Can you play Strats, Schoey, Gibson & Gilham in the same backline?

[lethalselbow]

Is there room for these Stratton, Schoenmakers, Gibson & Gilham in the same back line??

Stratton 189cm
Schoenmakers 193cm
Gibson 189cm
Gilham 192cm
&
Birchall 193cm

Just wondering whether people think the backline is too tall, but no one individually tall enough? Playing Stratton, Schoemakers, Gibson & Gilham at the same time looks a bit of overkill. None can handle a monster on their own, but all 4 are kind of too similar. I thought 3 of the 4 would be ideal with the other 3 positions made up Birchall, Burgoyne* & Murphy/Cheney/Ellis/?

With this oversized set up the ball is not going to go our way when it hits the deck.



* Though high time this guy stepped up and jumped in the midfield.

 

[NICE1]

Not one key defender amongst the names you mentioned and the one key defender we do have doesnt get a run.

Another point is apart from probably guerra/gibbo not one of them knows how to play one on footy or is effective at winning the contest one on one. this has all been driven by clarkos genius gameplans over the years, which has taught them to play a soft zoning style of football.

 

[Sleutheren]

we have too many ball watchers.

not just in defence either.

 

[Sleutheren]

well, except when the ball's being delivered into a defensive 50 by the opposition. Then we don't have any ball watchers except Gibson.

They all play the man, even when the ball is in the air. Once it's in the air, it's only going one place. They should be able assess that to win it, they need to go the ball.

 

[satan1]

Not one key defender amongst the names you mentioned and the one key defender we do have doesnt get a run.

Who is our key defender who doesn't get a run?

 

[savagelunchbox]

Defence isn't the problem at the moment.

 

[lethalselbow]

Defence isn't the problem at the moment.

Ya reckon??

Jeez. if defence is our strong point, we a royally screwed.

 

[sohsam]

Is there room for these Stratton, Schoenmakers, Gibson & Gilham in the same back line??

Stratton 189cm
Schoenmakers 193cm
Gibson 189cm
Gilham 192cm
&
Birchall 193cm

Just wondering whether people think the backline is too tall, but no one individually tall enough? Playing Stratton, Schoemakers, Gibson & Gilham at the same time looks a bit of overkill. None can handle a monster on their own, but all 4 are kind of too similar. I thought 3 of the 4 would be ideal with the other 3 positions made up Birchall, Burgoyne* & Murphy/Cheney/Ellis/?

With this oversized set up the ball is not going to go our way when it hits the deck.


Yes, probably only play two of Stratton/Gilham/Shoe. Whoever can do a better job at FB, CHB and have Gibson coming over the top for a spoil if need be and have an extra runner.

 

[Pessimistic]

Maxwell 193
Obrien 188

 

[Rocket72]

I don't think it is about height so much as reliability one-on-one. Half of the guys you mention have to work on that side of their game, which is not ideal in defence!

 

[Easy Slips Catch]

Maxwell 193
Obrien 188

Good point. Maxwell and Obrien support their FB and CHB. That is their strength. When either get isolated they are in strife.

The problem is we have four defenders who cannot beat an opponent one on one. They are all reasonable support players. Nothing wrong with any of them. Just as a group it does not work.

 

[SNAITHY]

For me Shoe is miles away from being a leauge KPD. Either play him up the ground or not at all. Why we couldn't atleast TRY him as a forward is beyond me.
I'm not bagging the guy and realise his tender age but personally i reckon he's a liability at the moment.
I'd play the other three and either drop Shoe or play him up forward. Clarko has our forwards playing in the back line why not the other way round? Worked alright for Alistair Lynch.
Can't believe Birch and Shoe are the same height....

 

[nickrebellious]

Maxwell 193
Obrien 188

Yes, but Brown & Reid are 195cm

 

[onthemoney]

I will make the tough call and say that I don't know the answer to this question at all yet.

I still think that Schoemakers is a forward, but trading for Gunston seems to have put that thought to bed (then again, he can't get a game at the moment!)

I think it needs to be taken as a weekly proposition, in that we go tall when needed, or drop in another smaller guy when that is what's called for. The issue I do see though, is that at present, a guy like Schoemakers isn't afforded the opportunity up forward, and no one else back there really seems to be flexible enough to switch roles, so who of them does go somewhere else if we need to go smaller?

The idea of Strats up the ground is being thrown around a bit lately. Any merit in him on a HFF from time to time?

 

[nickrebellious]

We also have Boumann who is at 196cm.

 

[Pessimistic]

Each one of the four/five players can run 10m and roost it 50 or 60 pretty much to a target. I have seen tham do it

I dont get how we have to have just one or two designated rebounders and the others constrained from that.

Perhaps we need to release the shackles a bit


I also reclon shoe, stratts and Gibbo have a bit of toe as well and could hold down a wing for periods, should shorter options be needed down back

Also the guys have had precious little time to play together and build up rapport - lets see how they look in a months time

 

[Easy Slips Catch]

It always amazes me the soft ride given to Stratts and Gilly. They never pick up the main forwards. They never get asked to do big jobs.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

If you look at Clarkson's preferred back six as: Schoey, Stratts, Gibbo, Birch, Goo and Gilham, at present we have:
- 6 guys that use the ball pretty well
- 6 guys that tackle pretty well
- 1 guy that runs the lines pretty well
- 1 guy that can consistently beat his opponent when the ball is in the air
- 0 guys that can take contested marks against key forwards
- 0 guys that are quality key defenders.

Having put all his eggs in the 'top quality big/strong key defenders aren't required any more' basket, Clarkson seems to have finally realised what the world knew 2 -3 years ago; they are.

Now he seems to lack the confidence in his designated CHB/FB and is trying to compensate by adding more height down back around them in the hope that he can at least break-even with a successful third-man-up strategy. Guess what, the opposition then has more crumbers waiting ready to kick goals. Who knew?!!!

The domino effect is that he is also now creating another problem down back. We lack pace, endurance and guys that can rotate into the midfield.

To the OP, playing those four down back is not sustainable.

Clarkson's stubborn approach which started off as his greatest strength, has now become his greatest weakness. I have lost faith him. He'd be better at a club like Melbourne.

 

[themarkedman72]

we where too tall and too slow on the weekend in defence.

I actually think boumann at 196cm should be given a chance.

Gibson and Birchall are the tall runners and Goo is great.

That for me leaves Gilham as the the second key tall and another runner with great ball use as the last player. Like Hodge or burgoyne. Either way has to be a super good ball user.

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

I think it's got to be horses for courses. If we come up against a side that has several mid sized/tall forward, then play our 4 talls, if we play a side like Richmond that are going to have mainly two talls, 1 mid-sized a few smaller types, then look at dropping a Gilham/Schoey whoever, and bring in Poppy/Cheney etc to take the respective forwards. Fact is, we have to be able to change, and not be so rigid

 

[J0NNY B]

Clarkson's stubborn approach which started off as his greatest strength, has now become his greatest weakness. I have lost faith him. He'd be better at a club like Melbourne.

Clarko dodged a bullet not going to Melbourne.

 

[satan1]

Boumann whilst taller is still just another of our "hybrid defenders". He may one day fill the CHB role but he is no closer than Schoenmakers at the moment, he is just new and shiney.

We have to make do with what we have, drop a tall and hope for the best.

 

[jd1991]

This year I have seen (and also occassionally last year) that Shoe actually does take contested marks against the opposition.
Shoe is still developing his core strength to hold his spot - Gilham should/is at his core strength max now. If Gilham was to increase that he would prob lose some agility/stamina. Shoe is still building.

 

[Brishawk]

For those suggestion Bouman, he is unavailable as he recently had is appendix out.

Nothing wrong with the structure we play in terms of number of tall players however what we miss that Pies and Cats have done with similar structures is to position a very quick player behind the ball to run it out on the counter attack. Think Wojinski and Varoce for the cats and Davis last year for the pies. Evan Yarran for the blues.

If we can get Rioli or Poupolo back there and free we can launch attacks from the back.

 

[Mighty P]

For those suggestion Bouman, he is unavailable as he recently had is appendix out.

Nothing wrong with the structure we play in terms of number of tall players however what we miss that Pies and Cats have done with similar structures is to position a very quick player behind the ball to run it out on the counter attack. Think Wojinski and Varoce for the cats and Davis last year for the pies. Evan Yarran for the blues.

If we can get Rioli or Poupolo back there and free we can launch attacks from the back.

I like this idea, especially would love to see Cyril get a full game in the half back; I reckon he would be worth a try, and could well use his pace and fierce tackling across half back and in defensive 50. It worked for Yarran, why not for Cyril? Certainly worth a go, who knows, it might be the best thing to happen to the kid and the team.