Analysis 2026 - The Way Forward

[Kiama Chris]

I like Plan A. Plan A2 can happen as well. I agree.
Plan B works with Plan A. Mills to midfield.

Don't agree with Plan C. That goes against your own Plan A. It also assumes we need to move Mills to defence based upon what? Your Plan C needs work!!

I hate Plan C. Don't want it at all!
My fear is that Cox will do that instead of taking the risk that someone(s) other than Rampe and Mills will be able to take the organiser role.
I reckon McCartin, Melican, Cunningham and Wicks can organise themselves OK. Probably Serong too if picked.
Having Mills drop back occasionally to reinforce should work fine.

 

[WillHayward]

I think Rampe will basically be an assistant coach who plays VFL and plays AFL in an injury or form crisis.
Until proven otherwise Serong Melican McCartin Cunningham and Wicks down back.
With Blakey and McInerney as the floaters.

 

[zyzzbruh]

I hate Plan C. Don't want it at all!
My fear is that Cox will do that instead of taking the risk that someone(s) other than Rampe and Mills will be able to take the organiser role.
I reckon McCartin, Melican, Cunningham and Wicks can organise themselves OK. Probably Serong too if picked.
Having Mills drop back occasionally to reinforce should work fine.

I don't think Mills gets moved back to reinforce anything, he just plays well there, whilst in his last 2 attempted returns he was completely and utterly off the pace in the midfield. I honestly can't see how he makes it into our midfield other than to pinch hit on the odd occasion, we need to move on from him in the middle - otherwise drop sheldrick? delay Cleary even further? Midfield Mills should be left as a memory, we have prime starters in there already and we need to start bringing the next batch through. Mills is a great roaming half back in his current state, that's his spot from now on I would say.

 

[Dubai Quacker]

I have this sense (admittedly without evidence) that Cox saw Rowy as trade bait when Curnow was being courted.

He (Rowy) was moved to HF last year - where he didnt exactly thrive.

If the full midfield cohort is available, I’m not sure Rowy will be in it.

 

[Kiama Chris]

I have this sense (admittedly without evidence) that Cox saw Rowy as trade bait when Curnow was being courted.

He (Rowy) was moved to HF last year - where he didnt exactly thrive.

If the full midfield cohort is available, I’m not sure Rowy will be in it.

Another interpretation is that Cox wanted to spread the load or find a different formula and was testing a secondary role for Rowie.
If you're going to run more guys through the midfield they need backup roles where they add value.
You might be right in your first para. Get the feeling that Cox didn't want to give up Hayward.

 

[Kiama Chris]

Been doing more of that dangerous thinking stuff. How will having 23 vs 22 change how teams operate? Theoretically, average ToG should drop from 80.9% (sub plays one quarter) to 78.3%. Not huge but needs to be managed.
At all times we need 6 defenders (600% ToG) which is 7.66 players. If we just use 7 they average 85.7%. IMO there's a good case there for one or two players to drop back from their main roles (say a midfielder and a winger, not at the same time) to keep the average ToG down around 80%. Pretty sure McInerney and Lloyd have done this. Mills could. Others? Kyle in the future? Of course it won't be as neat as that but something like.
So we must carry a third winger who can drop back (Lloyd) or replace McInerney (?).
Similarly in the forwards. Always 6 means the same as above but now you have Heeney, Warner, Sheldrick and Rowbottom. Forget Jordon, whatever the team sheet says as he has just one job. Depends who he is tagging. Let's imagine it's a mid.
So 6 forwards at all times but only 6 picked means we need 130% topped up by say 4 mids. Possible. Add in 40% from the second ruck and it's a doddle.
So team composition:
Defenders 7
Rucks 2
Wings 3
Tagger 1
Midfielders 4 (5)
Forwards 6 (5)
Almost certainly one of those forwards will be an extra midfielder.
So, will your forwards be 3 talls and 2 smalls or 2 talls and 3 smalls, though the additional midfielder is most likely a small?
Hopefully the logic holds but I'm sure I'll be told if it doesn't.

 

[rustycrate]

Been doing more of that dangerous thinking stuff. How will having 23 vs 22 change how teams operate? Theoretically, average ToG should drop from 80.9% (sub plays one quarter) to 78.3%. Not huge but needs to be managed.
At all times we need 6 defenders (600% ToG) which is 7.66 players. If we just use 7 they average 85.7%. IMO there's a good case there for one or two players to drop back from their main roles (say a midfielder and a winger, not at the same time) to keep the average ToG down around 80%. Pretty sure McInerney and Lloyd have done this. Mills could. Others? Kyle in the future? Of course it won't be as neat as that but something like.
So we must carry a third winger who can drop back (Lloyd) or replace McInerney (?).
Similarly in the forwards. Always 6 means the same as above but now you have Heeney, Warner, Sheldrick and Rowbottom. Forget Jordon, whatever the team sheet says as he has just one job. Depends who he is tagging. Let's imagine it's a mid.
So 6 forwards at all times but only 6 picked means we need 130% topped up by say 4 mids. Possible. Add in 40% from the second ruck and it's a doddle.
So team composition:
Defenders 7
Rucks 2
Wings 3
Tagger 1
Midfielders 4 (5)
Forwards 6 (5)
Almost certainly one of those forwards will be an extra midfielder.
So, will your forwards be 3 talls and 2 smalls or 2 talls and 3 smalls, though the additional midfielder is most likely a small?
Hopefully the logic holds but I'm sure I'll be told if it doesn't.

Agree with most. But someone like McCartin does not need a spell as much as others like mediums or smalls. He is not working all of the time as in running up and down the field. If the ball is in the mids or up forward he gets a spell. He has a "fixed" position relative to a medium or small that do more running.
I reckon a key forward would similarly be doing less running and so their TOG would be higher than a mid for example.

I don't reckon things will change much. Having a 23rd player "fulltime" is like adding <4% into the mix.

 

[Kiama Chris]

Agree with most. But someone like McCartin does not need a spell as much as others like mediums or smalls. He is not working all of the time as in running up and down the field. If the ball is in the mids or up forward he gets a spell. He has a "fixed" position relative to a medium or small that do more running.
I reckon a key forward would similarly be doing less running and so their TOG would be higher than a mid for example.

I don't reckon things will change much. Having a 23rd player "fulltime" is like adding <4% into the mix.

Wow! That was quick!
What you say is absolutely correct BUT the more time you give one group of individuals the less you give others. Ultimately that may mean needing more of that type of player to get the coverage. Hence my comment about the extra mid as a forward. That's not really much different to the old situation but warrants consideration. Also managing rotations.
I keep coming back to the two biggest structural questions being the number of talls in attack and defence and what it means to how we play.

 

[rustycrate]

Wow! That was quick!
What you say is absolutely correct BUT the more time you give one group of individuals the less you give others. Ultimately that may mean needing more of that type of player to get the coverage. Hence my comment about the extra mid as a forward. That's not really much different to the old situation but warrants consideration. Also managing rotations.
I keep coming back to the two biggest structural questions being the number of talls in attack and defence and what it means to how we play.

I reckon the mids will get less time but more rotations. Hence more rest periods. But only about >4-6% more rest because the talls don't need as much rest.
I agree an extra "runner" would make more sense as the 23rd player.

The versatility of the talls too can allow an extra mid/runner time too.
Having a roving Grundy allows an extra mid/runner time too.

Having talls like Grundy that can cover ground will be more valuable.

 

[Kiama Chris]

I reckon the mids will get less time but more rotations. Hence more rest periods. But only about >4-6% more rest because the talls don't need as much rest.
I agree an extra "runner" would make more sense as the 23rd player.

The versatility of the talls too can allow an extra mid/runner time too.
Having a roving Grundy allows an extra mid/runner time too.

Having talls like Grundy that can cover ground will be more valuable.

I hope we use two talls in attack Curnow and Logan. Mobile but (hopefully) strong. Second ruck and relief/extra tall forward flip the coin between McLean, Amartey and Ladhams. I reckon McLean has trimmed down for that role.
Smalls Papley, Rosas and Dattoli with Campbell the mid/forward. Cootee will be a chance if he's fit. Campbell could be the third winger instead of Lloyd.
Amartey if we use a third tall and Dattoli or Rosas drop out. Don't like it as much.
If King comes good this would be a great setup for him.

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

I would invest the extra player in a tall. 2 rucks, 3 tall forwards, 3 tall-ish backs (who can defend talls).

We have dynamic forwards in Amartey, Logan and Curnow. Logan and Curnow can also play a bit up the ground.

In the rucks, Grundy really lifted his game across the ground last year (I liked him playing behind the ball almost in that Reid role at times). And McLean even is trimming down / Ladhams is already a rake.

In defence, dynamism is not that important. I want three talls who keep the opposition quiet all day long (McCartin, Melican and my bet is Serong).

For all the talk of smalls dominating at the start of last year (which I bought into), it seemed that most teams did well when they had the structure of talls through the side - especially the swans.

If we can lift from a team with the worst contested marking record in years, to one who more often than not wins the ledger, we go a long way to top 4.

 

[Kiama Chris]

I would invest the extra player in a tall. 2 rucks, 3 tall forwards, 3 tall-ish backs (who can defend talls).

We have dynamic forwards in Amartey, Logan and Curnow. Logan and Curnow can also play a bit up the ground.

In the rucks, Grundy really lifted his game across the ground last year (I liked him playing behind the ball almost in that Reid role at times). And McLean even is trimming down / Ladhams is already a rake.

In defence, dynamism is not that important. I want three talls who keep the opposition quiet all day long (McCartin, Melican and my bet is Serong).

For all the talk of smalls dominating at the start of last year (which I bought into), it seemed that most teams did well when they had the structure of talls through the side - especially the swans.

If we can lift from a team with the worst contested marking record in years, to one who more often than not wins the ledger, we go a long way to top 4.

Totally agree with the 3 talls in defence.
This is exactly the most important debate for our match committee. There is logic on both sides. Ground balls vs contested marks. Holding the ball inside 50 vs getting it in there.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I would invest the extra player in a tall. 2 rucks, 3 tall forwards, 3 tall-ish backs (who can defend talls).

We have dynamic forwards in Amartey, Logan and Curnow. Logan and Curnow can also play a bit up the ground.

In the rucks, Grundy really lifted his game across the ground last year (I liked him playing behind the ball almost in that Reid role at times). And McLean even is trimming down / Ladhams is already a rake.

In defence, dynamism is not that important. I want three talls who keep the opposition quiet all day long (McCartin, Melican and my bet is Serong).

For all the talk of smalls dominating at the start of last year (which I bought into), it seemed that most teams did well when they had the structure of talls through the side - especially the swans.

If we can lift from a team with the worst contested marking record in years, to one who more often than not wins the ledger, we go a long way to top 4.

Depends on the TYPE of tall you are picking, if they are tallish my preference is not a lumbering one but rather someone if need be can play a different role than being a pure tall. Now who is that stuffed if I know, do we consider someone like a Bowman (just an example guys please) who is a natural forward, and played back last year in the VFL.

Alternatively we go for another runner.

Think the 5th position has to be quite fluid and would depend on a matchup, for instance against Brisbane you may go the tall, but against the Pies or the Giants you may go the runner

Pressure is the name of the game these days though, so for me personally Dattoli and Rosas have to play and no questions with Paps, that's 3 of the forwards.

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

Depends on the TYPE of tall you are picking, if they are tallish my preference is not a lumbering one but rather someone if need be can play a different role than being a pure tall. Now who is that stuffed if I know, do we consider someone like a Bowman (just an example guys please) who is a natural forward, and played back last year in the VFL.

Alternatively we go for another runner.

Think the 5th position has to be quite fluid and would depend on a matchup, for instance against Brisbane you may go the tall, but against the Pies or the Giants you may go the runner

Pressure is the name of the game these days though, so for me personally Dattoli and Rosas have to play and no questions with Paps, that's 3 of the forwards.

I reckon you scrap the medium tall role to keep the 3 small forwards

Starting line up
3 tall forwards
3 small forwards
1 ruck
3 mids
2 wingers
3 tall defenders
1 medium defender
2 running defenders


Bench
1 ruck
1 winger / running defender
2 mids
1 tagger

Across the team, ideally at least:

• 1 mid can play behind the ball as medium defender
• 2 mids can rest forward
• 1-2 small forwards can run through the middle
• 1-2 wingers can run through the middle
• 1 running defender can be play wing
• 1 forward and/or ruck can swing backwards
• 1 ruck can rest forward

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I reckon you scrap the medium tall role to keep the 3 small forwards

Starting line up
3 tall forwards
3 small forwards
1 ruck
3 mids
2 wingers
3 tall defenders
1 medium defender
2 running defenders


Bench
1 ruck
1 winger / running defender
2 mids
1 tagger

Across the team, ideally at least:

• 1 mid can play behind the ball as medium defender
• 2 mids can rest forward
• 1-2 small forwards can run through the middle
• 1-2 wingers can run through the middle
• 1 running defender can be play wing
• 1 forward and/or ruck can swing backwards
• 1 ruck can rest forward

1 less tall please and we play at least one medium we have to. Just not sure who that is. Maybe it’s a mid that rests forward though. Curnow plus Logan plus Amartey as forwards. All 3 aren’t lumbering like a MCLean is.

 

[Kiama Chris]

1 less tall please and we play at least one medium we have to. Just not sure who that is. Maybe it’s a mid that rests forward though. Curnow plus Logan plus Amartey as forwards. All 3 aren’t lumbering like a MCLean is.

We don't yet have a true medium around 190 who is a reasonable mark and good enough to start except of course Heeney (185cm).
I imagine there's a fair chance that King (192cm) or Chamberlain (also 192cm) might end up there but not yet. Bowman is 187cm and a decent mark at the lower levels but not yet. Hayward was only 186cm and really played more as a small who could mark.
Anyone else that we must have? None of our mids immediately come to mind.
Edit: Mills if he isn't playing midfield and/or defence.

 

[Dubai Quacker]

We don't yet have a true medium around 190 who is a reasonable mark and good enough to start except of course Heeney (185cm).
I imagine there's a fair chance that King (192cm) or Chamberlain (also 192cm) might end up there but not yet. Bowman is 187cm and a decent mark at the lower levels but not yet. Hayward was only 186cm and really played more as a small who could mark.
Anyone else that we must have? None of our mids immediately come to mind.
Edit: Mills if he isn't playing midfield and/or defence.

Heeney, I.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

We don't yet have a true medium around 190 who is a reasonable mark and good enough to start except of course Heeney (185cm).
I imagine there's a fair chance that King (192cm) or Chamberlain (also 192cm) might end up there but not yet. Bowman is 187cm and a decent mark at the lower levels but not yet. Hayward was only 186cm and really played more as a small who could mark.
Anyone else that we must have? None of our mids immediately come to mind.
Edit: Mills if he isn't playing midfield and/or defence.

Look personally it would depend on pre season etc however I would go Bowman. Wouldn’t be against going King straight up. It’s a role we wouldn’t expect them to be world beaters but think it’s better to have one medium at least

 

[Kiama Chris]

Heeney, I.

Played a fair bit of it in the last part of the season and very effective too, even made AA. Doesn't need a lot of minutes there to make an impact.