing on players of the calibre of Dangerfield and Pendlebury in 2013) and also was damaging on offence which was non existent in 2013 barring one game. Do you disagree with these statements?

I think that:

• When discussing value, you should consider value over replacement player. We now have a truckload of young midfielders that probably deserve a chance. If we assume that Bews is going to be locked straight into the back pocket next year, as Guthrie was in 2013, I'd like to know who the next cab off the rank is.
• He stopped better players last year, but better midfielders also lit him up last year. Which wasn't entirely his fault, as a lot of the time he didn't really seem to be playing as a tagger at all.
• If you combine his rebound and inside 50 tallies for the two years, which seems like a fair indication of 'damaging on offence' considering the different roles he was playing, he had 67 in 20 games in 2013 and 66 in 24 games in 2014. And he only kicked four goals last year. So there's that.

If Guthrie goes back to defence along with Enright don't kid yourself that they will also find room for Bews. They couldn't even find room for him last year when Guthrie wasn't there.

Bews could have been accommodated quite easily. For some reason, Geelong chose not to. Now that Kelly is likely to be in the midfield, Enright is probably on his farewell tour and the club needs to start preparing for Mackie to leave in a couple of years, it has no choice but to give opportunities to Bews and at least one other young small/medium defender. Whether they choose an untried player in that position or a proven gun defender (yes, robbing the midfield of that same player) is completely up to them.

Also who do you think should be our tagger this year?

I'm not sure. It seemed like we were reasonably happy to go without one a lot of the time last year.

 

[Seeds]

I don't think it's massive overestimation; it's opinion. I think he was good as a midfielder this year, but I also think he was very good as a defender last year. And in the second half of last season, very, very good.



I don't care how much he did and didn't touch the ball. I don't really care about dashes out of defence. I do care that as a defender he stopped his opponent. He played on Ballantyne, Wingard (from memory, please correct me if I'm wrong), and Rioli in the finals last year and comprehensively blanketed them all. I'll take that from a small defender anyday ahead of runs out of the backline.



I'm very confident Guthrie won't go back. They seem to have made the decision that he's a midfielder now. Which is fine, and may be wonderful in time. If that is the case, Bews' inclusion to my view is absolutely essential. Put him alongside Enright and soak up that experience while he can.

I have no problem with most of that although while the most important role as a lock down defender and tagger is to stop your opponent I don't think you can ignore what they add offensively either and there was a big difference between the offensive side of Guthries game in 2013 and 2014.

I think Bews shows a lot of promise as a lock down defender (perhaps only slightly less than Guthrie) and I think he should be given the role. There aren't two spots in this role so putting Guthrie back there gains little and we will lose a lot from the midfield by taking Guthrie out. I don't get how other posters don't see this.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I have no problem with most of that although while the most important role as a lock down defender and tagger is to stop your opponent I don't think you can ignore what they add offensively either and there was a big difference between the offensive side of Guthries game in 2013 and 2014.

I think Bews shows a lot of promise as a lock down defender (perhaps only slightly less than Guthrie) and I think he should be given the role. There aren't two spots in this role so putting Guthrie back there gains little and we will lose a lot from the midfield by taking Guthrie out. I don't get how other posters don't see this.

To me, it comes down to my own opinion (and that's all that it is) that it would be ridiculous to have Enright, Lonergan, Rivers, Mackie, Taylor and Kelly as a permanent back six, with it only being changed when one of them has a legitimate injury. Because Enright is definitely gone in 12 months time, Kelly is probably gone (and should not be playing in defence anyway) and it wouldn't be a shock to see one of Lonergan, Mackie or Rivers gone as well. We should have been rotating them more aggressively for two years now and come 2015, our hand will be forced. Because if they don't do it next year, they could go in to Round 1 of 2016 with three <20 gamers in the back six. We're at the stage where we have to find out if Bews, Blicavs, Kolodjashnij, Stanley, Delaney, Thurlow, Toohey, Smedts and others are long term answers in defence. Because chances are a few of them are going to be needed there in 2016.

Beyond that, I don't think there needs to be two small lock down defender roles in the back six. But hypothetically, if we say Guthrie was earmarked to play in defence next year and Bews was too, Bews' presence in the team essentially means that Guthrie is relieved of the nominal 'lock-down' role. Just like how Enright plays back there: if he's on a s**t truck, he'll pay the opponent little respect and do his thing; if he's playing on a quality opponent, he'll sacrifice his disposal and mark totals to make sure the opponent doesn't get off the leash. Or how Lonergan came into the side in 2010 and took a huge burden off Scarlett for the rest of his career, by always taking one of the opposition's best two tall forwards, with Taylor taking the other.

For what it's worth, at this stage I suspect Guthrie won't play in defence much in 2015 either. But I think it's crazy to categorically rule it out. As far as I'm concerned, it will come down entirely to the other current fringe midfielders and small defenders and how well they develop. If two of Smedts/Thurlow/Bews are playing solid football in the back six in the seniors then, by all means, keep Guthrie in the middle. But if Kelly returns to the midfield and, say, three of Hartman/Lang/Jansen/Cockatoo/Cowan are demanding a senior spot, surely the match committee would have to at least consider putting Guthrie back into defence. Say we have Selwood, Johnson, Stokes, Duncan, Caddy, Kelly and Horlin-Smith all firing and two of the aforementioned also playing at a high level. Do we really need Guthrie to be a tenth midfielder, or would we be better served with him playing in defence, where he has proven to be quality? I think the answer to that comes back to what I was saying earlier about whether people seriously think a shift from defence to the midfield is a promotion, or whether they're just two roles on the park, with neither more important than the other.

 

[Seeds]

To me, it comes down to my own opinion (and that's all that it is) that it would be ridiculous to have Enright, Lonergan, Rivers, Mackie, Taylor and Kelly as a permanent back six, with it only being changed when one of them has a legitimate injury. Because Enright is definitely gone in 12 months time, Kelly is probably gone (and should not be playing in defence anyway) and it wouldn't be a shock to see one of Lonergan, Mackie or Rivers gone as well. We should have been rotating them more aggressively for two years now and come 2015, our hand will be forced. Because if they don't do it next year, they could go in to Round 1 of 2016 with three <20 gamers in the back six. We're at the stage where we have to find out if Bews, Blicavs, Kolodjashnij, Stanley, Delaney, Thurlow, Toohey, Smedts and others are long term answers in defence. Because chances are a few of them are going to be needed there in 2016.

Beyond that, I don't think there needs to be two small lock down defender roles in the back six. But hypothetically, if we say Guthrie was earmarked to play in defence next year and Bews was too, Bews' presence in the team essentially means that Guthrie is relieved of the nominal 'lock-down' role. Just like how Enright plays back there: if he's on a s**t truck, he'll pay the opponent little respect and do his thing; if he's playing on a quality opponent, he'll sacrifice his disposal and mark totals to make sure the opponent doesn't get off the leash. Or how Lonergan came into the side in 2010 and took a huge burden off Scarlett for the rest of his career, by always taking one of the opposition's best two tall forwards, with Taylor taking the other.

For what it's worth, at this stage I suspect Guthrie won't play in defence much in 2015 either. But I think it's crazy to categorically rule it out. As far as I'm concerned, it will come down entirely to the other current fringe midfielders and small defenders and how well they develop. If two of Smedts/Thurlow/Bews are playing solid football in the back six in the seniors then, by all means, keep Guthrie in the middle. But if Kelly returns to the midfield and, say, three of Hartman/Lang/Jansen/Cockatoo/Cowan are demanding a senior spot, surely the match committee would have to at least consider putting Guthrie back into defence. Say we have Selwood, Johnson, Stokes, Duncan, Caddy, Kelly and Horlin-Smith all firing and two of the aforementioned also playing at a high level. Do we really need Guthrie to be a tenth midfielder, or would we be better served with him playing in defence, where he has proven to be quality? I think the answer to that comes back to what I was saying earlier about whether people seriously think a shift from defence to the midfield is a promotion, or whether they're just two roles on the park, with neither more important than the other.

Yep there could be a role for Guthrie in a more attacking half back flank role which would allow Bews to play defence. I too think they need a couple of young additions in the back six. Unless Kolo, Delaney or Blicavs develop in leaps and bounds I see the small defensive positions as the ones where there is room for the younger players to move into next year as I don't think the young talls will be up to it yet.

one is the small lock down position which I think should be Bews. the second is a more attacking half back role. Guthrie would probably be the best at it but I would prefer Thurlow to take the role purely because I think Guthries tagging role can't really be replaced by anyone else. In the long run it might be ideal to move Guthrie back into the Enright role. but right now he is too important in the midfield for mine. Plus I think he will develop to be a better footballer playing as a midfield tagger as he will develop his fitness base to a level that he would not need to do as a back flanker. Both Enright and Milburn started there careers as midfielders and I have no doubt that helped them become better footballers.

 

[tenderwarrior]

Yep there could be a role for Guthrie in a more attacking half back flank role which would allow Bews to play defence. I too think they need a couple of young additions in the back six. Unless Kolo, Delaney or Blicavs develop in leaps and bounds I see the small defensive positions as the ones where there is room for the younger players to move into next year as I don't think the young talls will be up to it yet.

one is the small lock down position which I think should be Bews. the second is a more attacking half back role. Guthrie would probably be the best at it but I would prefer Thurlow to take the role purely because I think Guthries tagging role can't really be replaced by anyone else. In the long run it might be ideal to move Guthrie back into the Enright role. but right now he is too important in the midfield for mine. Plus I think he will develop to be a better footballer playing as a midfield tagger as he will develop his fitness base to a level that he would not need to do as a back flanker. Both Enright and Milburn started there careers as midfielders and I have no doubt that helped them become better footballers.

Good post Seeds, I was going to write the same thing.

Long term I can see Guthrie moving back to the HALFBACK line as an attacking player, but while we have the likes of Enright, Mackie and Kelly down there, we should play Guthrie in the midfield to develop his game and plug the hole we have there in our side. This also gives the likes of Hartman, Lang, Jansen, Cockatoo, Gore and Cunico a year or two to develop before we really need them.

 

[Shai]

To me, it comes down to my own opinion (and that's all that it is) that it would be ridiculous to have Enright, Lonergan, Rivers, Mackie, Taylor and Kelly as a permanent back six, with it only being changed when one of them has a legitimate injury. Because Enright is definitely gone in 12 months time, Kelly is probably gone (and should not be playing in defence anyway) and it wouldn't be a shock to see one of Lonergan, Mackie or Rivers gone as well. We should have been rotating them more aggressively for two years now and come 2015, our hand will be forced. Because if they don't do it next year, they could go in to Round 1 of 2016 with three <20 gamers in the back six. We're at the stage where we have to find out if Bews, Blicavs, Kolodjashnij, Stanley, Delaney, Thurlow, Toohey, Smedts and others are long term answers in defence. Because chances are a few of them are going to be needed there in 2016.

Beyond that, I don't think there needs to be two small lock down defender roles in the back six. But hypothetically, if we say Guthrie was earmarked to play in defence next year and Bews was too, Bews' presence in the team essentially means that Guthrie is relieved of the nominal 'lock-down' role. Just like how Enright plays back there: if he's on a s**t truck, he'll pay the opponent little respect and do his thing; if he's playing on a quality opponent, he'll sacrifice his disposal and mark totals to make sure the opponent doesn't get off the leash. Or how Lonergan came into the side in 2010 and took a huge burden off Scarlett for the rest of his career, by always taking one of the opposition's best two tall forwards, with Taylor taking the other.

For what it's worth, at this stage I suspect Guthrie won't play in defence much in 2015 either. But I think it's crazy to categorically rule it out. As far as I'm concerned, it will come down entirely to the other current fringe midfielders and small defenders and how well they develop. If two of Smedts/Thurlow/Bews are playing solid football in the back six in the seniors then, by all means, keep Guthrie in the middle. But if Kelly returns to the midfield and, say, three of Hartman/Lang/Jansen/Cockatoo/Cowan are demanding a senior spot, surely the match committee would have to at least consider putting Guthrie back into defence. Say we have Selwood, Johnson, Stokes, Duncan, Caddy, Kelly and Horlin-Smith all firing and two of the aforementioned also playing at a high level. Do we really need Guthrie to be a tenth midfielder, or would we be better served with him playing in defence, where he has proven to be quality? I think the answer to that comes back to what I was saying earlier about whether people seriously think a shift from defence to the midfield is a promotion, or whether they're just two roles on the park, with neither more important than the other.

Whew, where do I start..? Agree with most of your post, logical.

On Smedts as a defender, no thanks! If the time spent there was to develop his defensive game then I am all 4 it, prefer him right of defence setup thank you.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Whew, where do I start..? Agree with most of your post, logical.

On Smedts as a defender, no thanks! If the time spent there was to develop his defensive game then I am all 4 it, prefer him right of defence setup thank you.

He played almost exclusively there when he did get a go in the seniors in 2014, so I think he has to be considered an option.

 

[Shai]

He played almost exclusively there when he did get a go in the seniors in 2014, so I think he has to be considered an option.

Do I really have to go there..? More a case of want than reality, he did play there as you say, just didn't like the result. *shrugs*

 

[Jon Douglas]

By 2016 I would like see Guthrie, Bews and Thurlow all in the back 6 - and maybe Kolo as well.

When a few of the mids we have recruited start to improve and perform well at senior level (Lang, Hartman, JJ, Cockatoo) Guthire should go back to the backline.

He is a proven player who can play down back effectively and is a good decision maker, mark, reasonable leg speed, good tackler and kick. If he comes out of the backline in his hands then you feel pretty confident the next possession will be in our hands - and in good position. We need these type of players coming out of the backline - more than one.

That is why I nominate Thurlow. He is a beautiful kick of the ball - short or long. Tall, athletic, good hands and quite quick.

If we could get these two up and playing good senior footy in the backline - and getting 20 or so disposals we will be in good shape. People say that rebounding out of the back 50 is crucial - and it is. Running forward and one of our defenders kicks/handballs and turns it over near their inside 50 - results in quite a few opposition goals.

On the other hand if you can find a lose player coming out of the defensive 50 and it opens up the opposition - then it is quite possible to score from that rebound action.

I like Bews - like the way he really goes for it and seems to like to run as well. If he can lock down some good opposition small forwards and then still be able to run forward when the occasion calls for it - he will be a serious asset for us. Too many small opposition forwards have hurt us in the past few seasons. If we want to get better we need to stop multiple goals from opposition small forwards.

Kolo looks like he will be a senior player - from all accounts. If he is 70 % of the player his brother is then he will do very nicely. Hope he gets a few senior games this season. Likely Mackie, maybe Rivers, replacement for me. Let's see how he fills out. Again by all accounts a good user of the footy and a good kick.

I cannot see Kelly in the backline unless we have a host of injuries or players out of form - come the finals in 2015. But that is only one position of 3 that I think will needs to be made if we are to be a real show in 2016. Who else goes out of the backline to allow these guys to give some real experience ?

Not an easy question to answer but please give these young up and coming backmen - who can kick and run - some significant time down back in the senior side in 2015.