Forward Line Structures 101

[KamakazeSalami]

I'm addicted to Bigfooty coz I love the game and I love the Eagles and this is the only dose of decent footy that I can get my hands on in Canberra. I actually learn a fair bit about the game and the team from just lurking and reading other more knowledgeable (for the most part) posters' musings.

But theres a fair bit of the nuances of the game that I still don't understand, having never played the game myself and not having the priviledge of being educated in the bowels of locker rooms and on the field.

There are times when I'd like to ask the 'stupid question' but have been put off by those posters who chest thump and ridicule posters for not being all knowing. But screw that, so in an effort to learn a bit more I'm going to ask what might seem like the stupid questions.

In another thread on Ash Hansen this post was made (My apologies in advance to WCEForever for picking your post as my example. I'm not having a go, just trying to articulate my confusion).

I agree. If Naitanui does play in the forward, I can only see him playing in the pocket, at FF or as a defensive forward. I don't think this will change our structure.

I don't think he has the ability to read the play well enough to play CHF at the moment. Hopefully that will come.

I don't get this. Does this mean that only CHF can change the structure of the forward line (i.e whether they are good contested marks, or lead up type players)?

From what I've observed over the years, structure is how you set up your team (forwards, backs, midfield rotations etc) to achieve what you believe will give your team's gameplan the best chance of working and/or play to your players' strengths (which could also be incorporated in your gameplan).

So what if you name Hansen at CHF, Hunter at FF, McKinely and LeCras in FPs or HFF? How could naming a speedy 200cm, 100kg freak in your forward line (regardless where he is traditionally slotted) NOT change that structure? Just the matchup nightmare alone on the opposition suddenly changes the complexion of how the rest of the forwardline is defended.

If the opposition puts their quickest player on Naita (moving them off LeCras, for instance) surely the runner would be out in a flash telling the mids to take the ball through LeCras. Alternatively, if they put their best tall on him, the runner will be out making sure the ball goes in through Hansen or Hunter. Or if they leave him with their third best defender, they'd be saying go through Naita and get him to take him on.

Additionally, his defensive ability in the forward line with pressure (or perceived pressure) suddenly changes the way the forward line operates. Defenders have less time (or think they do) to dispose. His leap gives him advantage in markng contests (even if he doesn't take the grab, you gotta be thinking LeCras/McKinely and whoever the other smalls are would be licking their chops at him crashing the packs and bringing the ball to ground. Not to mention his second efforts at locking it in there).

Isn't that changing the structure? Or is that just changing tactics? If so, what is the difference?


Ding, ding. Class is in session.

 

[bodazoka]

Obviously it does change the structure of the forward line, just from his height and speed alone. I have not read the post in context so mabye he was alluding (spelling) to something else... Every player adds a dimension to the team, therefore a player out of the team means the structure will change a little. Generally it changes allot when you have a structual player leave/join like a CHF.

If you were to put Naita in at FF/HF/FP he would have a different role to anyone that plays forward on our list atm so IMO it would change the dynamic of the forward line. I see Naita as more of a pressure forward chasing and tackling, locking the ball in as well as taking a big hanger every now and then.

There are like for like players though and when slotted in or out for each other it doesnt upset the apple cart too much, and also a position like an on baller or FB would generally be played the same way regardless of who is there just to different degrees of ability. Forwards have a bit more freedom and are less reactive to the ball so theres more scope for change if a player comes in or out.

 

[Swiftkid]

I'm addicted to Bigfooty coz I love the game and I love the Eagles and this is the only dose of decent footy that I can get my hands on in Canberra. I actually learn a fair bit about the game and the team from just lurking and reading other more knowledgeable (for the most part) posters' musings.

But theres a fair bit of the nuances of the game that I still don't understand, having never played the game myself and not having the priviledge of being educated in the bowels of locker rooms and on the field.

There are times when I'd like to ask the 'stupid question' but have been put off by those posters who chest thump and ridicule posters for not being all knowing. But screw that, so in an effort to learn a bit more I'm going to ask what might seem like the stupid questions.

In another thread on Ash Hansen this post was made (My apologies in advance to WCEForever for picking your post as my example. I'm not having a go, just trying to articulate my confusion).



I don't get this. Does this mean that only CHF can change the structure of the forward line (i.e whether they are good contested marks, or lead up type players)?

From what I've observed over the years, structure is how you set up your team (forwards, backs, midfield rotations etc) to achieve what you believe will give your team's gameplan the best chance of working and/or play to your players' strengths (which could also be incorporated in your gameplan).

So what if you name Hansen at CHF, Hunter at FF, McKinely and LeCras in FPs or HFF? How could naming a speedy 200cm, 100kg freak in your forward line (regardless where he is traditionally slotted) NOT change that structure? Just the matchup nightmare alone on the opposition suddenly changes the complexion of how the rest of the forwardline is defended.

If the opposition puts their quickest player on Naita (moving them off LeCras, for instance) surely the runner would be out in a flash telling the mids to take the ball through LeCras. Alternatively, if they put their best tall on him, the runner will be out making sure the ball goes in through Hansen or Hunter. Or if they leave him with their third best defender, they'd be saying go through Naita and get him to take him on.

Additionally, his defensive ability in the forward line with pressure (or perceived pressure) suddenly changes the way the forward line operates. Defenders have less time (or think they do) to dispose. His leap gives him advantage in markng contests (even if he doesn't take the grab, you gotta be thinking LeCras/McKinely and whoever the other smalls are would be licking their chops at him crashing the packs and bringing the ball to ground. Not to mention his second efforts at locking it in there).

Isn't that changing the structure? Or is that just changing tactics? If so, what is the difference?


Ding, ding. Class is in session.

Im not quite sure what you're getting at here, but I'll try my best.

The role of the CHF in any team is straighten up the midfield, instead of searching for leads wide, the CHF aims to lead at the ball carrier, and the straighter the better.

It's probably the hardest position play in the game, the timing of leads is critical, the ability to read the game paramount.

Naitniui may have the speed and the athleticism but his football smarts are not up to scratch, he should not be a conducter of play just yet.

Brian Dawson taught him some valuable lessons last year when he pushed him to CHB, he was able to use his speed, athleticism and intensity, simply by following a CHF who took him to the play.

He still gets lost on a footy field, after a Centre bounce down he roams to dead patchs on the ground.

Putting a kid who doesnt know where to run at CHF would absolutely change the structure, once he understands each positions role, he'll be fine.

 

[Marlin01]

Judging by your observations, I'd say you have a pretty solid understanding of structures.

I concur with Swiftkid's assessment of the CHF role and also that NN would not require the ability to read the play and "direct traffic" as much if he were to play FP as opposed to CHF.

 

[thesmallprint]

He still gets lost on a footy field, after a Centre bounce down he roams to dead patchs on the ground.

He should just do what Coxy does and run straight to the wing! How many times do you see him free on the wing after a centre bounce, it's incredible. The other ruckmen can never run with him.

 

[Swiftkid]

He should just do what Coxy does and run straight to the wing! How many times do you see him free on the wing after a centre bounce, it's incredible. The other ruckmen can never run with him.

Cox is an exellent reader of the play, Naitinui has a long way to go in that department.

 

[WCEforeverman]

I think you have misunderstood the post, and the posts prior, which I was alluding to.

By having NN in the forward line it will certainly change match-ups, which is what you are alluding to, but will it change the way we move the ball into our forward line? Are we going to be isolating him one out in the goal square? Will he change the way we set up inside the forward 50?

At this stage i don't think he will to a huge extent. At least for this year.

My point is that he has the physical attributes to change the way we play, like Chris Judd did. We basically set-up our clearances around him, with other players blocking.

Eventually we might change our whole game plan, and base it around NN and his atheticism.

However I think that NN does not have the ability to read the play well enough to do this at the moment. At the moment he will be a player who fits into our game plan and structure. Not a player we set-up our structure and our game plan around.

This is just my opinion, but I cannot see Woosha devising specific strategies (which is what i mean when saying changing our forward structure), to make use of a first year player, who has yet to play a senior game.

And the CHF usually has the most impact in the forward line, which why I mentioned that postion.

 

[keviewiggle]

I would suggest that having Naitanui in the forward line most definately changes the structure.
The main reason is that it changes the way the opposition defends the area and the players they use. This will be to our advantage.
I'm looking forward to some great miss matches.

 

[WCEforeverman]

I would suggest that having Naitanui in the forward line most definately changes the structure.
The main reason is that it changes the way the opposition defends the area and the players they use. This will be to our advantage.
I'm looking forward to some great miss matches.

I understand what you're saying but I was more talking about the big picture type stuff. I think this is where the confusion is.

The game plan being changed, our forward line formation ect.

For example if Buddy Franklin came to our club next year, we would have an entirely different forward set-up and game plan. We would primarily look to play the ball through him at most oppurtunities. He would become the number one target in our forward 50. We would devise specific set plays and formations to take full advantage of having the best forward in the competition.

Will NN have this much influence? I don't think so at this stage.

 

[no1bankteller]

I smell a rat

 

[KamakazeSalami]

I understand what you're saying but I was more talking about the big picture type stuff. I think this is where the confusion is.

Yep, I get it. Our gameplan/structure for a 'game' would not be structured around NN. I was confusing what you said with how the forward line would be structured when he was actually in it (however long that might be in a game). Essentially, it would change in that period he is in it, if for no other reason that it would cause matchup problems which we couuld hopefully exploit. So I was kinda right.

And WCEForever, again, apologies for using your post as an example. Nothing untoward intended just hoping to have some little things clarified for my own 'education'.

I smell a rat

Huh?