Player Watch Darcy Moore

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
DaVe86 said:
Saying that we always play 5 v 7 basically means that every other side in the comp is also playing a 5 man forward. Otherwise it would be 5 v 6.

So it's not like we are doing anything other teams aren't.

I just don't think it suits us. For a number of reasons

1. We typically use our spare around the ball or off the back of the square. This means we really don't get that much of an outnumber in defence anyway. Our midfield is good enough to go head to head, so I don't see the reason for getting more numbers around the ball

2. We haven't had a line-breaking half back like other teams. So if we allow opposition the spare men, they are likely to be more effective than us. We have guys like Howe, Scharenberg, Langdon, Dunn who are all good peel-off intercept markers...but not a lot of foot-speed.

3. We don't have a hulking Full Forward who can compete or draw the extra defenders to even up the contest at ground level. So defenders just sag off and kill the contest. If for example we get Tom Lynch, he'll draw 2 or 3 in the air, which immediately gets rid of the outnumber at ground level.


If I were coach, I'd be going a 6,6,6 structure. If opposition drop a spare back, I'd still hold the structure because I reckon 6 v 7 isn't that big an advantage anyway. Especially if we Mason Cox can start drawing some opponents. And then we still get an outnumber by 1 in defence.

I'd also be using Varcoe permanently in defence unless Sam Murray can break through. I think Varcoe and Crisp offers some good drive, while Scharenberg and Howe are good intercept marks/ball users.

Then I just back in our mids. We don't need to bolster this area of the ground because it's where all our talent lies. Surely they can win their own footy, even if the opposition are trying to outnumber around stoppages.
Click to expand...
You know it’s possible to have a 7 man defence without taking a player from the forward line, yeah? Your first two sentences are nonsense.
 
Apex36 said:
You know it’s possible to have a 7 man defence without taking a player from the forward line, yeah? Your first two sentences are nonsense.
Click to expand...

You have to take a player from somewhere to make it a 7 man defence. Majority of teams would take that from the forward line as they don't want to be outnumbered around the ball.

Regardless, point is that when we say the opposition has 7 men to our 5, it means they are also sacrificing a player somewhere.

This tactic works very well against us, and doesn't seem to work as well when we use it, for the points outlined in my post.

But thanks for quoting the whole post and picking on only the first sentence...which I assure you is far from nonsense as you describe.
 
sr36 said:
I think it's been a philosophy thing rather than a need to play one extra on or behind the ball. We've wanted a zoning defence that provides overlapping run.
Click to expand...

I disagree, think we're covering deficiencies in both defence and midfield at the expense of the forwards.

It's not a knock on those playing group, just a recognition of a variety of factors like a lack of experience in some players within the groups, and a lack of cohesion among the groups. I think the 2017 season allowed the most consistent squad week to week for a number of year where we've suffered through both injuries and the introduction of new players from other clubs. I hope the midfield in particular will be much improved in 2018 of the back of that consistency.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

jackcass said:
I disagree, think we're covering deficiencies in both defence and midfield at the expense of the forwards.

It's not a knock on those playing group, just a recognition of a variety of factors like a lack of experience in some players within the groups, and a lack of cohesion among the groups. I think the 2017 season allowed the most consistent squad week to week for a number of year where we've suffered through both injuries and the introduction of new players from other clubs. I hope the midfield in particular will be much improved in 2018 of the back of that consistency.
Click to expand...

That would be a bad decision as our forwards are our weakest group.
 
DaVe86 said:
You have to take a player from somewhere to make it a 7 man defence. Majority of teams would take that from the forward line as they don't want to be outnumbered around the ball.
Click to expand...
You’re making assumptions here based on what you’d do, not what teams actually do, but whatever.
Regardless, point is that when we say the opposition has 7 men to our 5, it means they are also sacrificing a player somewhere.
Click to expand...
Obviously, but that doesn’t neccessarily mean they’re running a 5 man forward line either.
This tactic works very well against us, and doesn't seem to work as well when we use it, for the points outlined in my post.

But thanks for quoting the whole post and picking on only the first sentence...which I assure you is far from nonsense as you describe.
Click to expand...
I’ll be honest, after reading the nonsense in the first paragraph I didn’t bother reading the rest. But now you have assured me it’s not nonsense, I’ll go back and not read it again.
 
sr36 said:
That would be a bad decision as our forwards are our weakest group.
Click to expand...

Again disagree. Elliott and Fasolo are seasoned players now. Elliott limped through 2017 but still had an impact. Reid also one of our established veterans. Add the likes of WHE, Wells, Varcoe and Sidebottom to the group and it's 1 of our strongest most experienced groupings. That's without even factoring the emerging talent of Moore and to a lesser extent the Cox, Kirby, Daicos and Brown types, or past-their-use-by-date types like Blair and Mayne or that our 2 most senior and established defenders (in our 2017 structure) in Dunn and Goldsack can also go forward.

Our breakdown in transition was more often than not a consequence of defensive and midfield group deficiencies.
 
Apex36 said:
I’ll be honest, after reading the nonsense in the first paragraph I didn’t bother reading the rest. But now you have assured me it’s not nonsense, I’ll go back and not read it again.
Click to expand...

So I am not the Only one who does that Then;)
 
I don’t care where Moore plays as long as he is playing well and continuing to improve.

If club has decided to build a long term backline around Moore and McLarty then I have no problem with that. Think it could work well.

If they choose to play him forward fine by me as well.

What is more important is the whole team structure and how they use all of Moore, Grundy, Cox, Reid, McLarty and Dunn. That is what I will judge over next year.
 
Scodog10 said:
I genuinely don’t know where Reid fits in any longer. Let’s look at what we do know assuming everyone is fit.

Cox starts best 22 (up forward for the most part), Moore, whilst having that flexibility, spends most time forward and WHE. There are also spots there for Fas and Elliott so that’s 5 of the 7 roles locked in, IMO.

Now if you’re going to allow the outnumber it means three points need to be addressed for it to be productive, IMO:

1. Ball movement needs to be fast. I’m talking Adelaide fast and without Sinner in 2017 we sucked in this area. Murray is a real obvious answer to this issue to begin the season and it’s for this reason I introduced his name earlier in the discussion. Let’s hope he delivers because alternatives are thin on the ground! Personally the decision to overlook Barry at pick 60 hurts here.

2. Efficiency going I50. Too often in 16-17 Adams or Treloar have been left with this responsibility and the results have reflected that. If we have the ball in the hands of Wells, Pendles, JDG, Maynard or Steele I70 more often this will improve.

3. You need to be zippy at ground level. Let’s say that of the 6 forwards on the field Moore is the one that’s now going to be released (in past years it was a mid). That potentially leaves WHE, Cox, Fas, Elliott and Reid as the five forwards (Stephenson, Daicos, Broomhead and Brown as the 7th). That’s not zippy enough because Reid and Cox are both non-events at ground level. Fasolo is barely above that and Elliott is average at best.

My personal opinion is along the lines of Quicky. If we can create more break even contests we’ll be able to not only generate more opportunities, but will lock the ball inside easier creating repeat opportunities. Back the midfield in to win more often than not and have them running more defensivenely to support the defensive group. If we see more of Treloar and Adams with ball in hand backward of the wing I’ll be happy. All of that means a shift to defense for Reid if he’s lucky. I get the feeling though that his days are numbered with the comments of Buckley that they’re looking to have Scharenberg step up a weight division, so to speak, but I think the team is best served with him down back in 2018.

In terms of playing key roles in attack I don’t think the club really cares and neither do I TBH. Think 2010 only Dids won our goalkicking with just 41 goals. All that’s needed is a positive contribution where everyone plays their role. Let the key playmakers come from our stronger lines in the midfield and defense.

Again it isn’t how I’d structure up, but the coaches job remains on the line contracted or otherwise and another failed season would be disastrous. This is the path he’s chosen and he WILL stick to it. That is of course until a month in when it fails and we’re behind the 8 ball again with little chance of making the finals...
Click to expand...
No way Cox starts forward over Reid
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Seedsfan said:
Everyone shits on about Richmond and Shaun Grigg was their back up ruck. Reid is a far better option up forward
Click to expand...
Nice deflection. Still has nothing to do with the fact that they aren’t going to throw Mr Glass in the ruck.
 
Seedsfan said:
Everyone shits on about Richmond and Shaun Grigg was their back up ruck. Reid is a far better option up forward
Click to expand...

Hey dogs have Jong Rucking against Saindlands:straining:
 
So what’s he worth?

It was a question posed on SEN this morning and is crucial for our long term prosperity of our list, IMO. We can’t afford to lose him, but at the same time signing him on potential could impinge on our ability to attract quality talent from outside our system.

For mine right now his “worth” on the field is roughly $400-500-600k year to year on a 3 year deal, but I don’t believe that’s a realistic outcome. On potential it’s more likely to be closer to a $450-650-850k deal and if for example you’ve got $6 million over those three years to fit both he and Lynch in it gets tough. Especially if he’s still a work in progress post 2018.

I don’t envy Guy’s position on this one and realistically it’s a deal I’d prefer we wait on
 
Scodog10 said:
So what’s he worth?

It was a question posed on SEN this morning and is crucial for our long term prosperity of our list, IMO. We can’t afford to lose him, but at the same time signing him on potential could impinge on our ability to attract quality talent from outside our system.

For mine right now his “worth” on the field is roughly $400-500-600k year to year on a 3 year deal, but I don’t believe that’s a realistic outcome. On potential it’s more likely to be closer to a $450-650-850k deal and if for example you’ve got $6 million over those three years to fit both he and Lynch in it gets tough. Especially if he’s still a work in progress post 2018.

I don’t envy Guy’s position on this one and realistically it’s a deal I’d prefer we wait on
Click to expand...

I’d also prefer a ‘wait and see’ approach, although we may not have that luxury? 2018 is a critical year for Moore. He looks stronger in the body, he’s had several pre-seasons, it really is time he showed what we all hoped he would be. I’d hate us to sign him up for three more years on ‘overs’.

As you say, a hard call for Guy. One of his first real tests in what must be one of the most difficult jobs in a footy club.
 
Scodog10 said:
So what’s he worth?

It was a question posed on SEN this morning and is crucial for our long term prosperity of our list, IMO. We can’t afford to lose him, but at the same time signing him on potential could impinge on our ability to attract quality talent from outside our system.

For mine right now his “worth” on the field is roughly $400-500-600k year to year on a 3 year deal, but I don’t believe that’s a realistic outcome. On potential it’s more likely to be closer to a $450-650-850k deal and if for example you’ve got $6 million over those three years to fit both he and Lynch in it gets tough. Especially if he’s still a work in progress post 2018.

I don’t envy Guy’s position on this one and realistically it’s a deal I’d prefer we wait on
Click to expand...

I think he'll look at a 2 year deal till 2020 in that $400-500 range. He'd then be entering his prime (24 and around the 100 games) and be in a sound position to argue for more beyond that. As things stand now, I doubt he'd be able to secure any more than $600k for a 3rd year but as you've suggested could demand well in excess of that for 2021 if his formline holds. Would set him up for a very lucrative longer term deal in 2021.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Anzacday
Player Watch Darcy Moore (Part 2)
2 3 4 5
Replies
123
Views
6K
Abdul_The_Bull
Abdul_The_Bull
jimmy35
There’s Only One Darcy Moore but…
Replies
9
Views
853
The Phantom
The Phantom
C
Collingwood 2023 Premiership cup presenter - Peter Moore
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
jmac70
jmac70
WalterBlaknWhte
Toast Nice 'Age' article on Daicoses: 'We're so proud'; with bonus Peter Moore wisdom
Replies
4
Views
562
Markfs
Markfs
jmac70
  • Poll
Prediction How many flags will we win with Mr. Darcy?
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
Sea fog
S

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top