Changes vs The Crows

[Proffessor]

In the first game of the season against Richmond we essentially played 3 full forwards in Stringer, Boyd and Redpath.
The structure didn't work very well.

Even though Cordy didn't get a lot of the ball, the structure in game two worked better with a roaming forward/second ruckman instead of the 3rd full forward.

If we want a roaming tall forward/second ruckman type to help our structure, then the two players on our list that seem most suited to play the role are Cordy and Roughead. Unfortunately Roughead seems to have been typecast as a defender, and with the injury to Morris that is unlikely to change in the near future.

So even though he hasn't had a great start, I think it is worth persevering with Cordy because if he gains some form and confidence there would appear to be more upside to the team than there would be by promoting other players who require the structure to be re-adjusted around them. If he gains some confidence and starts making more of an impact then the forward and ruck team structures could settle nicely. Of course this is easier said than done, but I think there is still some hope.

By the way, I'm not sure why there has been so much focus on Cordy after the loss, we didn't lose the game against the Hawks in our forward line.

 

[yebiga]

Can't big footy somehow restrict the Cordy family from turning the board into a complate farce.
We have NEVER EVER NEVER EVER in 40 YEARS given so much to one player and recieved so little in return.
He has never ever shown anything, he cannot ruck, cannot mark, cannot run

I have bitten my lip for 3 years now but enough is enough.
I don't care if he is replaced by Campbell, Redpath, Roberts, Pearce or Caleb Daniel - anyone else on our list is a better option.

how Anyone could retain the smallest hope that he can make it at AFL level is beyond me.
We regularly savage players who make a mistake or two in a game. But this defense of Cordy is deranged. And it is not doing him any favours either.

 

[Some Idiot]

In the first game of the season against Richmond we essentially played 3 full forwards in Stringer, Boyd and Redpath.
The structure didn't work very well.

Even though Cordy didn't get a lot of the ball, the structure in game two worked better with a roaming forward/second ruckman instead of the 3rd full forward.

If we want a roaming tall forward/second ruckman type to help our structure, then the two players on our list that seem most suited to play the role are Cordy and Roughead. Unfortunately Roughead seems to have been typecast as a defender, and with the injury to Morris that is unlikely to change in the near future.

So even though he hasn't had a great start, I think it is worth persevering with Cordy because if he gains some form and confidence there would appear to be more upside to the team than there would be by promoting other players who require the structure to be re-adjusted around them. If he gains some confidence and starts making more of an impact then the forward and ruck team structures could settle nicely. Of course this is easier said than done, but I think there is still some hope.

By the way, I'm not sure why there has been so much focus on Cordy after the loss, we didn't lose the game against the Hawks in our forward line.

To be fair, Cordy spent time in the ruck, and also in the back line after Morris went down. Still couldn't get his hands on it, except a few hitouts and spoils.

 

[yebiga]

In the first game of the season against Richmond we essentially played 3 full forwards in Stringer, Boyd and Redpath.
The structure didn't work very well.

Even though Cordy didn't get a lot of the ball, the structure in game two worked better with a roaming forward/second ruckman instead of the 3rd full forward.

If we want a roaming tall forward/second ruckman type to help our structure, then the two players on our list that seem most suited to play the role are Cordy and Roughead. Unfortunately Roughead seems to have been typecast as a defender, and with the injury to Morris that is unlikely to change in the near future.

So even though he hasn't had a great start, I think it is worth persevering with Cordy because if he gains some form and confidence there would appear to be more upside to the team than there would be by promoting other players who require the structure to be re-adjusted around them. If he gains some confidence and starts making more of an impact then the forward and ruck team structures could settle nicely. Of course this is easier said than done, but I think there is still some hope.

By the way, I'm not sure why there has been so much focus on Cordy after the loss, we didn't lose the game against the Hawks in our forward line.

Because for 7 years we have retained him on the list and he has had less influence on the field then you.

 

[Mutt]

In the first game of the season against Richmond we essentially played 3 full forwards in Stringer, Boyd and Redpath.
The structure didn't work very well.

Even though Cordy didn't get a lot of the ball, the structure in game two worked better with a roaming forward/second ruckman instead of the 3rd full forward.

If we want a roaming tall forward/second ruckman type to help our structure, then the two players on our list that seem most suited to play the role are Cordy and Roughead. Unfortunately Roughead seems to have been typecast as a defender, and with the injury to Morris that is unlikely to change in the near future.

So even though he hasn't had a great start, I think it is worth persevering with Cordy because if he gains some form and confidence there would appear to be more upside to the team than there would be by promoting other players who require the structure to be re-adjusted around them. If he gains some confidence and starts making more of an impact then the forward and ruck team structures could settle nicely. Of course this is easier said than done, but I think there is still some hope.

By the way, I'm not sure why there has been so much focus on Cordy after the loss, we didn't lose the game against the Hawks in our forward line.

Despite Cordy's very poor performances these past two games I understand why we might persevere with Ayce for a few more weeks. I'm not sure that Redpath was any worse than Cordy, but structurally Cordy makes more sense given that neither he nor Redpath are setting the world on fire.

The alternative might be to play a smaller, mobile CHF with Boyd at Full Forward giving Minson a chop-out in the ruck. Perhaps Fletcher will be given next crack at CHF if Ayce fails, or perhaps it might be Hamling? Buggered if I know what the coach has in mind.

 

[The19thMan]

I'm noticing a lot of talk about Ayce Cordy and your forward setup. For your information our defender situation at the moment is:

Talia & Hartigan as key defenders.

Jake Kelly as a medium sizer.

Laird (bit of everything, might get Dahlhaus I think), Brown (lockdown) & Jaensch (distributor) as our small defenders.

Henderson or Mackay as our loose man in defence.

Brodie Smith plays on the wing now, do you think you guys will tag him? I'd love to see Smith and Macrae go head to head.

Also leave Tom Campbell out, please and thankyou

 

[farstrider]

Hamling for Morris
Redpath for Cordy (wouldn't mind seeing Roberts either, but probably needs a run up forward in the VFL first)
Hunter for Goodes (as sub)
Boyd for Stevens
Bontempelli for Wallis
McLean for Honeychurch

First three are dropped, last three are injuries, with Honeychurch out only if he needs to be.

 

[TimlinOfficial]

IN: Boyd, Bont, Wood, Hamling, Campbell

OUT: Wallis, Morris, Cordy, Goodes, Grant

The 22:

B: Hamling Roughead M Boyd

HB: Murphy Talia Wood

C: Jong Dahlhaus JJ

HF: Stringer Crameri Dickson

F: Honeychurch T Boyd Campbell

R: Minson Bont Macrae

I/C: Webb Hrovat Stevens Picken


Four changes of necessity (providing Bont, Boyd and Wood are fit) with three of our best performers so far coming straight back and Hamling needed to replace Moz. Some might say getting Cordy out is also a necessity. Stevens and Picken pretty lucky to keep their spots. Picko has to do a job on Danger, similar to Bernie Vince's last week.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

I see there being six realistic options for us to solve this dilemma. There are plenty of other, more obscure lineups, but these are the major ones. I'm going to type out three of them in the hope that the answer will become clearer to me by doing so (it's not to procrastinate on uni work I promise). I might type out the other three later; I'll see. These are in no particular order (I lie - they're in the order of which ones I could come up with snappy, awful titles for).

#1: The Inanimate Carbon Rod
This is the one where last week's structure is maintained - Minson in the ruck, Boyd up forward, with Cordy taking most of the backup ruck work. Labelled after an inanimate carbon rod as said rod would have as much direct impact on the game as Cordy.

Pros:

• Ruck work - Cordy is the tallest option in the side, meaning that at 204cm it does take a little bit of work to outpoint or outreach him. He is not a heavy accumulator of hitouts, but he does contest them relatively well. Our midfield is not as potent as it is with Minson in the ruck (no shit), but we don't lose too much defensively as Cordy is good at interfering with opposition tap work to ensure their hitouts aren't perfectly down the throat of their teammate. We don't get this edge with most other options.
• Ground coverage - whether you subscribe to the school of thought that sees Cordy as "mobile" or not, he covers a lot of ground. This means that his opponent is forced to work, and also that he's not often caught in downright awful positions. He can also run out a game well.
• Accountability - Cordy, more often than not, keeps his direct opponent relatively quiet for much of the game. While he has little impact himself he doesn't allow his man to run off him and doesn't give up separation easily.
• Support for Minson - while theoretically anybody can offer varying amounts of support for Minson, Cordy can do it for longer stints than most and is not a vital cog elsewhere. We're able to keep Minson fit for the entire game without robbing Peter to pay Paul.
• Space inside 50 - Cordy works heavily up the ground. This allows Boyd much more freedom inside 50 - he doesn't have another key position player competing for the mark, and most importantly, he doesn't have a second key defender attempting to spoil him. It also creates a greater margin for error - more space = more opportunities for other players. If we structure up appropriately the space Cordy generates can be worked into and, if done properly, end up more effective than having a secondary tall option.

Cons:

• 'Round-the-ground involvement - Cordy may as well borrow Harry Potter's invisibility cloak during games - you'd see him just as much. He doesn't get involved in play at all. Not much pressure, not many tackles, not many disposals, doesn't win contested ball, doesn't win uncontested ball, doesn't put himself in clever positions for outlets, doesn't generate overlap run, doesn't present at the ball carrier...in fact, he often runs away from the ball when the ball carrier is looking for an option. Simply put Cordy's stat sheet is often bare.
• Lack of secondary option inside 50 - Cordy doesn't present and doesn't provide a contest. If Boyd is well held and our smalls struggle to get into the game we don't really have a plan 'B' with Cordy in the side, short of playing undersized.
• Negative impacts - Cordy has a tendency to give away free kicks and have clangers - obviously not ideal.
• Pressure - the space that Cordy creates also means that it's easier for opponents to rebound and more difficult for us to pressure the forward 50. Not great for our current game plan.

#2: The Best Defence is a Good Offence
The other main option - Cordy out, Redpath in. Boyd to support Minson in the ruck. Labelled as such due to Redpath's, um...questionable defensive abilities.

Pros:

• Secondary forward option - Redpath and Boyd both draw the football and are capable of clunking them if on. It's a more potent offence as the ball movement is less predictable - and there's a greater chance of one of the two being on, than one of one.
• Versatility - Redpath and Boyd can share duties up the ground, and closer to goal. This can create an element of unpredictability and make us more difficult to defend as matchups may need to switch accordingly.
• Boyd's involvement - without doubt, Boyd is going to struggle to have an impact up forward at times this year. If the service dries up, he's having a bad day, or his opponent is cleaning him up, an opportunity in the ruck will see him get his hands on the ball a bit more and perhaps help him to work into the game.
• General play involvement - Redpath is capable of leading up to the wings and create that down-the-line marking option, or at the very least present and get us moving the ball forward. He gets involved. This can help to create a more direct avenue to goal, which creates more scoring opportunities.
• Taking advantage of the Crows' weakness (only relevant for this week) - Hartigan is fairly woeful. Redpath can at least make him accountable and take advantage of this.

Cons:

• Accountability - Redpath is about as accountable as a stray washing machine sitting at CHF. Defenders run off him easily and he more or less lets them. They impact the play, take intercept marks, set up scoring chains and affect the ability of our other forwards to take marks or win the ball otherwise. This has been a serious problem at all levels Redpath has played and has improved only minimally.
• Lack of space inside 50 - Redpath and Boyd had a few moments in the pre-season where they would get in each others' ways and thus impact the other's game.
• Risk of injury - the ruck is an incredibly physical position, and many coaches/trainers don't like throwing kids in there at AFL level as their bodies get beaten up. Let's be honest, Boyd getting a long-term injury would be awful for us - not only would it harm his development, but it would cause our structure to disintegrate and our current debate to be exacerbated (Campbell and Cordy? Redpath and Cordy? Redpath and Stringer? A handgun or a noose?). Playing Boyd in the ruck increases this risk.
• Boyd's "zone" - there will be times, as Boyd develops, that he gets into a "zone" where he's marking everything and worrying his opponent, and our structure is working well because of it. The last thing you want to do is force him into the ruck and kill off that potency forward of centre, and it's something that would likely be necessary at some stage in this scenario. He's not fit enough to push up and back constantly so, realistically, he's not going to be capable of impacting in the forward line as a ruckman.

#3: The Caleb Daniel Extravaganza
This doesn't feature Caleb Daniel - sorry to disappoint. This scenario has us playing a small forward line. It means replacing Cordy with a player from another position - a defender, small forward, whatever the position that Matt Fuller tries to play is, whatever. Just not a key forward, nor a ruckman. Stringer or Crameri will play at CHF, with Boyd at FF, supporting Minson in the ruck. When Boyd rotates into the ruck we look ultra small - Stringer, Crameri, then probably Dickson as that third option. This scenario is titled as such because Caleb Daniel is small...get it? If you got this far into my post, congratulations. I don't know how you managed it.

Pros:

• Unpredictability - more often than not, key defenders don't like playing on smaller guys who are extremely mobile and good at ground level. With this setup we can look to expose that. With no defined target, it encourages the lowering of the eyes and ensures that all defenders guard their man closely, rather than peeling off.
• Proven talent - let's be honest, neither Redpath or Cordy have proven to be reliable options at AFL level. In this scenario, we know that Boyd, Stringer and Crameri can offer something at the level.
• More options to run through the middle - without naming that second key forward we're able to rotate more players through the midfield, lessening the aerobic impact, and ensuring that we have relatively fresh players cycling through the most important part of the ground.
• Boyd's involvement - see previous scenario.
• Versatility - the possibilities are endless here...Boyd deep with support? Stringer/Crameri/Dickson one out? Pushing up and back heavily? Etc etc. So many options for us to try if others don't work.
• Pressure - nobody wants to deal with the pressure that a small forward line can apply - particularly when two of the smalls are Honeychurch and Dahlhaus, with Dickson also improving and Picken a possibility to play there.

Cons:

• Risk of injury - see previous scenario.
• Unpredictability - yes, this is both a positive and a negative as, while being unpredictable can fool defenders, being too unpredictable can fool our players and lead to poor movement, poor delivery and poor potency.
• Set shots - how do I put this...let's just say that with many of our smaller types, if we were to give them a set shot at goal and a donkey a set shot at goal, the donkey would probably get closer. This scenario means that, at times, there'll be nobody to provide a big contest for the smaller types to crumb (and the chances of Boyd creating one when down there are reduced as he'll be double teamed). As a result, we rely more heavily on the likes of Stringer, Honeychurch and Dahlhaus leading, marking and sinking those set shots and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that as yet.
• Boyd's "zone" - see previous scenario.
• Ease of interception - any small forward line relies heavily on superb skills, otherwise the opposition's taller defenders will just sit in front and intercept all day. We don't have superb skills. Bail out kicks will be swallowed up instantly.
• Double teaming - already touched on this slightly but if you play small, Boyd will be double teamed constantly. As soon as the ball is directed to him defenders will peel off their man and affect the contest. Just too easy.
• Failure to capitalise on opposition weakness (only relevant for this week) - as mentioned, Hartigan isn't a great player and can be exposed if played correctly (ie. played tall). A small forward line doesn't capitalise on this advantage.

Obviously some additional pros/cons that I haven't mentioned but that's more than enough from me. All very different scenarios with relatively unique pros/cons. All depends on how you weight the pros and cons.

 

[the conch]

OUT: Cordy, Match Committee
IN: Redpath, new Match Committee

Ye of little faith.

 

[King Bont]

Larkins said bont is out another week

 

[Dav1d]

Larkins said bont is out another week

Where did he say that? & what did he say?

 

[Doggies_13]

Where do people get the idea that Cordy presents up the ground? And that he drags his defender around? How many were at the Hawks game?
I saw a bloke left on his own outside 50 and could have got the ball if he led for it instead he held his hand in the air signalling kick it to me and the defenders who zoned off him had plenty of time to drop in front and mark or spoil and had no concern Cordy would make contact with them. A redpath or a Campbell would actually move lead and put a knee through anyone dropping in the way.
Redpath did more in a single game than Cordy has in 2. Did McGovern dominate redpath yes! But he's played 4 bloody games, Rance dominated Boyd the next week, Cordy doesn't add to our structure the argument about him giving Minson a chop out and that Boyd doesn't need to ruck is a bit lame, look at the stats and Boyd has played better when pinch hitting in the ruck it's seems to bring him into the game get the footy in his hands and his confidence up.
Saying Cordy is less a liability than Campbell or redpath or even Roberts is wrong, they all give effort unlike Cordy

 

[King Harold]

I see there being six realistic options for us to solve this dilemma. There are plenty of other, more obscure lineups, but these are the major ones. I'm going to type out three of them in the hope that the answer will become clearer to me by doing so (it's not to procrastinate on uni work I promise). I might type out the other three later; I'll see. These are in no particular order (I lie - they're in the order of which ones I could come up with snappy, awful titles for).

#1: The Inanimate Carbon Rod
This is the one where last week's structure is maintained - Minson in the ruck, Boyd up forward, with Cordy taking most of the backup ruck work. Labelled after an inanimate carbon rod as said rod would have as much direct impact on the game as Cordy.

Pros:

• Ruck work - Cordy is the tallest option in the side, meaning that at 204cm it does take a little bit of work to outpoint or outreach him. He is not a heavy accumulator of hitouts, but he does contest them relatively well. Our midfield is not as potent as it is with Minson in the ruck (no shit), but we don't lose too much defensively as Cordy is good at interfering with opposition tap work to ensure their hitouts aren't perfectly down the throat of their teammate. We don't get this edge with most other options.
• Ground coverage - whether you subscribe to the school of thought that sees Cordy as "mobile" or not, he covers a lot of ground. This means that his opponent is forced to work, and also that he's not often caught in downright awful positions. He can also run out a game well.
• Accountability - Cordy, more often than not, keeps his direct opponent relatively quiet for much of the game. While he has little impact himself he doesn't allow his man to run off him and doesn't give up separation easily.
• Support for Minson - while theoretically anybody can offer varying amounts of support for Minson, Cordy can do it for longer stints than most and is not a vital cog elsewhere. We're able to keep Minson fit for the entire game without robbing Peter to pay Paul.
• Space inside 50 - Cordy works heavily up the ground. This allows Boyd much more freedom inside 50 - he doesn't have another key position player competing for the mark, and most importantly, he doesn't have a second key defender attempting to spoil him. It also creates a greater margin for error - more space = more opportunities for other players. If we structure up appropriately the space Cordy generates can be worked into and, if done properly, end up more effective than having a secondary tall option.

Cons:

• 'Round-the-ground involvement - Cordy may as well borrow Harry Potter's invisibility cloak during games - you'd see him just as much. He doesn't get involved in play at all. Not much pressure, not many tackles, not many disposals, doesn't win contested ball, doesn't win uncontested ball, doesn't put himself in clever positions for outlets, doesn't generate overlap run, doesn't present at the ball carrier...in fact, he often runs away from the ball when the ball carrier is looking for an option. Simply put Cordy's stat sheet is often bare.
• Lack of secondary option inside 50 - Cordy doesn't present and doesn't provide a contest. If Boyd is well held and our smalls struggle to get into the game we don't really have a plan 'B' with Cordy in the side, short of playing undersized.
• Negative impacts - Cordy has a tendency to give away free kicks and have clangers - obviously not ideal.
• Pressure - the space that Cordy creates also means that it's easier for opponents to rebound and more difficult for us to pressure the forward 50. Not great for our current game plan.

#2: The Best Defence is a Good Offence
The other main option - Cordy out, Redpath in. Boyd to support Minson in the ruck. Labelled as such due to Redpath's, um...questionable defensive abilities.

Pros:

• Secondary forward option - Redpath and Boyd both draw the football and are capable of clunking them if on. It's a more potent offence as the ball movement is less predictable - and there's a greater chance of one of the two being on, than one of one.
• Versatility - Redpath and Boyd can share duties up the ground, and closer to goal. This can create an element of unpredictability and make us more difficult to defend as matchups may need to switch accordingly.
• Boyd's involvement - without doubt, Boyd is going to struggle to have an impact up forward at times this year. If the service dries up, he's having a bad day, or his opponent is cleaning him up, an opportunity in the ruck will see him get his hands on the ball a bit more and perhaps help him to work into the game.
• General play involvement - Redpath is capable of leading up to the wings and create that down-the-line marking option, or at the very least present and get us moving the ball forward. He gets involved. This can help to create a more direct avenue to goal, which creates more scoring opportunities.
• Taking advantage of the Crows' weakness (only relevant for this week) - Hartigan is fairly woeful. Redpath can at least make him accountable and take advantage of this.

Cons:

• Accountability - Redpath is about as accountable as a stray washing machine sitting at CHF. Defenders run off him easily and he more or less lets them. They impact the play, take intercept marks, set up scoring chains and affect the ability of our other forwards to take marks or win the ball otherwise. This has been a serious problem at all levels Redpath has played and has improved only minimally.
• Lack of space inside 50 - Redpath and Boyd had a few moments in the pre-season where they would get in each others' ways and thus impact the other's game.
• Risk of injury - the ruck is an incredibly physical position, and many coaches/trainers don't like throwing kids in there at AFL level as their bodies get beaten up. Let's be honest, Boyd getting a long-term injury would be awful for us - not only would it harm his development, but it would cause our structure to disintegrate and our current debate to be exacerbated (Campbell and Cordy? Redpath and Cordy? Redpath and Stringer? A handgun or a noose?). Playing Boyd in the ruck increases this risk.
• Boyd's "zone" - there will be times, as Boyd develops, that he gets into a "zone" where he's marking everything and worrying his opponent, and our structure is working well because of it. The last thing you want to do is force him into the ruck and kill off that potency forward of centre, and it's something that would likely be necessary at some stage in this scenario. He's not fit enough to push up and back constantly so, realistically, he's not going to be capable of impacting in the forward line as a ruckman.

#3: The Caleb Daniel Extravaganza
This doesn't feature Caleb Daniel - sorry to disappoint. This scenario has us playing a small forward line. It means replacing Cordy with a player from another position - a defender, small forward, whatever the position that Matt Fuller tries to play is, whatever. Just not a key forward, nor a ruckman. Stringer or Crameri will play at CHF, with Boyd at FF, supporting Minson in the ruck. When Boyd rotates into the ruck we look ultra small - Stringer, Crameri, then probably Dickson as that third option. This scenario is titled as such because Caleb Daniel is small...get it? If you got this far into my post, congratulations. I don't know how you managed it.

Pros:

• Unpredictability - more often than not, key defenders don't like playing on smaller guys who are extremely mobile and good at ground level. With this setup we can look to expose that. With no defined target, it encourages the lowering of the eyes and ensures that all defenders guard their man closely, rather than peeling off.
• Proven talent - let's be honest, neither Redpath or Cordy have proven to be reliable options at AFL level. In this scenario, we know that Boyd, Stringer and Crameri can offer something at the level.
• More options to run through the middle - without naming that second key forward we're able to rotate more players through the midfield, lessening the aerobic impact, and ensuring that we have relatively fresh players cycling through the most important part of the ground.
• Boyd's involvement - see previous scenario.
• Versatility - the possibilities are endless here...Boyd deep with support? Stringer/Crameri/Dickson one out? Pushing up and back heavily? Etc etc. So many options for us to try if others don't work.
• Pressure - nobody wants to deal with the pressure that a small forward line can apply - particularly when two of the smalls are Honeychurch and Dahlhaus, with Dickson also improving and Picken a possibility to play there.

Cons:

• Risk of injury - see previous scenario.
• Unpredictability - yes, this is both a positive and a negative as, while being unpredictable can fool defenders, being too unpredictable can fool our players and lead to poor movement, poor delivery and poor potency.
• Set shots - how do I put this...let's just say that with many of our smaller types, if we were to give them a set shot at goal and a donkey a set shot at goal, the donkey would probably get closer. This scenario means that, at times, there'll be nobody to provide a big contest for the smaller types to crumb (and the chances of Boyd creating one when down there are reduced as he'll be double teamed). As a result, we rely more heavily on the likes of Stringer, Honeychurch and Dahlhaus leading, marking and sinking those set shots and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that as yet.
• Boyd's "zone" - see previous scenario.
• Ease of interception - any small forward line relies heavily on superb skills, otherwise the opposition's taller defenders will just sit in front and intercept all day. We don't have superb skills. Bail out kicks will be swallowed up instantly.
• Double teaming - already touched on this slightly but if you play small, Boyd will be double teamed constantly. As soon as the ball is directed to him defenders will peel off their man and affect the contest. Just too easy.
• Failure to capitalise on opposition weakness (only relevant for this week) - as mentioned, Hartigan isn't a great player and can be exposed if played correctly (ie. played tall). A small forward line doesn't capitalise on this advantage.

Obviously some additional pros/cons that I haven't mentioned but that's more than enough from me. All very different scenarios with relatively unique pros/cons. All depends on how you weight the pros and cons.

Dannnnnnn , you don't write Risk assessment reports or Quality Control manuals by any chance ?

 

[King Harold]

The Cordy debate is ridiculous. For those defending his out put based on so called "structure" is laughable.
You need to come to the painful conclusion that I have , that he is way out of his depth and we are effectively playing one short.
I feel sorry for a guy like him that was a first round pick , and clearly not his fault , but the focus is always going to come when you are just treading water after 7 years.
Surely cannot be picked this week under any circumstance !

 

[Mutt]

Having slept on this ruck/chf selection dilemma, I'm thinking:

1. Boyd plays the second ruck role passably well and it certainly gets him involved in the game. I think that Boyd seems to be gaining confidence by occasionally playing further up the ground and getting touches that don't involve competing with gorillas for the high ball. The coach has said he likes to give Boyd a run in the ruck every now and then and I see why. Injury whilst rucking is a worry...but then so is constantly standing under the high ball and having packs crashed around you ten times a game.

2. On the weekend Minson was more dangerous up forward than I had given him credit for - not great - but still someone who demands a tall defender match-up and who can also compete for the ball at ground level. If Minson as the resting ruckman can be a bit of a threat and hopefully even kick a goal a game, then Boyd as relief ruck and Minson up forward might be viable. A 75/25% mix perhaps. Under this setup, Tom Campbell would also be a closer straight swap for Minson playing the same role if Minson misses due to injury, suspension or bad soy products.

3. The above then gives us the option of trialing any setup we want for the second key forward post. Redpath, Fletcher, Hamling or combo of mid-sized forwards rotating through there - all options can be trialed and players selected on form and not just structure.

This is probably not the way that Beveridge is thinking given that he was so quick to drop Redpath and give Cordy game time despite his bereft stats sheet. However, if I was selecting the side this week and into the future I'd go with Minson (and if needed Campbell) as #1 ruck resting mostly up forward with Boyd and sometimes Roughead or the CHF providing #2 ruck duties. CHF would be a mobile hit-up forward who didn't necessarily compete with Boyd for the high ball but cleared space for him whilst providing a second avenue to goal.

 

[hippyhippy]

Hey doggies fans.. i don't think you guys want to play small forward line because that's where crows excel. I think our weakness is if you can stretch out defence by playing talls if you have the personnel.

 

[Doggies_13]

Hey doggies fans.. i don't think you guys want to play small forward line because that's where crows excel. I think our weakness is if you can stretch out defence by playing talls if you have the personnel.

Can't see us going small against you guys think we will go with 2 talls 2 medium talls and 2 smalls, just who the second tall is, is the question and as you can see there is quite a big s**t fight over which 2nd tall to play.

Who do you see matching up on Crameri and stringer if we play another tall beside Boyd

 

[Igloo]

I'd like Campbell to play out of the three options. Cordy failed, twice, so he has to go out. I'd give Campbell more of a chance of beating a guy like Hartigan, who is only 194cm, than Redpath.

In all three games this year, our deeper entries have looked a lot more dangerous than shallow ones. If I had the heat maps or maps of where goals come from, i'm sure they would support that statement, but I don't know where to find them . But I feel it's pretty obvious just watching the games.
Campbell plays deep well. The other two have been given a shot and done nothing with it, let BTC take his.

The only big worry would be Boyd and Campbell getting in each others way.

Plus he's the only one out of the three I feel confident in in the long run, and if he doesn't start getting games, other clubs are going to come and get in his ear. He's an ideal proposition for another club to target.

 

[House_of_Dahl]

As long as Boyd and Bonts are back I think we can cover the outs OK this week.

MBoyd to play Wallis' role
Hamling in for Morris
Bonts in for Stevens

If Wood is back he can replace Goodes or Webb.

Happy enough to see Fletch, Campbell or Redpath given a run over Cordy, but not too fussed if they want to give Cordy a few more games.

 

[boydsno1]

Clay Smith was awesome on the weekend. Someone mentioned calf injuries to players over 30 can sometimes be longer then the avg 1 weeker makes me think if Boyd misses out and now with Wallis out that we may rush Smith back. I have no doubt we would have wanted him to play atleast 1 more game in the VFL but he could be needed.

Cordy is an interesting one. When he went down back he played ok. Didn't get the ball but made some good spoils. With Morris out and Adelaides 3 talls he could be an option down there. Still i would rather see Big Red come back in and i think Hamling will get the gig. Like the look of him.

If the Honey badger is out i would bring in Hunter.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Dannnnnnn , you don't write Risk assessment reports or Quality Control manuals by any chance ?

Funny - a risk assessment report is what I was putting off doing by writing that post!

 

[King Harold]

Funny - a risk assessment report is what I was putting off doing by writing that post!

My God people like you should be put against a wall and shot ---- the bane of my life !

 

[TedDougChris]

After this thread, I'm investing in popcorn futures and hoping that Match Committee keep Cordy in on Thursday, or even name him at FF. This place is going to go off like Draft night last year.....

 

[doggies ftw]

That's a fair enough point.

But people are also not giving Ayce enough credit for half-decent tapwork in which he allows Minson to be somewhere near his AA form again - something that nobody else on our list could provide.

Something that nobody could provide? I get you don't want Campbell in the side but this quite is just plain wrong as he can definitely provide half decent tap work.

Campbell has also kicked 4 goals in a game so he can't be that useless forward. Going off memory only he seems to kick at least a goal every time he plays.

I'd even be okay with Boyd playing mostly CHF while Campbell's at FF and when he goes into the ruck Boyd goes deep. That way we always have a very tall option at FF who can clunk a few marks and bring the ball to ground and we have a very good lead up CHF providing an option in Boyd.

I'd rather play ****ing Caleb Daniel in the second ruck/forward position over Cordy. I'm not usually one to write off players but gee surely no one can argue he's been anything but absolutely useless. I'm sceptical on a Boyd/Campbell forward line but I will bet anyone big money it will do better than Cordy has the last couple of weeks.

Boyds just as good in the ruck as Cordy is anyway IMO. Like Bev has said a number of times, he's a good tap Ruckman, why not utilise that.