Analysis Can Grundy and Cox co-exist in the same 22?

[Cyclops]

?..I like the balance that's struck having Grundy and Cox, especially as they get better as players.

But as I alluded to earlier, I don't think it works against the smaller, quicker sides.

Hard to argue with this.

If we can build a dominant midfield then Cox at FF will give us a reliable third route to goal beside Elliot and Moore. Cox is a liability in the wet or windy conditions as he has poor sideways movement but he's quick enough in a straight line and his learning curve is phenomenal.

We keep him as a valuable awkward back up/ semi regular who will play 10-15 games a year and will worry sides who lack a 7 foot defender on fine days eg in September.

 

[cleomenes]

From the first game I've been hopeful that Cox would make it, and now I'm sure of it. He gets better every time, and he is very quick in the mind. His knock ons (and backs) are sublime at times. He attacks the ball hard, and he is picking up the subtleties of the game at an extraordinary rate. His positioning for marks under physical pressure gets better weekly. He kicks straight. He is fast when he gets going.
Grundy too seems better every week. His marking, a weakness early in his career, is now a strength. His ground level ability is astounding, and could be seen as a counterbalance to Cox's lack of acceleration, when we consider them as a pairing.
If Cox stays, then they have a real future in the same side. Only on very wet days might this be questioned.

 

[ash84]

Not every week, it would depend on match ups.

 

[Brent24]

I would persevere with it. I don't rate the Moore/Reid combination and would prefer to play Moore/Grundy/Cox and send Reid back where he plays his best football.
Of course I'm assuming these are our only 2 options. Ideally we can make some changes over the preseason that could throw a spanner in the works.

 

[DT_fanatic]

I reckon they can. Also think the ruck duties should be split 50/50 and not 80/20. Gives us a lot of flexibility.

Our biggest issue has been the stagnant play style that comes from either the opposition putting an extra in their defensive half - and we need to be more proactive in addressing this on game day, yep a Buckley issue - or because of not having a bail out kick often enough. The Reid and Moore combo worked to help resolve this when coming out of D50 but then Reid is less effective in terms of our I50 entries. Not much of a contested mark.

Cox's marking has noticeably improved. I've always felt our crumbing ability is terrible, our players are often out of position so even when Cox brings the ball down we rarely capitalize. Hopefully Kirby can help in that area and we generally need to focus on supplementing the Cox, Grundy, Moore types with those pressure forward type players. Elliott, Kirby and the Sack did this very well on Saturday.

Tldr I think playing both helps us significantly in terms of playing the game style that works best for us.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Saintly Viewed]

If it can work that Cox can say average 2 goals a game, why not?

Cox with Extreme height and a leap, makes him hard to handle.

 

[Chameleon75]

If it can work that Cox can say average 2 goals a game, why not?

Cox with Extreme height and a leap, makes him hard to handle.

I'm with Leigh matthews on this, 3 goals is a pass

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I'm with Leigh matthews on this, 3 goals is a pass

If Leigh said 3 goals,

I'm happy to amend my 2 to 3 goals.

Leigh knows things! Love Leigh

 

[chop_me]

Unless we want to play Grundy in the "Leigh Brown" role, it's not going to work.

Even if Cox averages 2 goals a game, his lack of presence at the ground level (and inability to exert forward pressure, being an essential part of Buckley's game plan) would allow opponents to poke holes through our midfield

 

[left at home]

If cox stays, then yes it can work. With around the same time in the ruck, but the need is for both not only being a target, but taking those marks. it will not work all the time, but it can for most of the time if done right

 

[Snoop Dog]

I would bet Lions or Hawks

 

[ant22]

Opposition sides already rebound easily from our forward line without cox. Sure it worked against a lazy and non pressuring melbourne but against sides that force you to turn the ball over it won't work. I think cox is best suited to 80% ruck 20% forward(when on the ground) I just think the way the modern game is played it would be a liability to have Cox spending so much time forward. We also know Grundy plays his best footy with alot of time in the Ruck.

 

[jackcass]

1 in how many games they've played together? 10?
In a match that really didn't matter for us....

Happy for the game to mean nothing to you but every game has meaning for me and I'm sure the vast majority of supporters.

 

[jackcass]

I'd like it to work but TBH opposition sides will soon work out how to counter this. Melbourne were caught napping because Bucks did something unexpected.
If the Grundy/Cox combo becomes our default then their lack of mobility will soon be exposed.
The other thing which worked for us was putting Goldy up forward as his defensive pressure caused heaps of issues as Maggie5 mentioned. That won't always work hence the need for a zippy small forward who can lay tackles. Maynard comes to mind.

My preference is to bring in Casboult, let Cox go (assuming he's not happy with being a 2nd ruck) and play Darcy as that 2nd forward rather than the prime target.

I'm not sure how Melbourne got caught napping. Both Grundy and Cox were named and they both can't play in the ruck at the same time, 1 of them had to play forward.

 

[Justlokan]

I'm not sure how Melbourne got caught napping. Both Grundy and Cox were named and they both can't play in the ruck at the same time, 1 of them had to play forward.

it's more a comment about Bucks being historically incapable of making moves. In the past the standard Bucks approach was Grundy in the ruck, Cox provides ruck relief while Grundy heads to the interchange.
Add to that the Maynard in the middle, Moore in defence and Goldy up forward and you can see why Melb got caught out. Heck it even surprised many supporters (even though we'd be calling for these moves)

 

[jackcass]

Grundy is a 23yo developing ruckman and Cox is a veteran of 20 games off 3 years exposure to football. I'm certainly not going to rule out further development in either but for mine for it to work as well as it did Saturday consistently then both need to improve their contested marking. Both improved a lot in this area as this season progressed so it's not as ridiculous a prospect as some suggest and certainly not something I'd rule out.

 

[jackcass]

it's more a comment about Bucks being historically incapable of making moves. In the past the standard Bucks approach was Grundy in the ruck, Cox provides ruck relief while Grundy heads to the interchange.
Add to that the Maynard in the middle, Moore in defence and Goldy up forward and you can see why Melb got caught out. Heck it even surprised many supporters (even though we'd be calling for these moves)

Yeah but I don't buy the Bucks doesn't make moves line of thinking. I think he makes plenty of moves.

 

[Lord of the Pies]

The teams confidence in Moore, Grundy and Cox as marking targets, down the line, is growing. Too many times, earlier in the year, players would kick back or sideways to a safe uncontested situation. Even against Melbourne Cox was ignored as a long option at times, despite towering over his opponent.

What I am trying to say is, it's not enough just to have them in the team, but the team needs to coached to use them, Cox especially. His performance, up forward, is entirely dependent on the team kicking the ball to him.

 

[Justlokan]

Yeah but I don't buy the Bucks doesn't make moves line of thinking. I think he makes plenty of moves.

maybe but nothing as different as Saturday's. I define "making moves" as doing something innovative during a match not the same old "move Cox into the ruck and Grundy to the interchange" stuff. He even tried Berg in the forward line. When has that sort of thing happened regularly in the past?

In Buck's early days he tried new moves like Lumumba on a wing, Goldy up forward but his magnetic board activity has had a sameness in the last few years

 

[Quicky]

maybe but nothing as different as Saturday's. I define "making moves" as doing something innovative during a match not the same old "move Cox into the ruck and Grundy to the interchange" stuff. He even tried Berg in the forward line. When has that sort of thing happened regularly in the past?

In Buck's early days he tried new moves like Lumumba on a wing, Goldy up forward but his magnetic board activity has had a sameness in the last few years

Howe and Crisp into the backline spring immediately to mind. Moore into the ruck. Thomas was at back pocket against Melbourne. Reid has gone forward. Goldsack to CHB has been a ballsy move and worked great this year. Bucks does make moves, just sometimes he's a little slow getting there. Crisp to defence should have happened 12 months earlier for example.

 

[Justlokan]

Howe and Crisp into the backline spring immediately to mind. Moore into the ruck. Thomas was at back pocket against Melbourne. Reid has gone forward. Goldsack to CHB has been a ballsy move and worked great this year. Bucks does make moves, just sometimes he's a little slow getting there. Crisp to defence should have happened 12 months earlier for example.

yes these are good moves but Bucks still doesn't do enough as a match day strategist.
I agree with the Crisp move although Goldsack has previously pinch hit as a KPD before. Reid started as a forward and Cloke's departure made it clear he was going to spend time there anyway.
And Howe came to us as a backman. True innovation would be releasing Howe onto an on-ball role, not leaving him down back where he's played before.

When I define innovation I look at Clarko and doing things like Roughead as a ruck rover, moving Gunston to the back line etc. For instance, it would've been interesting to see what Clarko would've done with a Jesse White. Throw him on a wing? Send him to CHB? Instead Bucks persisted with his 2nd forward spare ruck formula which clearly didn't suit White.

Like you said Bucks is capable of making moves - his history suggests that they aren't often innovative nor timely.

 

[Finnishpie]

It will work only if they both can learn to impact more forward. I was pleased to see Grundy's presence against the Dees. But I still think it leaves us top-heavy, which means they both HAVE to mark the ball more forward. Otherwise we'd be in trouble. (I wouldn't be too sad to see Cox traded for something else we need - a 2nd round draft pick or a player?)

 

[Finnishpie]

Howe and Crisp into the backline spring immediately to mind. Moore into the ruck. Thomas was at back pocket against Melbourne. Reid has gone forward. Goldsack to CHB has been a ballsy move and worked great this year. Bucks does make moves, just sometimes he's a little slow getting there. Crisp to defence should have happened 12 months earlier for example.

Totally agree. But it's the slowness that's been annoying.

 

[CarnMags]

I'm with Leigh matthews on this, 3 goals is a pass

If Leigh said 3 goals,
I'm happy to amend my 2 to 3 goals.
Leigh knows things! Love Leigh

With respect to Leigh - 2 goals a game equals 44 for the year.

Are you telling me if Cox kicked 44 goals in a year - he hasn't met minimum requirement to make it a win?

Remembering:

• In the last 18 years, only 9 times has our leading goal scorer kick 40+ goals in a season
• We haven't had a player kick more than 40 goals in a year since Cloke kicked 68 in 2013

 

[Chameleon75]

With respect to Leigh - 2 goals a game equals 44 for the year.

Are you telling me if Cox kicked 44 goals in a year - he hasn't met minimum requirement to make it a win?

Remembering:

• In the last 18 years, only 9 times has our leading goal scorer kick 40+ goals in a season
• We haven't had a player kick more than 40 goals in a year since Cloke kicked 68 in 2013

His rationale is that the lack of defensive pressure requires a higher output, I agree with that.