Hughes looked confused at times because he seemed to want to attack but unsure how.
Cerra setting him up with a loopy handball didn't help him any.
Cerra setting him up with a loopy handball didn't help him any.
Preview JLT1: Dockers vs Collingdidnt, Monday 4th March
- Thread starter M_rash
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Snuffaluphagus
Moderator
- Sep 10, 2015
- 21,125
- 70,951
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Moderator
- #702
I hope Ross never actually though 4 tall forwards would work. We have enough problems keeping it in the f50 as it is.
Cox, Hogan and Lobb is the perfect combination IMO. Cox and Hogan actually apply good pressure for talls. Cox had several times where he chased and almost ran down a player.
I'm going to seem like a Tabs hater here but provides no pressure what so ever because he is so slow. He really has to be clunking almost everything to be worth a spot, otherwise a Cox, Hogan and Lobb combo has to be the way to go. It will become even more apparent when we have Darcy in the team and Lobb spends more time up forward and Hogan gets some gametime under his belt
Hopefully you're right with Conca/Blakerly/Hill
It was Logue. Logue isn't a footy players arsehole so far. He's an athlete, but some of his skill work needs some serious attention
My bad. He and Hughes had similar games, good and bad.
Long working day yesterday. Watched and caught up on the game last night.
Saw some good, and quite a bit of bad. Game plan wise, I hope Ross is mucking around a bit to try things out and this is not our plan going forward (i.e. Hogan’s in the backline, Wilson in the forward pressuring...)
Like everyone else, I’m really upset about how we are bombing it forward.
I’ll confess that prior to the game, I’m advocating having 3-4 tall forwards in as I felt that we’ll bomb in quite a bit. Except I didn’t realized that “quite a bit” turned out to be every bloody entry. Actually, to me, bombing it long is kind of ok, it’s playing to our strength, well sort of. But I can’t really understand is when we do that, and we have these tall forwards, why is it still a 1v2 or 1v3 at the end of these long high kicks? If we insist on kicking it long, shouldn’t our forwards be going like, “we got the ball, Tabs, Lobb, Cox! park yourself in the box, we’ll kick it in high!”
Few other observations.
- See good signs with Alex Pearce and Logue. Hope that Both will continue to improve with every game.
- Brayshaw. Playing very hard and winning a few possessions. It’s like the injury didn’t happen! I’ll say, this kids got some strong nerves.
- Cerra. Not sure if it’s the playing back. Not really doing much. Hope he can improve as the season progress.
- Tabs. This got me upset. Why have he revert back to the “dropped mark” Tabs from a few years back? The heat and running? It’s got to be in the head.
- Cox. Playing well. Contesting well and have good decisions. Should stay in as a forward.
Saw some good, and quite a bit of bad. Game plan wise, I hope Ross is mucking around a bit to try things out and this is not our plan going forward (i.e. Hogan’s in the backline, Wilson in the forward pressuring...)
Like everyone else, I’m really upset about how we are bombing it forward.
I’ll confess that prior to the game, I’m advocating having 3-4 tall forwards in as I felt that we’ll bomb in quite a bit. Except I didn’t realized that “quite a bit” turned out to be every bloody entry. Actually, to me, bombing it long is kind of ok, it’s playing to our strength, well sort of. But I can’t really understand is when we do that, and we have these tall forwards, why is it still a 1v2 or 1v3 at the end of these long high kicks? If we insist on kicking it long, shouldn’t our forwards be going like, “we got the ball, Tabs, Lobb, Cox! park yourself in the box, we’ll kick it in high!”
Few other observations.
- See good signs with Alex Pearce and Logue. Hope that Both will continue to improve with every game.
- Brayshaw. Playing very hard and winning a few possessions. It’s like the injury didn’t happen! I’ll say, this kids got some strong nerves.
- Cerra. Not sure if it’s the playing back. Not really doing much. Hope he can improve as the season progress.
- Tabs. This got me upset. Why have he revert back to the “dropped mark” Tabs from a few years back? The heat and running? It’s got to be in the head.
- Cox. Playing well. Contesting well and have good decisions. Should stay in as a forward.
yyou
Norm Smith Medallist
- Sep 18, 2014
- 5,756
- 7,169
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- NY Mets, NO Pelicans, Toronto Leafs
good games by Brayshaw, Lobb, Hill, Cox & Tucker.
some good signs for a scratch match.
worst on for mine was bloody kayo which kept freezing! it seems my smart tv bought last year is not compatible & I need to buy some connector. there goes that cheap option. maybe I'll have to just go to the pub again this year to watch games until kayo improves
some good signs for a scratch match.
worst on for mine was bloody kayo which kept freezing! it seems my smart tv bought last year is not compatible & I need to buy some connector. there goes that cheap option. maybe I'll have to just go to the pub again this year to watch games until kayo improves
Good, hard inside and seemed to use it well
Clearances F41 v C38
Inside 50 F60 v C46
CP F168 v C163
Tackles F63 v C56
HB F165 v C173
Stoppages F29 v C26
HO F32 v C50
Given the young midfield we largely put out there, that's some good stats.
That's with Collingwood having 72 more possessions.
So we got the ball, used it ok until the last third?
We also won the ball back a lot, but got burned defensively...they scored freely from cleaner entries
Inside 50 F60 v C46
CP F168 v C163
Tackles F63 v C56
HB F165 v C173
Stoppages F29 v C26
HO F32 v C50
Given the young midfield we largely put out there, that's some good stats.
That's with Collingwood having 72 more possessions.
So we got the ball, used it ok until the last third?
We also won the ball back a lot, but got burned defensively...they scored freely from cleaner entries
I agree with most of what you. Just want to make comment on a couple of things.
3) Cox. It seems so obvious to me that Cox is an extremely promising forward, yet our coaching panel don't seem to see it - they have him training in defence, or maybe not best 22. This worries me.
4) Midfield - we are building a small body of work that suggests we have a better midfield without Fyfe than with Fyfe. This is not to suggest that he is not a fantastic player, just that in some way we don't get best value from his presence. Maybe other players step back, maybe we lack variety when he plays, who knows? Not me. The body of work is that last year our winning % was better without Fyfe than with him, our best wins of the year were Essendon, Adelaide and Port, 2 without Fyfe, and our best win IMHO was against Adelaide where we lost the hitouts and won the clearances, something we generally struggle with whenever we are without Sandi. Yesterday we lost the hitouts and won the clearances.
8) Ballas - I still have every expectation of seeing him line up in Round 1.
10) Many of us want to see Nyhuis get some real opportunity. I am with that group.
Nothing
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 30, 2009
- 9,094
- 14,190
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
We have a limit of one Luke in the team at a time. He needs to displace Luke Ryan if he wants a game.
Snuffaluphagus
Moderator
- Sep 10, 2015
- 21,125
- 70,951
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Moderator
- #712
To be fair to the coaching group, they gave him the most promising young player last year and he played forward so I assume they must rate him.
I will be very annoyed to see him in the backline where he is a little too slow IMO and I've always had him as a better fwd than Tabs anyway.
I also share your dread that Ballas lines up rd 1 =(
My take on this is that we need some depth in KPD. Both Cox and Kersten have the ability to swing. So if we get a raft of KPD injuries then Cox can step up. He is still seen as a fwd first according to the coaches I have heard and played as such yesterday.
He seemed to tire like many others but one passage from Cox in the last quarter impressed me. Had the ball in traffic rather than fire out a panic handball to the boundary he had the poise to pirouette back inside dodging opposition players and firing off a beautiful handball in front of our running player. I think our small forwards stuffed it up thereafter. Even back to his earliest games (ie Geelong at their stadium in 2017), he pulled off a kick back towards the centre which showed amazing vision and he sent that perfect massive handball onto Weller without him slowing his stride that almost lead to the Walters game winning goal.
He has to play round 1 for mine. Is ahead of Tabs at the moment.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Tom_Thumb
Club Legend
- Feb 1, 2016
- 2,149
- 1,858
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I would be playing both. Valente was an excellent pick, spewing my team didn't bother picking him when they had the chance.
He has been on a modified program most of the summer for some reason. Only joined the main group in the last few weeks.
- Apr 25, 2011
- 2,218
- 4,717
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Lobb doesn't need to be kicked to 1 on 1, we had 2 other kpfs more suited to being a chf (Hogan/Tabs).
What we did was to slaughter a grand finalist in Q1 by 5.3 to 1.1, must have done something right...
Remember, this is JLT, it's a rare time where you can fiddle around because the 4 points are meaningless. We didn't need to see if Hogan can lead and take a mark as a CHF, we know that he can. So we didn't concentrate on supply to him. We were deliberately peppering in/around the goal square and ignored half forward for a lot of the game.
Lobb has more reach than any defender, I think they want to test if we can go a little bit old school and make Full Forward dangerous. Along with Lobb, Cox is being tested - he is no forward if he sprays his goals - he kept close to goal square though where he is less likely to miss, a dangerous place for opponents to take a mark and he is an excellent mark in congestion. We make the goal square dangerous, the opposition has to man up, it brings crumbing into play. Small forwards crumbing is not an individual skill like just marking or taking set shots, we were peppering the goal square to test the full forwards and smalls at their feet (the smalls is what failed us in the game, lots of loose ball and it wasn't taken advantage of - Switkowski is going to be a big loss)
A dangerous goal square needs to be defended, it has further implications.
With the 6/6/6 rule, if we force them to defend the goal square hard because it's at least 1 tall (and possibly 2), along with a small or 2, that impacts on the opponents ability to shut down space for our CHF/s, also on the oppositions ability to position a few players on the 50 meter line so that they can immediately run and give support to their midfielders and forward line.
Not only that, Full Forward isn't really used much in the game because defenders have matched forwards on size and skill in the modern game - that doesn't apply to Lobb, I can't think of a single defender with his reach, if it is an advantage, it's worth exploiting.
And I concede, it's just my observation, only saw the game on the tube and therefore missed the wider view of play and match ups etc.
- Apr 25, 2011
- 2,218
- 4,717
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Walters and Hogan won't be finished and tapped out of the game by conditioning coaches for the last quarter. Also, we didn't rotate as many players as the Pies, we kept ours out under fatigue but the Pies were kept fresher because JLT means you can, which I guess would mean we had more game simulation, they had less. Particuarly our big fellas, looked totally shagged towards the end.
Not in the preseason game last year. WestCoast went half pace and had zero cohesion in their play. Our best 2 players (Fyfe and Hogan playing more than a bit part to blow off cobwebs) will make a huge difference. Potentially one of the better top 2 players in the league. Hogan should help significantly with stopping us from bombing long as he is great on both long and short leads, so he should get separation on his man to allow for more effective leading play. I wouldnt worry about him drifting to defence in the Collingwood game. If he was only going to play limited minutes it would be part of the plan for him to roam in his time on the ground. No point simply spending a bit of time deep if that he wasnt involved in play. Darcy is all of a sudden a massive in. If he can match the oppositions best ruckman then I think Lobb can dominate if he plays against a second ruck for 25%ish of the game. Was great yesterday against a fantastic ruckman. Imagine him against say McKay of North (who is tipped by their supporters to play second ruck) in the round 1 game. Hopefully Tucker builds on form and can help improve our all round tackle pressure with Conca, Banfield, and Brayshaw.
Yes freeing Lobb up is good because he is a decent player, but doesn't mean Jones was any good apart from being there. He was beaten, and then beaten again, and no shame in that given it was against Grundy. But he does compete and kept Grundy honest, but he is 4th in line I think. I suspect he got a gig because he has some kind of experience in the forward line, so with Lobb rucking it brought some flexibility, but only theoretically.
Still, good hit out by Lobb. Keeps our forward set up under wraps too.
- Apr 25, 2011
- 2,218
- 4,717
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Ruck is such an integral part of the playing group that it's best to get a look and test the players out when it doesn't matter, compared to when it does.
Meek vs Jones as depth or is it really no choice? At least Jones has footage of his efforts as homework so that he can attempt to improve. Yesterday will beg the question, is it worth pissing Lobb off by playing him in the ruck because the main ruck/s are down and the depth is inadequate. Might also put the recruiting team on notice about future needs - or even the midyear recruiting thingo.
Meek vs Jones as depth or is it really no choice? At least Jones has footage of his efforts as homework so that he can attempt to improve. Yesterday will beg the question, is it worth pissing Lobb off by playing him in the ruck because the main ruck/s are down and the depth is inadequate. Might also put the recruiting team on notice about future needs - or even the midyear recruiting thingo.
I think he has had some groin soreness? And so they were worried about an over-use injury and pulled him back a bit.
Not sure if OP, but definitely from what I saw / heard seemed to be something groin related. He was fine running in straight lines (and did a power of running work) but was suffering some pain when moving laterally. I think it is pretty much OK now though, so look forward to him getting game time at Peel in the near future.
Yep, for me right from the moment late in the game when he took the ball, played on pretty much straight away and had the vision/ability to hit Weller with the handball he has looked a likely half-forward. I was impressed with his first half pressure efforts on Saturday. I also like the way he has several different ways to have a scoreboard impact: yes he can mark-and-goal but he can also goal from a front-and-square crumb or get a goal assist from a quick handball in broken play. He isn't as one-dimensional as some of our other forwards.
Similar threads
- Locked
