2003 GF, was Clement seriously considered for a forward line position?

[blackcat]

could not get a reply on the main board, appreciate an opinion from Pie fans.

It always has bugged me, and I have never seen it proffered here, where there are much more knowledgable souls,

why James Clement never was played in the forward line.

Rocca was replaced with Cloke, and I know Clement is AA as a backman and no more an integral player there is, in the Pies backline, but I thought they could have someone step-up in the backline.

Stepping up and shutting down someone, they may have missed the drive, point accepted, however it is much more difficult to step up in the forward line, is it not?

Clement might have been a barely adequate FF at Freo, however he had experience there. Tarrant may have been moved to CHF.

There have been lesser players that have provided the target, plus the goals in a big match. Peter Caven and Shane Ellen are relevant to this hypothesy.

I know there might have been a big hole in the back half, but Cloke would have been there instead, and though he is no Clement he has provided evidence he could shut someone down, not just be a free floater.

They may have gone down in a heap, but do you not have to win a GF, and this might have been a valid gamble. You need to stack the decks to score, and without Rocca they were always going to be impotent.

 

[Lockyer24]

Possibly discussed leading up to the match but we all knew it was never going to happen with a bloke like Mick in charge.

 

[Lonie_from_50]

I thought Benny Kinnear would have been a better option than Clement and it makes me wonder why BK was never used as the Key Position Forward.

He was named at FF on the Thursday, and FP on the Match Day, but he never played there.

He was used as a tagger on Nigel Lappin, and wasn't unsuccessful, infact he did an alright job, getting 4 first half tackles.

Back on the Clement subject - He could have been used down there, but he was morre valuable as a backman than a forward. We didn't have troubles down in the goalsquare, it was the turnovers at Half Forward. Clement was to be used all day as a defensive player, as Jason Cloke was to be the Centre Half Forward.

After that manover - Collingwood fans started to disrespect Mick Malthouse, that's for sure.

2003 Grand Final Match-Day Line-Up

 

[Wildman]

I would of loved to see Molloy in there for his last game

 

[Jabso]

In the official naming of the team that was submitted Prestigiacomo was named CHF. I would of liked to have seen that.
On Clement up forward in a practice match vs. Melbourne at the start of 2004 (I think) he played full forward on Bizzel and looked good. He lead well and beat Bizzel on most occasions. That was the match he injured his eye.

 

[blackcat]

Back on the Clement subject - He could have been used down there, but he was morre valuable as a backman than a forward. We didn't have troubles down in the goalsquare, it was the turnovers at Half Forward. Clement was to be used all day as a defensive player, as Jason Cloke was to be the Centre Half Forward.

Lonie_from_50, no doubt Clement is more valuable as an AA backman, however
Clement had the potential to be a better forward than Cloke, more so than his superiority over Cloke in the backiline. I know he is integral, like any AA backman. The backline still had Wakelin/Prestigiacomo/Cloke for tall coverage.

Move Tarrant to CHF and Clement to FF. It seemed too simple to me.

Molloy had experience (and was talented) but his body failed him, Prestigiacomo pales in comparison to Rocca, Tarrant and Clement.

If Cloke went to CHF, why not Clement to FF and Tarrant to CHF.

The disruption to structure was always incurred after the tribunal decision on Rocca. Cloke was a stop gap measure, whereas Clement would have been rolling the dice, and trying to win, versus hedging the bet.

You could also argue that after Ellen and Caven why not Cloke. Valid contention. But Clement had experioence as a FF, probably kicked a few bags in the 4-6 region at Fremantle. Tarrant has experience at CHF.

A lesser player can step up and stop someone, re: defend, versus be a threat, or even the offer euphenistically presence.

 

[Ripper]

He kicked 5 goals 4 behinds when Freo beat the Bombres at Waverly in 1998.

 

[bradrowe#32]

That's a really good question.

Whilst we went into the game as favourites, I recall looking at the team that week thinking we won't be able to kick enough goals. Rocca was such a massive loss as he kicked 4 against them the year before and also provided the big target across CHF. His loss meant that Tarrant was double-teamed and when you have Kinnear, Cloke and Walker going forward at the first bounce, you know that you are in trouble.

I think he would have been great on a HFF. He could provide a mobile target, is a long kick and good mark.

Someone else mentioned here awhile ago that we should have blooded Cam Cloke half way through the year. I'm not that would have helped, but you just don't know, considering he played well in the TAC GF the year before.

Probably one of Mick's worst coaching games, in terms of tactics and reaction. Molloy should have been included.

 

[hotpie]

Both Clement and Wakelin can play forward, and should be played forward at times. Similarly I'd love to see Rocca at CHB on occassions. Fraser too. Clement is the most "likely" to achieve at both ends.

I've always though that that lack of versatility in our talls has been an achilles heel. It showed out in the 2003 GF especially. However you cant switch players around at will in September if you're not prepared to do it inhome and away. MM needs to "experiment" by playing his talls at both ends at times during the season. He's doing this with Tex, and he'll do it with the Clokes, so maybe he's learnt his lesson.

Presti stays in the backline though. There's a limit to everything.

 

[Lockyer24]

I still can't believe we were a team that had won 12 out of 13 games or something like that entering the GF, with that many duds in our GF side. (at least a quarter of our side was passenger hacks!)

At the end of the day its unlikely Rocca would have made up the 8 goal difference or whatever it was, but I feel we would have seen a much more competitive game with him out there.

But yeah we were never going to kick enough goals with that forward line.

 

[hotpie]

At the end of the day its unlikely Rocca would have made up the 8 goal difference or whatever it was, but I feel we would have seen a much more competitive game with him out there.
.

I think he could have. Our balance was totally out. With Rocca in, Molloy would have been preferred to Walker, Cloke would have been in defence, Kinnear would have reverted to the third tall option where his form had been reasonable, and Tarrant would not have been double/triple teamed.

Losing Rocca was catastropic, we had no plan B.

 

[Stakerz]

Should of played Molloy.

 

[joshieboy]

At the end of the day it was not the forward line or key backs that got crunched that afternoon. It was our midfield and smalls around the ground. I am one that thinks rocca would not have made a difference because of this fact.

How can you expect to evan get close when you let a brownlow medalist have 39 touch's and another brownlow medalist kick 5 goals.

 

[hotpie]

Should of played Molloy.

Considering his 2002 GF form, playing him was not an obvious decison

 

[Stakerz]

Considering his 2002 GF form, playing him was not an obvious decison

Yeah but it would of been hes last game, im sure he would of been ball hungary.

 

[hotpie]

Yeah but it would of been hes last game, im sure he would of been ball hungary.

If thats your reasoning we should have played Mark Richardson too.

 

[jefffff34]

Wouldn't have played Molloy on the basis he got injured in the VFL GF 6 days earlier...or have people forgotten that?

 

[hotpie]

Wouldn't have played Molloy on the basis he got injured in the VFL GF 6 days earlier...or have people forgotten that?

Platyed half fit in the 2002 GF and that was a rip-roaring success - not.

 

[jefffff34]

Yeah but I think in 2003 he broke a toe or something like that.

Everyone knows it shoulda been the Rupe playing.

 

[Stakerz]

If thats your reasoning we should have played Mark Richardson too.

Had no room for him?

 

[Stakerz]

Yeah but I think in 2003 he broke a toe or something like that.

Everyone knows it shoulda been the Rupe playing.

Rupe was a gun, We should never of gotten rid of him

 

[hotpie]

Had no room for him?

Not really.

 

[Jabso]

Richo was injured.

 

[Special_Op_2005]

Presti stays in the backline though. There's a limit to everything.

What about his great pack mark and goal from 40 in the 108 point humiliation of Carlton in 2003?

Even if Molloy was injured, he would have been a better option than Walker and Kinnear combined. They should have played Molloy and Mckee, or if Molloy was so bad, kept Kinnear but still would have played Mckee ahead of Walker, or hell even Cam Cloke

I didnt get it with McKee, he was played forward all year at Willy and was a ruckman, yet when your CHF went down who was also 2nd ruckman, they played the DUD and some young player who cant ruck or kick straight? Made no sense.

Cam Cloke and Mckee were both better suited I believe and both could have been direct swaps for Rocca.