Autopsy Is the 3rd tall forward becoming redundant?
- Thread starter Socrates2
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Banned
- #2
Given that Vickery and Griffith were rubbish it wouldn't have mattered where they played.
I think it's fair to say that the game has largely gone away from teams being able to play two genuine "key forwards" (unless one or both apply fantastic pressure for their size) and then a fairly immobile 200cm unit up there in addition to them. Unless of course they're all seriously good.
- Jun 28, 2013
- 31,803
- 48,017
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Gunner will be playing forward again this year. Not sure if he will be a “third forward” though - this is certainly what he used to be.
Swings and roundabouts. Tiges win with a whole bunch of midget forwards and next minute you’ll see the equivalent of Pods and Hawkins again
Whatever works
Swings and roundabouts. Tiges win with a whole bunch of midget forwards and next minute you’ll see the equivalent of Pods and Hawkins again
Whatever works
Golumless
A bigger deal out west.
More all three just fell off a cliff and two of them (Vickery and Tippett) would have been on good salary.
The third tall is still alive and well, seeing marking talls (especially contested marking) is a skill that is pure gold for a forward line. It is worth noting that the most consistent side last season results wise had 4 tall forwards.
gavaniacono
Cancelled
I think youre right abt Vickers actually. He was a seagull from the get go.
Abt Griff, he showed some stuff from time to time.
- Jun 28, 2013
- 31,803
- 48,017
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
We had young Tim O’Brien play as a ruck/fwd instead of TV. TV just wasn’t good enough
gavaniacono
Cancelled
TV was a laughing stock at RFC and I was bamboozled the Hawks took him.
I think the 3rd tall has always been an iffy position.
Look at the likes Hamish McIntosh, Majak Daw, Jesse White, Leigh Brown, Mitch Clark...
Only Corey McKernan, Drew Petrie, Brad Ottens, Paddy Ryder and David Hale have really made a good career of it.
But we still have Joe Daniher, Peter Wright, Josh Jenkins and Levi Casboult doing it nicely.
Look at the likes Hamish McIntosh, Majak Daw, Jesse White, Leigh Brown, Mitch Clark...
Only Corey McKernan, Drew Petrie, Brad Ottens, Paddy Ryder and David Hale have really made a good career of it.
But we still have Joe Daniher, Peter Wright, Josh Jenkins and Levi Casboult doing it nicely.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #12
That's some bizarre reasoning.
Roachy8
Premium Platinum
Elite quality talls will never be replaced - most teams struggle to find more than one or two however.
Hypothetically, if a team had all of Lynch, Daniher and Brown I reckon they would play all 3 at once.... nightmare to man them all....
Hypothetically, if a team had all of Lynch, Daniher and Brown I reckon they would play all 3 at once.... nightmare to man them all....
- Dec 2, 2014
- 18,575
- 31,250
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Joe Daniher is as much 3rd tall as Franklin or Riewoldt, Pure CHF now who has the odd 3 minute stint on ball.
AFL ACCESS
Rookie
- Jan 22, 2018
- 26
- 27
- AFL Club
- West Coast
It's an interesting thing to discuss. On one hand it can well very well, you only need to look at Adelaide to see the results, but it only seems to work very well in a counterattack movement. I think Adelaide relies too much on getting goals out over the back (Jenkins 2 years ago), which systemically relies a hell of a lot on the pressure they apply up the ground. In saying this, they have some genius ball movers that can hit the right target to cut up the opposition!
On the other hand, we are seeing smaller and smaller attacking sides. With such a prevalence on pressure, the smaller and more mobile bodies can better apply pressure. Most teams though either over apply the pressure, and will tackle instead of corral the opponent (a very fine line between the two), which then exposes a gap, or cannot kick the ball very well to open up the opposition (look at Adelaide, or Hawthorn a few years ago).
If you're defenders and midfield, across the board, have elite kicking skills, then having a tall attack is by far and away superior than a smaller one. The problem is maintaining that elite kicking efficiency whilst under enormous pressure from a smaller, more defensive forward line. If you can get players like Sam Mitchell into your team, and have more than one, then a tall attack is the best way to go. If you have butchers playing for you, a small attack has to be it.
On the other hand, we are seeing smaller and smaller attacking sides. With such a prevalence on pressure, the smaller and more mobile bodies can better apply pressure. Most teams though either over apply the pressure, and will tackle instead of corral the opponent (a very fine line between the two), which then exposes a gap, or cannot kick the ball very well to open up the opposition (look at Adelaide, or Hawthorn a few years ago).
If you're defenders and midfield, across the board, have elite kicking skills, then having a tall attack is by far and away superior than a smaller one. The problem is maintaining that elite kicking efficiency whilst under enormous pressure from a smaller, more defensive forward line. If you can get players like Sam Mitchell into your team, and have more than one, then a tall attack is the best way to go. If you have butchers playing for you, a small attack has to be it.
I think you find things continually evolve. The real problem seems a lack of forwards who can actually hit a pack and mark it.
The Richmond small forwards has worked once, I'll be surprised if it works again. It relies on creating forward pressure and defenders ****ing around with the ball. Teams will start to choose yardage and a stoppage over possession. For example the small Richmond forwards dont mark a forward entry but the defender marks it. 2017 style they go slow sideways backwards round in circles blah blah blah...stuff it up under pressure. Tiger goal. 2018 the quick handball to a running defender, run 15 metres straight then kick it 50+. Create a stoppage either mid field or on own forward line.
All will be revealed soon enough.
The Richmond small forwards has worked once, I'll be surprised if it works again. It relies on creating forward pressure and defenders ****ing around with the ball. Teams will start to choose yardage and a stoppage over possession. For example the small Richmond forwards dont mark a forward entry but the defender marks it. 2017 style they go slow sideways backwards round in circles blah blah blah...stuff it up under pressure. Tiger goal. 2018 the quick handball to a running defender, run 15 metres straight then kick it 50+. Create a stoppage either mid field or on own forward line.
All will be revealed soon enough.
All three are 2nd talls though.
As for proper third talls, Essendons forward never looked better than when we had Stewart supporting hooker and Daniher.
I think the mobile third is quite the commodity these days
As for proper third talls, Essendons forward never looked better than when we had Stewart supporting hooker and Daniher.
I think the mobile third is quite the commodity these days
Yeah I imagine most teams would ideally like a Gunston, Darling, Stringer, Membrey, Mitch McGovern, Menzel, Mason Wood type for this role, to compliment two taller and bigger marking options.
- Banned
- #20
No they were rubbish.
- Banned
- #21
Haven't they all retired/been axed?
Dr Tigris
Brownlow Medallist
Agree on the evolve thing. But your solution was what was tried and failed. The speed and endurance of the tiger smalls is 'designed' to catch you trying to run the ball. Hacking it out of defense has the problem of a group of elite (or near elite) intercept marks.
there are ways around what he tigers go. But quick handball and run isn't one of them.
On the topic I agree that tall forwards aren't going anywhere. TV just stopped trying years ago, Griff has concussion issues and Tippet injuries. All had talent, just didn't show for various reasons. I suspect that the 188-191 cm marking forwards are likely to fill a large part of that gap due to them being able to apply defensive pressure, rotate as mids and still create that marking option. But possibly it's harder to get that type than a half decent 195 cm KPF.
- Banned
- #23
Have to agree as Membrey is a vital cog in our forward line.
Richmond played Caddy and Townsend later in the year - not necessarily as 'prop-and-mark' forwards, but definitely as targets for forward 50s. And each of them took a couple of marks.
Richmond had the 2nd highest average of Marks Inside 50 per game (Just behind Adelaide). Everyone talks about the small forwards tackling and crumbing, but they were just as useful at creating space and receiving a pass. If you are playing 1-on-1, it doesn't matter whether you are 4-foot tall or 7-foot. If you're opponent is the same height, well.........................
Eddie Betts took the 2nd most marks inside forward 50 for Adelaide. Fasolo took the same number of marks Inside 50 as Darcy Moore. Nat Fyfe took the most for Freo. Dangerfield took the same number as Hawkins. Toby Greene took more than Jeremy Cameron (same number of games).
A mark is a mark is a mark. A Mark inside 50 is incredibly valuable. But it doesn't matter if it's a huge pack mark, or a chest mark from a 15-metre chip. Make the space - get the mark.
You need to have a couple of targets you can bomb the ball to when there is no other option. But if you get your structures and spacing right, it doesn't mean he has to be 7-foot tall.
Richmond had the 2nd highest average of Marks Inside 50 per game (Just behind Adelaide). Everyone talks about the small forwards tackling and crumbing, but they were just as useful at creating space and receiving a pass. If you are playing 1-on-1, it doesn't matter whether you are 4-foot tall or 7-foot. If you're opponent is the same height, well.........................
Eddie Betts took the 2nd most marks inside forward 50 for Adelaide. Fasolo took the same number of marks Inside 50 as Darcy Moore. Nat Fyfe took the most for Freo. Dangerfield took the same number as Hawkins. Toby Greene took more than Jeremy Cameron (same number of games).
A mark is a mark is a mark. A Mark inside 50 is incredibly valuable. But it doesn't matter if it's a huge pack mark, or a chest mark from a 15-metre chip. Make the space - get the mark.
You need to have a couple of targets you can bomb the ball to when there is no other option. But if you get your structures and spacing right, it doesn't mean he has to be 7-foot tall.
Similar threads
