Strategy 3 tall forwards vs 2 tall forwards

[Ura]

Bull is abit of a tweener. He doesn’t seem to be big enough to be KPP but not a small forward or chop out mid like we have been wanting.
Darling will be helpful and hopefully draw more in terms of defence then Teakle and Pink. I thought Teakle offered abit more but looking at the stats he really didn’t. 7 disposals and less then a goal a game.

I think we will start with…
Bull Darling Curtis
Jy Larkey Parker

Maybe have RHJ off the bench but more likely to see heavy rotation of Parker, Sheezel and Jy as deep forwards acting small.

With our draft hands assuming all stay fit and develop well you assume Dawson, Whitlock or Chom end up forward

 

[chubbspeterson]

Clarko doesn't trust Teakle or Pink to mark or bring the ball to ground. They didn't along with Larkey last year.
The forward pressure is also even worse carrying three talls.
But not like having two "pressure forwards" together worked all that well. Will be an interesting watch.

 

[shintemaster]

Clarko doesn't trust Teakle or Pink to mark or bring the ball to ground. They didn't along with Larkey last year.
The forward pressure is also even worse carrying three talls.
But not like having two "pressure forwards" together worked all that well. Will be an interesting watch.

Agree with all of that - but I personally don't think Konstanty in his first game for the club and a handful of games in RHJ playing together for the first time can be written off after one practice match.

FWIW I reckon Teakle still worth a game or two with Darling in the team as well, but I agree - not sure Clarko sees it the same way. Personally no matter how much I rate them long term the reality is that we looked straighter last year once Teakle was in the team - albeit completely brittle (not on Teakle IMO).

 

[The Nostradamus]

Clarko doesn't trust Teakle or Pink to mark or bring the ball to ground. They didn't along with Larkey last year.
The forward pressure is also even worse carrying three talls.
But not like having two "pressure forwards" together worked all that well. Will be an interesting watch.

Teakle can take a contested grab and does bring it to ground

Whenever it is kicked to him (which was rare) he’d do well in the air

 

[Psicosis]

Depends really how we move the ball IMO. If we continue kicking to packs, 3x talls is obvious.

I'm not convinced that is how we should be playing though. Hawthorn went with Gunston, Chol & Dear, with only really Dear being a solid pack mark / traditional key forward. However, they looked fantastic given how Hawthorn play.

What I am convinced about though, is that you plug Hawthorns 3x talls into our structure / system / ball movement & they'd look like dog sh*t.

 

[chubbspeterson]

Teakle can take a contested grab and does bring it to ground

Whenever it is kicked to him (which was rare) he’d do well in the air

He doesn't do it consistently enough.

 

[chubbspeterson]

Agree with all of that - but I personally don't think Konstanty in his first game for the club and a handful of games in RHJ playing together for the first time can be written off after one practice match.

FWIW I reckon Teakle still worth a game or two with Darling in the team as well, but I agree - not sure Clarko sees it the same way. Personally no matter how much I rate them long term the reality is that we looked straighter last year once Teakle was in the team - albeit completely brittle (not on Teakle IMO).

I'm not writing off RHJ or Konstanty. Just not sure we can play both of them.
I'm sure Teakle or Maley might get a game at some point.

 

[Only Forwards]

what is this now?

3 vs 2?

we have 1 and a bunch of hope.

it is a massive problem.

luckily we drafted a bloke in 2019 to play as the second tall forward. We have just decided to play him in the back half.

We took some junker from the tigers who has never looked likely and he did his achillies and who knows if he can even jump now ( I mean I don't think he could before but I am not sure the injury will have increased that ability)

so we took a bloke as coverage for our dire KPD issue last year and we play him forward. He can't really mark and he cant take set shots and shanks the shit out of the ball. BFNAAK though.

We took a late first rounder as a KPD and we played him forward until he summarily got injured.

We took another late first rounder, this one is a basketballer who we are teaching football too. I wonder why we don't just teach the footballers more football?

then we took some raw as anything kid last mid season who plays key forward and ruck, However we seem to have been trialling him down back also.

We took a bloke to his third(?) club to play it and then even when he is there we don't kick it to him.

Last draft we also spent our future first for a pick in the 20s for a kid who may fill the whole in 4 years time. Except of course we have also been playing him behind the ball.

Maybe we should try Logue forward because he specifically came to us because we said we would keep him behind the ball.

2 talls vs 3 talls Pfft.

We have 1 tall and a makeshift forward everything else. If we had 2 competent AFL key forwards who our midfield and half forwards actually fed the ball to we may go some way to solving a half a decade long problem in lack of cohesive movement forward of centre.

If we had 3 competent tall forwards combined with 2 fleet foot smalls and a half forward line rotation where they could effective move the ball from the midfield forward it would be absolutely amazing. However where we are to where that is, is a long way.

 

[CURVE]

He doesn't do it consistently enough.

Teakle actually finished fifth for Contested Marks and second in Contested Mark per game at the club last season despite playing only 11 games. I think the fact that he was a mid-season pick up meant there was probably some "integration issues" as he learnt our gameplan and our coaches and players learnt what he can offer the team, but I thought he was a bit of find for us last year and we definitely looked better with him in the side. As for his rucking abilities, I didn't think he was too bad, he competed well and had a few good moments which suggests he could do a solid job, I think with a full preseason he could be a very good third tall option in our forward line and offer Xerri relief in the middle for 15-20 minutes a game.

I like the idea of playing three talls in the forward line, my only concern is the three best options aren't the most mobile, but I still think it's worth experimenting with early in the season.

My early season line up would be:

F: Curtis, Larkey, Zurhaar
HF: Simpkin, Darling, Teakle.

 

[shintemaster]

I'm not writing off RHJ or Konstanty. Just not sure we can play both of them.
I'm sure Teakle or Maley might get a game at some point.

I think we can play both of them (or two smalls of their type) if they're good enough. Jury is clearly out on the latter bit, just not sure one practice game tells us much either way. I don't see us rolling out both of them come round 1 at the moment either way - but I reckon we want minimum one of them so they will be really competing. FWIW reckon Konstanty has a harder edge to him which might see him win the battle in the short term.

what is this now?

3 vs 2?

we have 1 and a bunch of hope.

it is a massive problem.

luckily we drafted a bloke in 2019 to play as the second tall forward. We have just decided to play him in the back half.

We took some junker from the tigers who has never looked likely and he did his achillies and who knows if he can even jump now ( I mean I don't think he could before but I am not sure the injury will have increased that ability)

so we took a bloke as coverage for our dire KPD issue last year and we play him forward. He can't really mark and he cant take set shots and shanks the shit out of the ball. BFNAAK though.

We took a late first rounder as a KPD and we played him forward until he summarily got injured.

We took another late first rounder, this one is a basketballer who we are teaching football too. I wonder why we don't just teach the footballers more football?

then we took some raw as anything kid last mid season who plays key forward and ruck, However we seem to have been trialling him down back also.

We took a bloke to his third(?) club to play it and then even when he is there we don't kick it to him.

Last draft we also spent our future first for a pick in the 20s for a kid who may fill the whole in 4 years time. Except of course we have also been playing him behind the ball.

Maybe we should try Logue forward because he specifically came to us because we said we would keep him behind the ball.

2 talls vs 3 talls Pfft.

We have 1 tall and a makeshift forward everything else. If we had 2 competent AFL key forwards who our midfield and half forwards actually fed the ball to we may go some way to solving a half a decade long problem in lack of cohesive movement forward of centre.

If we had 3 competent tall forwards combined with 2 fleet foot smalls and a half forward line rotation where they could effective move the ball from the midfield forward it would be absolutely amazing. However where we are to where that is, is a long way.

Now we know how you got your nickname. Fair post BTW, bold absolutely so.

Teakle actually finished fifth for Contested Marks and second in Contested Mark per game at the club last season despite playing only 11 games. I think the fact that he was a mid-season pick up meant there was probably some "integration issues" as he learnt our gameplan and our coaches and players learnt what he can offer the team, but I thought he was a bit of find for us last year and we definitely look better with him in the side. As for his rucking abilities, I didn't think he was too bad, he competed well and had a few good moments which suggests he could do a solid job, I think with a full preseason he could be a very good third tall option in our forward line and offer Xerri relief in the middle for 15-20 minutes a game.

I like the idea of playing three talls in the forward line, my only concern is the three best options aren't the most mobile, but I still think it's worth experimenting with early in the season.

My early season line up would be:

F: Curtis, Larkey, Zurhaar
HF: Simpkin, Darling, Teakle.

I agree with everything you've written except IMO that forward line has way too little forward pressure unless Zurhaar has an abrupt about face and Curtis / Simpkin are told to reign in their natural tendencies to specifically play defensive forward. Agree on having another proper tall. I still think sooner rather than later we need one genuine, fast defensively minded small in and I suspect the club feels the same. If I was to bet I'd bet on one of RHJ or Konstanty being in frame for Rd 1.

 

[CURVE]

I agree with everything you've written except IMO that forward line has way too little forward pressure unless Zurhaar has an abrupt about face and Curtis / Simpkin are told to reign in their natural tendencies to specifically play defensive forward. Agree on having another proper tall. I still think sooner rather than later we need one genuine, fast defensively minded small in and I suspect the club feels the same. If I was to bet I'd bet on one of RHJ or Konstanty being in frame for Rd 1.

I actually had Konstanty in my line up originally for the same reason, a lack of defensive pressure, but I feel with the number of midfielders we are expected to play, we could potentially see players like Simpkin, Parker, Phillips and Sheezel spending time at half forward and therefore we may sacrifice a defensive forward. I still think Konstanty or RHJ may play a part during the season, but in the early rounds we may try rotating midfielders through half forward to play a semi-defensive role. Hopefully we will get a better idea of which way the coaches are thinking this weekend.

 

[The Nostradamus]

Teakle actually finished fifth for Contested Marks and second in Contested Mark per game at the club last season despite playing only 11 games. I think the fact that he was a mid-season pick up meant there was probably some "integration issues" as he learnt our gameplan and our coaches and players learnt what he can offer the team, but I thought he was a bit of find for us last year and we definitely looked better with him in the side. As for his rucking abilities, I didn't think he was too bad, he competed well and had a few good moments which suggests he could do a solid job, I think with a full preseason he could be a very good third tall option in our forward line and offer Xerri relief in the middle for 15-20 minutes a game.

I like the idea of playing three talls in the forward line, my only concern is the three best options aren't the most mobile, but I still think it's worth experimenting with early in the season.

My early season line up would be:

F: Curtis, Larkey, Zurhaar
HF: Simpkin, Darling, Teakle.

This is my ideal set up also with konstanty as the seventh forward, likely teakle starts on the bench and interchangeable with him in that scenario

 

[shintemaster]

I actually had Konstanty in my line up originally for the same reason, a lack of defensive pressure, but I feel with the number of midfielders we are expected to play, we could potentially see players like Simpkin, Parker, Phillips and Sheezel spending time at half forward and therefore we may sacrifice a defensive forward. I still think Konstanty or RHJ may play a part during the season, but in the early rounds we may try rotating midfielders through half forward to play a semi-defensive role. Hopefully we will get a better idea of which way the coaches are thinking this weekend.

You may be right, but personally I think our mids have enough on their hands to worry about with winning the ball and providing spread in their primary roles - which they have struggled with over last few years. If it was a player like say Wardlaw being given that role 50/50 I've have more faith as I feel it is his natural tendency to hunt the ball and man with the ball.

 

[CURVE]

This is my ideal set up also with konstanty as the seventh forward, likely teakle starts on the bench and interchangeable with him in that scenario

Yeah, I'd be far from unhappy with that, I liked what I saw from Konstanty last weekend, and from what I have read has made a real positive impression during the preseason. He could become the second-best set of steak knives we've received from Sydney.

 

[chubbspeterson]

Teakle actually finished fifth for Contested Marks and second in Contested Mark per game at the club last season despite playing only 11 games. I think the fact that he was a mid-season pick up meant there was probably some "integration issues" as he learnt our gameplan and our coaches and players learnt what he can offer the team, but I thought he was a bit of find for us last year and we definitely looked better with him in the side. As for his rucking abilities, I didn't think he was too bad, he competed well and had a few good moments which suggests he could do a solid job, I think with a full preseason he could be a very good third tall option in our forward line and offer Xerri relief in the middle for 15-20 minutes a game.

I like the idea of playing three talls in the forward line, my only concern is the three best options aren't the most mobile, but I still think it's worth experimenting with early in the season.

My early season line up would be:

F: Curtis, Larkey, Zurhaar
HF: Simpkin, Darling, Teakle.

Being a club leader doesn't mean that much when you are below average for marks compared to the league.
We are a poor contested marking team generally. He had some good games and some quiet games.
It says something to me that Maley was picked ahead of him after a full preseason.
Anyway, I'm sure Teakle will get some games, but he's nothing more than a stop gap.

 

[The Nostradamus]

Yeah, I'd be far from unhappy with that, I liked what I saw from Konstanty last weekend, and from what I have read has made a real positive impression during the preseason. He could become the second-best set of steak knives we've received from Sydney.

Should get a good look tomorrow at that preferred structure with teakle back to play the second ruck third tall role

I’m glad we don’t have to see larkey or darling rucking in the centre

Konstanty hopefully can kick a few goals also to compliment has tackling game

 

[The Nostradamus]

Seems we are going to go in small

should not be having darling second ruck

Wonder how many rounds til they figure that out and bring in a third tall

 

[shintemaster]

Seems we are going to go in small

should not be having darling second ruck

Wonder how many rounds til they figure that out and bring in a third tall

It's apparent we don't rate any of our 3rd tall options. I don't think another will get a look in unless injury or close to winless 8 games in.

 

[The Nostradamus]

It's apparent we don't rate any of our 3rd tall options. I don't think another will get a look in unless injury or close to winless 8 games in.

We looked much better last year when we did with teakle third tall then when we went smaller without him

Let’s hope it takes a lot less than half a year this time to figure out that position makes us better structured

 

[Sticksphat]

After yesterday I think they will start the year going with 1 ruck and two KPFs with Darling covering X in the ruck for a few minutes each quarter.

I think there is a role for another genuine third tall forward who can also cover a few minutes a quarter in the ruck. In this case i think Maley is more suited as he is more competitive in the air and on the ground than Teaks. Teaks to me is more an undersized ruck than a true forward.

Its the combinations that will matter. Larkey and Darling and one of Teakle or Finbar is much of a muchness, but at stages there will only be Larkey OR Darling and one of Finbar or Teakle and I'd be more comfortable with Finbar.

 

[The Nostradamus]

After yesterday I think they will start the year going with 1 ruck and two KPFs with Darling covering X in the ruck for a few minutes each quarter.

I think there is a role for another genuine third tall forward who can also cover a few minutes a quarter in the ruck. In this case i think Maley is more suited as he is more competitive in the air and on the ground than Teaks. Teaks to me is more an undersized ruck than a true forward.

Its the combinations that will matter. Larkey and Darling and one of Teakle or Finbar is much of a muchness, but at stages there will only be Larkey OR Darling and one of Finbar or Teakle and I'd be more comfortable with Finbar.

I see darling replacing pink last year

When we had teakle, pink and larkey

Teakle could easily play the same role he played last year in this team with darling and larkey playing as true KPF targets

And Finnbar could play that role too tbf

By not playing him we revert to a smaller structure that hasn’t worked as well for us and means we have less marking targets to kick to

 

[Sticksphat]

I see darling replacing pink last year

When we had teakle, pink and larkey

Teakle could easily play the same role he played last year in this team with darling and larkey playing as true KPF targets

And Finnbar could play that role too tbf

By not playing him we revert to a smaller structure that hasn’t worked as well for us and means we have less marking targets to kick to

I know what you are saying, but in defense of the coaches Darling as the second KPF is a significant upgrade on what we started with last year, and that has to be considered. Last year we tried to patch one almighty hole in our front half with two bit players (Pink and Teakle) and had to provide cover for X, which neither Pink nor Larkey could to any great extent.

I think if we did want to use three, (and I'm not against it in some games) then for team balance the third would need to be spending a significant amount of time up forward, covering when larks/Darling or even CZ have a rest, as well as a few minutes in the ruck each quarter. I think this tips it in favour of a forward who can ruck a bit (Finbar and eventually Goad?), rather then a ruck who can play a bit forward (Teakle or CCJ).

 

[The Nostradamus]

And furthermore darlings elite pressure allows us to play that third tall/second ruck KPP

Darling has always been that third tall for the eagles

 

[The Nostradamus]

To further illustrate clubs preference to the 3 tall structure

Freo have Darcy out injured, have a perfectly capable second ruck in Jackson so technically could go smaller

But no they bring in a rookie Liam reidy to first ruck so they maintain jackson as second ruck/third tall next to amiss and Treacy up forward

Giving them constant marking targets so May and lever and petty can’t double team

 

[shimaburnsgrieg]

And furthermore darlings elite pressure allows us to play that third tall/second ruck KPP

Darling has always been that third tall for the eagles

If 2 of the 3 tall forwards were Comben and Darling then our forward pressure would actually increase as would our marking ability.