Strategy 2016 Forward Line

[DanA]

We currently have one. You don't want two? Why? Every other great team has had atleast two.

We'd have two talls in Hawkins and Stanley. It's a similar setup to what Sydney (Buddy/Tippett) and Bulldogs (Stringer/Boyd) had in the Grand Final except Hawkins is less mobile than Stringer or Buddy. We're also carrying a 197cm Blicavs in midfield which has it's advantages but it also comes with some negatives as well.

If you look at players 195cm or taller

Sydney GF team:
FB: Lloyd Grundy Smith
HB: Mills Laidler Rampe
C: Jack Kennedy McVeigh
HF: Mitchell Franklin Parker
FF: Papley Tippett McGlyn
R: Naismith Hannebery Henney
B: Rohan, Jones, Hewett, Richards

Bulldogs GF team:
FB: Johannisen Hamling Boyd
HB: Biggs Morris Wood
C: Hunter Bontempelli Picken
HF: McCrae Cordy Stringer
FF: Dickson Boyd smith
R: Roughead Dahlhaus, Liberatore
B: McClean Roberts Dunkley, Daniels

Geelong PF team:
FB: Bews Lonergan Kolodjashnij
HB: Mackie Taylor Enright
C: Blicavs Menegola Guthrie
HF: Duncan Henderson Motlop
FF: McCarthy Hawkins Stanley
R: Smith Dangerfield Selwood
B: S.Selwood, Caddy, Cowan, Bartel

From that team we could drop Blicavs, Lonergan and Henerdson and still have more tall options than either Grand Finalist. We've seen Mackie play on Reiwoldt in a Grand Final and while he's probably a bit past that, Kolo, a bigger body, shouldn't have a problem with it. The team we put out in the prelim IMO was ridiculous, just not competitive in modern AFL. I get that Stanley and Blicavs are pretty mobile but it not the same.

 

[year of the cat]

We'd have two talls in Hawkins and Stanley. It's a similar setup to what Sydney (Buddy/Tippett) and Bulldogs (Stringer/Boyd) had in the Grand Final except Hawkins is less mobile than Stringer or Buddy. We're also carrying a 197cm Blicavs in midfield which has it's advantages but it also comes with some negatives as well.

If you look at players 195cm or taller

Sydney GF team:
FB: Lloyd Grundy Smith
HB: Mills Laidler Rampe
C: Jack Kennedy McVeigh
HF: Mitchell Franklin Parker
FF: Papley Tippett McGlyn
R: Naismith Hannebery Henney
B: Rohan, Jones, Hewett, Richards

Bulldogs GF team:
FB: Johannisen Hamling Boyd
HB: Biggs Morris Wood
C: Hunter Bontempelli Picken
HF: McCrae Cordy Stringer
FF: Dickson Boyd smith
R: Roughead Dahlhaus, Liberatore
B: McClean Roberts Dunkley, Daniels

Geelong PF team:
FB: Bews Lonergan Kolodjashnij
HB: Mackie Taylor Enright
C: Blicavs Menegola Guthrie
HF: Duncan Henderson Motlop
FF: McCarthy Hawkins Stanley
R: Smith Dangerfield Selwood
B: S.Selwood, Caddy, Cowan, Bartel

From that team we could drop Blicavs, Lonergan and Henerdson and still have more tall options than either Grand Finalist. We've seen Mackie play on Reiwoldt in a Grand Final and while he's probably a bit past that, Kolo, a bigger body, shouldn't have a problem with it. The team we put out in the prelim IMO was ridiculous, just not competitive in modern AFL. I get that Stanley and Blicavs are pretty mobile but it not the same.

It in a nutshell. Far too tall and immobile.

 

[pussygalore]

I have nothing against playing that many talls in the squad and isn't the real issue IMO.
Plus it's good to have tall targets across the ground.

As for the PF - Danger & Selwood only turned up. Forward line terrible until Taylor stepped in. Henderson was underdone, Mackie looked cooked, Midfield didn't switch on at all, Motlop was terrible but so were others, we looked rushed, slow and fumbled heaps.

 

[Majunga]

Re-watch both of Geelongs last 2 finals this year, ball use was the main issue i saw.
I hardly saw any clean handballs or kicks from any of our players in either game.
Now you can write some off as pressure coming from the opposition but the rest..
If every handball and kick is just a hack forward that ends up in another contest you won't win that game, need some clean ball use, if Hawthorn had had Roughhead and didn't have to adapt their game to a smaller forward line we wouldn't have won imo.

Just my opinion but fix that then our forwards might actually be able to get an advantage at the footy.

And we are a little to tall and slow.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

I forgot the last time a player in our forward line presented and marked on the lead consistently. I also forgot what it looks like to move the ball from our back line that doesn't involve bombing long to a pack.

 

[CatRiot]

We should switch our game plan back to the manic overlap running and handball game plan we once had, and when we are near the forward line, chip it to the forwards, or bomb away for goals once we get to the 50m arc.

 

[Seeds]

We'd have two talls in Hawkins and Stanley. It's a similar setup to what Sydney (Buddy/Tippett) and Bulldogs (Stringer/Boyd) had in the Grand Final except Hawkins is less mobile than Stringer or Buddy. We're also carrying a 197cm Blicavs in midfield which has it's advantages but it also comes with some negatives as well.

If you look at players 195cm or taller

Sydney GF team:
FB: Lloyd Grundy Smith
HB: Mills Laidler Rampe
C: Jack Kennedy McVeigh
HF: Mitchell Franklin Parker
FF: Papley Tippett McGlyn
R: Naismith Hannebery Henney
B: Rohan, Jones, Hewett, Richards

Bulldogs GF team:
FB: Johannisen Hamling Boyd
HB: Biggs Morris Wood
C: Hunter Bontempelli Picken
HF: McCrae Cordy Stringer
FF: Dickson Boyd smith
R: Roughead Dahlhaus, Liberatore
B: McClean Roberts Dunkley, Daniels

Geelong PF team:
FB: Bews Lonergan Kolodjashnij
HB: Mackie Taylor Enright
C: Blicavs Menegola Guthrie
HF: Duncan Henderson Motlop
FF: McCarthy Hawkins Stanley
R: Smith Dangerfield Selwood
B: S.Selwood, Caddy, Cowan, Bartel

From that team we could drop Blicavs, Lonergan and Henerdson and still have more tall options than either Grand Finalist. We've seen Mackie play on Reiwoldt in a Grand Final and while he's probably a bit past that, Kolo, a bigger body, shouldn't have a problem with it. The team we put out in the prelim IMO was ridiculous, just not competitive in modern AFL. I get that Stanley and Blicavs are pretty mobile but it not the same.

Stanley is a ruck. Most teams have two rucks and two key position forwards. If having a centre half forward means we are too tall then we simply get rid of having a tall playing on the wing. Centre half forward is one of the most important positions on the field. We need to actually have one player their permanently. May have been able to do something with all those forward entries we had in the prelim if we had one.

 

[kicksome]

Re-watch both of Geelongs last 2 finals this year, ball use was the main issue i saw.
I hardly saw any clean handballs or kicks from any of our players in either game.
Now you can write some off as pressure coming from the opposition but the rest..
If every handball and kick is just a hack forward that ends up in another contest you won't win that game, need some clean ball use, if Hawthorn had had Roughhead and didn't have to adapt their game to a smaller forward line we wouldn't have won imo.

Just my opinion but fix that then our forwards might actually be able to get an advantage at the footy.

And we are a little to tall and slow.

we go to water when pressure is applied to us. We've shown that over the last few years.
We usually get beaten in contested ball and thats a recipe for disaster in finals

 

[cynical]

From that team we could drop Blicavs, Lonergan and Henerdson and still have more tall options than either Grand Finalist. We've seen Mackie play on Reiwoldt in a Grand Final and while he's probably a bit past that, Kolo, a bigger body, shouldn't have a problem with it. The team we put out in the prelim IMO was ridiculous, just not competitive in modern AFL. I get that Stanley and Blicavs are pretty mobile but it not the same.

When it comes to talls they have to be able to take contested marks or at least have other exceptional attributes.

If we go by contested marking I'd be keeping

Taylor/Henderson as backs
Stanley as Ruck
Hawkins as Forward

Ideally we'd have another ruck and another forward who can take contested marks.

 

[DanA]

When it comes to talls they have to be able to take contested marks or at least have other exceptional attributes.

If we go by contested marking I'd be keeping

Taylor/Henderson as backs
Stanley as Ruck
Hawkins as Forward

Ideally we'd have another ruck and another forward who can take contested marks.

Everybody has got a little bit different take on things and I can respect that, we'll get to see how it works out in due time. I am of the same opinion as you in what would be ideal, a second ruck option plus a Riewoldt type leading/marking CHF would be perfect. Unfortunately I don't see that on our list I think we have to compromise.

With the list we have I think I'd play:
1) Taylor - KPD
2) Henderson - KPD
3) Smith - Ruck
4) Stanley - Ruck/KPF
5) Hawkins - KPF

I don't really want more than five 195cm+ players in the team but I would experiment with Blicavs, if it didn't work I'd experiment with two out of Stanley, Smith and Blicavs in the team....see what works best. Personally I wouldn't shunt Lonergan, Henderson or Harry forward, nor play Black. I don't think it will work but can understand others do. But what I am most adamant about is not having seven players in the team over 195cm.

 

[Seeds]

Everybody has got a little bit different take on things and I can respect that, we'll get to see how it works out in due time. I am of the same opinion as you in what would be ideal, a second ruck option plus a Riewoldt type leading/marking CHF would be perfect. Unfortunately I don't see that on our list I think we have to compromise.

With the list we have I think I'd play:
1) Taylor - KPD
2) Henderson - KPD
3) Smith - Ruck
4) Stanley - Ruck/KPF
5) Hawkins - KPF

I don't really want more than five 195cm+ players in the team but I would experiment with Blicavs, if it didn't work I'd experiment with two out of Stanley, Smith and Blicavs in the team....see what works best. Personally I wouldn't shunt Lonergan, Henderson or Harry forward, nor play Black. I don't think it will work but can understand others do. But what I am most adamant about is not having seven players in the team over 195cm.

That team continues to fail in the forward line as hawkins continues to get double and triple teamed as he has ever since pods left. The sole reason we lost the prelim is we couldn't take advantage of our forward 50 entries.

 

[DanA]

That team continues to fail in the forward line as hawkins continues to get double and triple teamed as he has ever since pods left. The sole reason we lost the prelim is we couldn't take advantage of our forward 50 entries.

And how did the Bulldogs take advantage of their forward 50 entries?

 

[cynical]

That team continues to fail in the forward line as hawkins continues to get double and triple teamed as he has ever since pods left. The sole reason we lost the prelim is we couldn't take advantage of our forward 50 entries.

Slow movement from the back half and a lot of mids with average disposal doesn't help either.

I'd love to fast track one of our young key talls instead of the inevitable Stanley forward Blicavs in the ruck setup we will most likely have next year.

 

[Seeds]

And how did the Bulldogs take advantage of their forward 50 entries?

You mean the team we best twice including once by 10 goals?

 

[UnitedWarrior93]

Re-watch both of Geelongs last 2 finals this year, ball use was the main issue i saw.
I hardly saw any clean handballs or kicks from any of our players in either game.
Now you can write some off as pressure coming from the opposition but the rest..
If every handball and kick is just a hack forward that ends up in another contest you won't win that game, need some clean ball use, if Hawthorn had had Roughhead and didn't have to adapt their game to a smaller forward line we wouldn't have won imo.

Just my opinion but fix that then our forwards might actually be able to get an advantage at the footy.

And we are a little to tall and slow.

I don't like Kingy but yesterday listening to SEN1116 he made some good points on us, said he doesn't expect or see much improvement in us next year, fair call, but then also discussed our prelim, and the way he just blasted the ball 50 metres long all the time in hope something would happen, then Sydney would get us on the break. We need to work on short kicking and handballs, be more effiecent, slicker and precise going forward.

Selwood and Danger will do the heavy lifting in the middle, we just need the others to come to the party and a refreshed game plan, no more bombing unless it is Tuohy unloading from 60 for goal

 

[DanA]

You mean the team we best twice including once by 10 goals?

Yes that would be the reigning Premiers.

I don't think a taller forwardline improves us much. Maybe we can exploit a team like the Bulldogs who don't have great KPD's but I think it just encourages us to bomb the ball long into the forwardline and hope for a better outcome. Sydney exploited that and I think they'd exploit that whether their were 1 or 2 KPF targets inside 50. To me we have to improve our delivery inside 50, and improve our pressure quelling opposition rebound. Just as the Dogs did in the Grand Final.

And it's not just a flavour of the month thing, I've been calling for this since round 1 last season.

 

[Vdubs]

We'd have two talls in Hawkins and Stanley. It's a similar setup to what Sydney (Buddy/Tippett) and Bulldogs (Stringer/Boyd) had in the Grand Final except Hawkins is less mobile than Stringer or Buddy. We're also carrying a 197cm Blicavs in midfield which has it's advantages but it also comes with some negatives as well.

If you look at players 195cm or taller

Sydney GF team:
FB: Lloyd Grundy Smith
HB: Mills Laidler Rampe
C: Jack Kennedy McVeigh
HF: Mitchell Franklin Parker
FF: Papley Tippett McGlyn
R: Naismith Hannebery Henney
B: Rohan, Jones, Hewett, Richards

Bulldogs GF team:
FB: Johannisen Hamling Boyd
HB: Biggs Morris Wood
C: Hunter Bontempelli Picken
HF: McCrae Cordy Stringer
FF: Dickson Boyd smith
R: Roughead Dahlhaus, Liberatore
B: McClean Roberts Dunkley, Daniels

Geelong PF team:
FB: Bews Lonergan Kolodjashnij
HB: Mackie Taylor Enright
C: Blicavs Menegola Guthrie
HF: Duncan Henderson Motlop
FF: McCarthy Hawkins Stanley
R: Smith Dangerfield Selwood
B: S.Selwood, Caddy, Cowan, Bartel

From that team we could drop Blicavs, Lonergan and Henerdson and still have more tall options than either Grand Finalist. We've seen Mackie play on Reiwoldt in a Grand Final and while he's probably a bit past that, Kolo, a bigger body, shouldn't have a problem with it. The team we put out in the prelim IMO was ridiculous, just not competitive in modern AFL. I get that Stanley and Blicavs are pretty mobile but it not the same.

What if you go to 194 cm?
If our talls actually performed to their potential, we could be sitting here discussing how we have revolutionised the game with athletic tall high marking players all over the ground, and how teams would counter us.
I still, somewhat forlornly, hope that that is our strength, and that is how we are going to succeed.
It looked to be viable at times in 15/16.
IF those, or even most of them perfected their roles, who knows?

 

[DanA]

What if you go to 194 cm?
If our talls actually performed to their potential, we could be sitting here discussing how we have revolutionised the game with athletic tall high marking players all over the ground, and how teams would counter us.
I still, somewhat forlornly, hope that that is our strength, and that is how we are going to succeed.
It looked to be viable at times in 15/16.
IF those, or even most of them perfected their roles, who knows?

It adds
Hamling 194cm
Roberts 194cm
Bontempelli 192cm

Kolodjashnij 193cm
Mackie 192cm


None for Sydney. I didn't like it back then and after the Sydney game I certainly don't like it now.

 

[David the Cat]

Menegola will be better next year...I suspect a permanent fixture in the best 22.

 

[Seeds]

It adds
Hamling 194cm
Roberts 194cm
Bontempelli 192cm

Kolodjashnij 193cm
Mackie 192cm


None for Sydney. I didn't like it back then and after the Sydney game I certainly don't like it now.

You get that bulldogs are an exception to the rule? They finished 7th in the home and away and scrapped through there last three finals. They aren't the team to aspire to.

Although I do agree we also need to improve our forward entries. But having both better markers and better entries is the way to go.

 

[Seeds]

Menegola will be better next year...I suspect a permanent fixture in the best 22.

Pretty sure he already is a permanent feature of the best 22.

 

[Daniel McL]

What I'm thinking for the Forward line in 2017:

If Lonergan does play (most likely):
- He'll be FB.
- Taylor moves to CHF.
- Only one of Smith/Stanley plays rucking otherwise we'll be too tall.
Menzel / Taylor / Cockatoo
McCarthy / Hawkins / Motlop


If Lonergan doesn't play (unlikely):
- Taylor is FB.
- Smith rucks, Stanley mainly CHF.
Menzel / Stanley / Cockatoo
McCarthy / Hawkins / Motlop

 

[Vdubs]

What I'm thinking for the Forward line in 2017:

If Lonergan does play (most likely):
- He'll be FB.
- Taylor moves to CHF.
- Only one of Smith/Stanley plays rucking otherwise we'll be too tall.
Menzel / Taylor / Cockatoo
McCarthy / Hawkins / Motlop


If Lonergan doesn't play (unlikely):
- Taylor is FB.
- Smith rucks, Stanley mainly CHF.
Menzel / Stanley / Cockatoo
McCarthy / Hawkins / Motlop

Agree.
Where do you see Blic in this line-up? Or is that presumptuous to say IN?
CHB?

 

[Daniel McL]

Agree.
Where do you see Blic in this line-up? Or is that presumptuous to say IN?
CHB?

Hmm again depends...

If Lonergan plays:
- Taylor goes CHF
- Only one of Smith/Stanley play as No.1 ruck
- Blicavs can have a more solid role in the team as 2nd ruckman/midfielder
( I definitely prefer this scenario ^ )

If Lonergan doesn't play:
- Taylor FB
- Both Smith/Stanley play
- I have Blicavs on bench as just someone helping with the midfield rotations...

I still want him in the lineup for sure I feel he brings good leadership always talking and getting around the boys, he's always trying to learn as much as he can himself, so I do rate him.

If he plays this season as 2nd ruck/midfielder then no worries I think he'll be close to having a 2015 style season again (less hitouts though).

It's just when both Smith/Stanley play as they did most of this year where I think Blicavs needs to try and find another role to play possibly switching between midfield whether that is going back in defence locking down on an opposition forward or going forward and being a sort of 3rd tall for us who we can count on to take contested marks or bring the ball to ground (He'll have to work on his overhead marking for that but he's willing to learn).

 

[Partridge]

What if you go to 194 cm?
If our talls actually performed to their potential, we could be sitting here discussing how we have revolutionised the game with athletic tall high marking players all over the ground, and how teams would counter us.
I still, somewhat forlornly, hope that that is our strength, and that is how we are going to succeed.
It looked to be viable at times in 15/16.
IF those, or even most of them perfected their roles, who knows?

That's perfectly reasonable VD.

If the coaches and Scott in particular feel that's the way the game is going, and you need a taller team of athletes, that explains a bit about team selection and who gets chances. But it also needs to be tempered with the evidence of results. In most finals we've played in recent years, the big guys have not been effective, they've been liabilities. And against Sydney, the two players most suiting that prototype in Stanley and Blicavs were close to the two worst on the ground.

If a coach's pet tactic and philosophy continues to fail under the pressure of finals, it may not the the ideal strategy to pursue.