Strategy What are we going to do about centre half forward?

meto

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 3, 2008
6,990
3,790
south-east
AFL Club
Geelong
Has anyone looked at the match ups yet?

i.e. number of WC tall forwards vs our backs.

If we match up then I assume you are suggesting a ruck?

I know with you..... drop the lot!... as long as Varcoe's guaranteed his spot, that goes for Selwood too. ....Brilliant!
They are tall we need what talls we've got.
 
Last edited:

Jon Douglas

Premiership Player
Jan 8, 2013
3,020
2,638
AFL Club
Geelong
Partridge wrote - That's the bit that I query. There seems to be an assumption that where Vardy, Brown and Walker are finding out how difficult a position it is, he's going to find CHF easy. That's where we disagree. I also have doubts on whether the match committee are going to suddenly switch him from the wing - where he's played all season.

I never wrote that Blicavs would find the CHF position easier than Brown. Not sure where you come up with this. The Blicavs statement I provided was the fact he was playing on the wing or similar mainly in his last 3 games and in that position it is easier to find space compared to the CHF position Brown has been playing. So we are not disagreeing - you are finding things in my posts that are not there and disagreeing with these invisible points. The old straw man thing.

Partridge wrote - I don't get emotional on here. I prefer to have the players best suited to particular positions based on the evidence we have so far. We have a small amount of evidence - very small - that Brown can play CHF. We have zero - none - that Blicavs can.

I wrote emotional or you misunderstood what I wrote because -

1. You wrote - why not just play Bartel at CHF and I had written in that post this was another option. Now you have responded you did not acknowledge this again.

2. I was the one that mentioned we had very little evidence to go and you were the one quoting figures on tackles. So to come back and now say we have very little evidence does undermine the credibility of your first post. I just pointed out that your use of stats was wrong - given from the limited evidence of this year's stats Blicavs is ahead or even in marks and tackles - and having played a heap less game time than Brown. But you again did not bother to acknowledge or address this in you last post.

As I wrote earlier I do not mind, in fact enjoy a decent discussion on these topics - but when posters write something and I start discussing it - then the poster comes back and does not acknowledge they misrepresented what I had said - and conveniently just let's those points slide - undermines my confidence in them as a bona fide person up for a discussion.
 
Nov 12, 2002
41,685
49,987
AFL Club
Geelong
Partridge wrote - That's the bit that I query. There seems to be an assumption that where Vardy, Brown and Walker are finding out how difficult a position it is, he's going to find CHF easy. That's where we disagree. I also have doubts on whether the match committee are going to suddenly switch him from the wing - where he's played all season.

I never wrote that Blicavs would find the CHF position easier than Brown. Not sure where you come up with this. The Blicavs statement I provided was the fact he was playing on the wing or similar mainly in his last 3 games and in that position it is easier to find space compared to the CHF position Brown has been playing. So we are not disagreeing - you are finding things in my posts that are not there and disagreeing with these invisible points. The old straw man thing.

Sure, that makes sense. But you did also say this:

If the club wants to persist with two big rucks and Blicavs in the same team - then given the predicted conditions - take Blicavs away from the sub position and put a smaller crumber type player in that role. To keep Blicavs in the team which the club seems to want to do - play him at CHF this week.

Now I apologise in advance, because I'm confused. Are you saying Blicavs should or shouldn't play CHF? Because if you are, that's why I'm saying it's a tough position - very tough - for someone who hasn't played it before. And that's why I get the impression people think the position must be easy. Does that make sense?

Partridge wrote - I don't get emotional on here. I prefer to have the players best suited to particular positions based on the evidence we have so far. We have a small amount of evidence - very small - that Brown can play CHF. We have zero - none - that Blicavs can.

I wrote emotional or you misunderstood what I wrote because -

1. You wrote - why not just play Bartel at CHF and I had written in that post this was another option. Now you have responded you did not acknowledge this again.

Because I didn't see it sorry, I was replying to your first paragraph (see above), Bartel wasn't mentioned in that part of it which is why I didn't notice that.

2. I was the one that mentioned we had very little evidence to go and you were the one quoting figures on tackles. So to come back and now say we have very little evidence does undermine the credibility of your first post. I just pointed out that your use of stats was wrong - given from the limited evidence of this year's stats Blicavs is ahead or even in marks and tackles - and having played a heap less game time than Brown. But you again did not bother to acknowledge or address this in you last post.

I quoted figures on tackles for the Collingwood game. For the whole season I think Blicavs has him covered 6 to 3 (something like that). The marks are level at 7. If that makes Blicavs ahead because of playing less game time sure, but as you yourself say, they haven't been playing the same position.

As I wrote earlier I do not mind, in fact enjoy a decent discussion on these topics - but when posters write something and I start discussing it - then the poster comes back and does not acknowledge they misrepresented what I had said - and conveniently just let's those points slide - undermines my confidence in them as a bona fide person up for a discussion.

Let me know if the above doesn't acknowledge or address them adequately.
 
Jun 5, 2007
10,175
15,225
AFL Club
Geelong
Bartel/HMac/Rivers CHF, or Brown. ffs

Most agree on the substance, the debate is in the detail of if or how many more games MB gets from the MC.

I will now return to my grammar lessons.
 

Jon Douglas

Premiership Player
Jan 8, 2013
3,020
2,638
AFL Club
Geelong
Thanks Partridge - that all makes sense.

All I am saying in essence is that the conditions against Brisbane were wet and slippery and I see Brown as a tall marking target. he is a good mark and where he will be good leading, jumping and marking above his head. he does not use his body that much so chest marks, unless he is well ahead of his opponent, are out.

Now taking marks on these wet days requires a different skill set that Brown has not yet developed. Generally lots of body to protect the ball drop and holding the opponent out - then turning at the last moment to take the chest mark. That at present is not Brown's go as I see it. He may well develop this but generally you need a bigger, stronger body than your opponent.

I see Blicavs as no better CHF than Brown - but in wet conditions I think he will be stronger in the body than Brown and therefore has an equal chance as Brown to make a decent contest - and bring the ball to ground. If the ball gets bombed in on top of the CHF's head - Blicavs will be able to stand his ground better because he is taller, heavier and is not so easily pushed off the ball as Brown would be. That's all.

I am not saying he is a better CHF than Brown. Just wet conditions probably suit Blicavs better than Brown.

On a dry day I would say that Brown is better - as he is a better mark above his head than Blicavs and is better kick for goal.

So horses for courses policy - if it is quite wet and windy. We need strong contest at CHF.

I have put the idea of Blicavs at CHF because GFC seem to want him play week in and week out in the seniors. WE have two decent ruckman and on a wet day we could be too tall and slow. So for me put Blicavs at CHF for this game - as if it is wet and blowy - then Blicavs will probably be as effective as Brown would be.

Remember if Vardy was fit I reckon Brown would either not be in the team or be playing a third tall forward role. He is not GFC first choice to play CHF. I think that Blicavs would still be in the team if Vardy was available. So the rationale here is to accept GFC preferences and keep Blicavs in the senior team and somehow not be too tall and slow on wet and windy day.

Hope that makes sense.
 

Gysenn

Club Legend
Nov 6, 2012
2,815
4,809
AFL Club
Geelong
BLICAVS%20Mark.png
 

Whos_Your_Caddy

Team Captain
Aug 20, 2013
407
494
AFL Club
Geelong
Who thinks Brown is a walk up start against the Hawks next round if the ankle is right and who thinks he will find himself once again trying to get back in via the VFL.

I would suggest a lot will depend on what happens in his absence. If it functions well this week he might be up against it.
 
Who thinks Brown is a walk up start against the Hawks next round if the ankle is right and who thinks he will find himself once again trying to get back in via the VFL.
I like that you used "walk up start" and "if the ankle is right" in the same sentence.

Well played.
 

Jon Douglas

Premiership Player
Jan 8, 2013
3,020
2,638
AFL Club
Geelong
Probably the two biggest issues for Geelong is the CHF and FB positions.

For this year, as Lonergan seems to be playing well enough, is the CHF position. Seems unlikely we will win a Premiership without a decent second tall forward - or CHF.

Generally I agree with Partridge and I think we think similarly here. Vardy is not a proven CHF yet lone proven AFL player. He will need more time and has lost another year due to another injury. Brown, Walker and Kersten are in no way proven CHF or AFL players. Then we have Blicavs - again an unproven CHF and FL player.

The good news is we have quite a few choices. The bad news no one knows who will make - and the possibility therefore is that none will make it. Then again two might make - one as the CHF and one as the third tall forward role.

Time will tell but we need to make a selection by say round 14 who is going to be our best option to take into this year's finals. I really have no idea and they seem all different type of players to me. All having some good and some bad attributes.

In the end I don't care who makes as long as one makes it by season's end and gives us real contest at CHF and two goals per game. That makes the CHB stick to his player and therefore can be lead up the field on occasion - opening up the forward line for Hawkins and others.
 

steady2

Club Legend
Jun 25, 2013
2,705
4,473
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Probably the two biggest issues for Geelong is the CHF and FB positions.

For this year, as Lonergan seems to be playing well enough, is the CHF position. Seems unlikely we will win a Premiership without a decent second tall forward - or CHF.
We did ok previously. 07 Nathan A was not much more than satisfactory but even then he had the assistance of his brother who kept ramming the ball down his throat. 09 Hawkins had some good games but was very patchy, and Moon was not kicking a lot of goals. As soon as Hawkins turned the corner two years later Pods went off the boil (and copped some injuries). I think we can win a premiership without a great cracking fantastic CHF, a Blitz/Brown/Walker/Kersten who can kick a goal or two and help out a bit, might be sufficient to get the job done. Been done before.
 
Nov 12, 2002
41,685
49,987
AFL Club
Geelong
We did ok previously. 07 Nathan A was not much more than satisfactory but even then he had the assistance of his brother who kept ramming the ball down his throat. 09 Hawkins had some good games but was very patchy, and Moon was not kicking a lot of goals. As soon as Hawkins turned the corner two years later Pods went off the boil (and copped some injuries). I think we can win a premiership without a great cracking fantastic CHF, a Blitz/Brown/Walker/Kersten who can kick a goal or two and help out a bit, might be sufficient to get the job done. Been done before.

It's interesting, that every year in the last 7 before this, the most a "2nd" key forward has ever kicked was 36 by Tom Lonergan in 2008. You could argue he was benefitting from a truly dominant team, but I guess it does show we don't need Brown or Walker or even Kersten to kick 50 goals this year. They haven't needed that historically. More practically, none of them are going to kick 50 goals this year, so for me, 30 from ANY OF THEM would be a big tick.
 

Whit3y

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 14, 2007
5,322
6,562
Bendigo
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Sheff Wed
Now taking marks on these wet days requires a different skill set that Brown has not yet developed.

if he doesnt have this skill set now, he never will.

im sure his played games in the vfl and even before that in junior games in the wet too ?
 
Do we play Mitch or whoever dominates today in the VFL or do we go with last nights forward setup against Hawthorn?
Hawkins + the 2 rucks swapping ruck/forward duties + Blicavs + Bartel/Murdoch/Burbury/Varcoe?

(In last years preliminary final, Hawkins & Podsiadly were both held to 1 goal combined while Vardy & Blicavs were clearly out of their depth against Hale & Bailey)
Yes
 
Jan 13, 2006
26,597
19,324
melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
geelong
What we are going to do is keep defending really well around the contests and then spreading very well moving into our forward fifty. Control the middle and posses thr ball, and we won't really need another tall marking target down there.
 
Nov 12, 2002
41,685
49,987
AFL Club
Geelong
Do we play Mitch or whoever dominates today in the VFL or do we go with last nights forward setup against Hawthorn?
Hawkins + the 2 rucks swapping ruck/forward duties + Blicavs + Bartel/Murdoch/Burbury/Varcoe?

(In last years preliminary final, Hawkins & Podsiadly were both held to 1 goal combined while Vardy & Blicavs were clearly out of their depth against Hale & Bailey)

I say it depends, they no doubt value extremely highly the defensive pressure of Burbury and Murdoch up forward. If they want a 2nd tall forward to ease the pressure on Hawkins the I guess either Brown or Walker.
 
Oct 20, 2004
17,082
20,865
Brisbane
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Pompey
I think that we need to stick with Brown until our other options come back from injury. He's played 12 games, just 12 - and for a big guy, let alone a skinny one with many injuries, to have played one in three good games for your first dozen is not bad.
 
Back