Opinion Swap Carlisle & Hurley

Remove this Banner Ad

I don't think it matters who we play forward, the way we deliver to our forwards is horrible!!! how many times have you seen us hit a leading target. our best leading forward to winderlich. our forward structure has been the same the last 3 years. once Bellchambers comes back, id drop Joey for a couple of weeks , and 60/40 with Ryder and Bellchambers. least ryder could look bait more dangerous down forward.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Vindicater said:
Maybe if our midfielders looked up for once and kicked it to the leading forward instead of dicking around with 100 handballs we might have a good looking forward structure.

It is hard to lead for the ball when the midfielders don't want to kick it to you before getting a 1-2 first.
Click to expand...
To kicking it to a leading forward, the forwards have to, you know, lead.
 
Doss said:
Is there any way possible we could have all of Carlisle, Hooker and Hurley in the backline?

Probably not while Fletcher is still in the side.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't solve the forward line issue though, which is the real problem.
 
I actually think neither are the answer forward. We spent half of last season swapping the pair from opposite ends because Hurley was ineffective as a forward. He has no idea on how & where to lead. Yes he is far more competitive than Carlisle & efforts in relation to helping his teammates are there, but by and large he isn't a natural forward.
 
Hurley definitely has to stay down back, Carlisle has played his best footy down back as well so not sure what has to give.
 
In the current circumstances it does not matter who we have forward. For the past two weeks we haven't moved the ball with any intent or purpose and that makes it impossible for forwards to play well. Both Daniher and Carlisle are decent contested marks - Daniher for example is fourth in the league for contested marks per game. But we are putting them in horrible situations and asking miracles.

As for Carlisle and Hurley I am divided. A fit Hurley has been better up forward than most Essendon supporters give him credit for. To quote myself from another thread:

calyam said:
Fairly frustrating season for both Hurley and the Essendon fans. There were parts of the season when he was playing very good football but his lack of continuity really killed it for him. He strikes me as a bit of a confidence player when used up forward and the lack of confidence in his body really hurt him through the middle of the season. I though the beginning and end of his season was pretty good.

Rounds 1 - 4: 15.8 possessions / 6.5 marks / 3.3 goals & assists / 90.8 SC / 4 games
Rounds 7 - 14: 9.7 possessions / 3.0 marks / 1.2 goals & assists / 44.3 SC / 6 games
Rounds 15 - 23: 13.7 possessions / 6.2 marks / 3.7 goals & assists / 80.8 SC / 6 games

If he was able to maintain his form from the beginning or end of the season for the entire season then he would be a very good forward. For reference, Franklin averaged 3.6 goals & assists per game in 2013, while Jack Riewoldt averaged 3.9. Unfortunately for him the injuries just continue to mount.

Even though he has had periods of success up forward, I suspect that he will inevitably end up as a key defender when Fletcher retires and Daniher matures a little bit.
Click to expand...

Carlisle has yet to replicate those numbers - but he's also had to spend considerable time in the ruck owing to Ryder's absence. Up forward I think Hurley would have better output but it would inevitably leave him open to further injuries and harm our structure. On the balance, of ouput plus likelihood-of-injury Carlisle is probably the best option up forward.

But as I said at the beginning it doesn't really matter much at the moment because we are not putting our forwards in a position to succeed. I think both Carlisle and Daniher can be valuable forwards if we can create situations where they are in one-on-one contests or kick to their advantage. Unfortunately the Bombers rarely do either.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

astrowizzle said:
I thought in the juniors that Hooker was a forward ?? Maybe CHF?
Click to expand...

That's my understanding. Hooker played most of his first year at VFL level up forward. We need ANT555 to provide more information.
 
The conundrum is that we need Carlisle to be playing good footy so that he always gets the NO 1 DEFENDER. As it stands now, teams don't rate Carlisle highly enough, so are willing to chance their arm on their No 2 defender breaking even and then poor JD is getting the number one defender which is a mis-match. This will also be an issue when T-Bell returns.

Anyway Carlisle and JD have their chance this week against Frost and Keefe. One prays that Carlisle gets Frost because he can get him out the back.
 
Just watched first half. Suggest that it would be a worthwhile exercise for many here. Carlisle was good, double teamed andkilled by garbage delivery.

When a player is already doubling back before the ball gets to him it is because the kick is going over his head.

Most of our dangerous forward entries were worked through Carlisle and his hard work.

Much like last year people just see what they need to see to make the result easier to digest. Hurley, for example, has been ok to poor in defence so far this year and maybe good once.
 
BrunoV said:
Just watched first half. Suggest that it would be a worthwhile exercise for many here. Carlisle was good, double teamed andkilled by garbage delivery.

When a player is already doubling back before the ball gets to him it is because the kick is going over his head.

Most of our dangerous forward entries were worked through Carlisle and his hard work.

Much like last year people just see what they need to see to make the result easier to digest. Hurley, for example, has been ok to poor in defence so far this year and maybe good once.
Click to expand...
Which two of where he kept Black, Gunston and Waite to 2 goals between them was he not good?
 
Carlisle's workrate has been exceptional, he's just not going to get the front half to function on his own.

Plus he's been asked to ruck when he really doesn't have to. Sacrificing for the side, and hopefully he gets his just rewards soon enough
 
To me it's simple. JC and JD have just shouldered 2 weeks of ruck load. Not only has this worn out their young bodies, it has confused their roles. That both of them looked tired and disinterested against the Saints was not unexpected to me. Our lack of rucks has been the crux of all our issues in the last 2 weeks. Our young Fwds forced to ruck, wrecks the fwd structure. Losing every hit out, has forced our midfield to be reactive, rather than play to ruck strategies we trained for. And a reactive loose midfield, has caused delivery from the opposition into the defensive 50 that no backline would stand up to. It's a bid domino effect caused by no rucks. Having Ryder back last week was too little too late. We need both Belly and Ryder playing this week. And obviously it would be great to have the versatility of BJ in to help. And don't underwrite the absence of Ambrose after 2 games. His mobility allowed JC and JD to be a little more forward 50 planted.
PS...up until last week, I felt Hurley was growing into that defensive role well. Did people expect him to become Glen Jakovich straight away? I remember a fella named Hooker copping grief and taking a little time as well. Hurley will grow into this role with more confidence every week. But like with any defender, it's made easier with a little help from upfield. Riewoldt would have made every defender in the comp look stupid the way we let them deliver to him.


Seems to me there is a lot of knee jerk over reaction out there in the Social media world. This can be fixed. The way we played against North, Hawks and Blues where no flukes.
 
I want Carlisle back. JC/Hurley/Hooker would be the best defensive spine in the AFL by far. Fletcher the spare man with Hibberd, Gleeson and Baguley playing lockdown and rebound.

My ideal forward line:

FF Ambrose Daniher Winderlich
HF Chapman Bellchambers Hardingham

Players like Watson, Goddard et al rotating through there when required. It gives us enough marking power (Daniher equal first in contested marks, we know Bellchambers is reliable) and enough mobility with Ambrose/Winders/Chappy/Hardy/rotating mid. The most important thing, though, is that our forwards lead at the ball and our midfielders deliver it properly. They both need to click with each other - hopefully that happens soon.
 
There is a difference between working hard and working smart. Carlisle needs to find a way to be more INFLUENTIAL in the forward line - Talls will only work effectively in the forward line if Carlisle gets the number one defender which allows JD/T-Bell/Ambrose to get the number 2 or 3 defender. Unless this happens it's not a successful move. Lets wait and see what happens.
 
Bomberblitzer said:
I want Carlisle back. JC/Hurley/Hooker would be the best defensive spine in the AFL by far. Fletcher the spare man with Hibberd, Gleeson and Baguley playing lockdown and rebound.

My ideal forward line:

FF Ambrose Daniher Winderlich
HF Chapman Bellchambers Hardingham

Players like Watson, Goddard et al rotating through there when required. It gives us enough marking power (Daniher equal first in contested marks, we know Bellchambers is reliable) and enough mobility with Ambrose/Winders/Chappy/Hardy/rotating mid. The most important thing, though, is that our forwards lead at the ball and our midfielders deliver it properly. They both need to click with each other - hopefully that happens soon.
Click to expand...
Someone's finally listening to me!
 
eth-dog said:
Which two of where he kept Black, Gunston and Waite to 2 goals between them was he not good?
Click to expand...


Rewatch the Hawthorn game and ask yourself whether Hurley put in the luckiest performance of 2014. Would have conceded 13 if it wasn't for the fact that the midfield had come to play and that Hawthorn tend to share the goals. He was horrendous for the first half and marginally better after that. I don't know why Gunston wasn't used but it had nothing to do with Hurley.

Hurley beat Black 2 or 3 times and Black beat Hurley 2 or 3 times. It was a stalemate in the "defending" contests.

Hurley was good against Waite. He was actually beating Waite convincingly 1 on 1.

As a rule you'd want to multiply the stats for our defenders by .75 to remove some of the junk possessions that are making their games look better than they actually are.

Throwing a tantrum every time Riewoldt gets one on the lead aside, from what I've seen so far, he has been good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top