Forward Line

[Syphoncom]

Ok, so Cloke is a gun mark. Tries his heart out from what I can tell. Whether I'm at the game or have to watch it on TV, all I can tell is that he busts a gut and gives it his all.

Problem is, while he pushes up the ground and does his job, we generally lack any forward power. Yeah, our pressure.. that's incredible a lot of the time, but the problem is that we have to apply this pressure.

By this I mean, we generally either:

a) Kick wide which results in a boundary throw-in or a low-percentage kick for goal

or

b) Bomb it in to our 'forwards' of LB/Jolly/Sometimes Cloke with some crumbers in Medhurst/Leon.

Too many times we go missing with our intent on moving it forward. Noticed it heavily when we failed against Geelong, with Dawes being the recipient of the bombs in that game for memory.

Didak often does some magic and will kick a few from poor angles to make the score assists look better than they actually are. Where are the shots like Lockyer had in the last quarter? Whenever we have a down day we lack the 35-50m shots for goal in front of goal.

This isn't a roast, I'm not sure whether this is indeed a big problem or, if it is, how to rectify it (aside from perhaps using the corridor more, we are meant to be a skillful side no?).

What's the deal?

 

[themidlandmaster]

I was thinking something similar.
To make this style work, we'd need to discover a key forward, and soon.
The alternative is to go back to the style we used earlier this season, of aggressively using the corridor.

 

[Keele]

Our forward line is still our biggest problem.

Not sure what the solution is but even some well respected(by me) opposition fans I know are asking me this.

We have everything there but a key forward that demands the ball.

I hope Dawes can stand up in that role over the coming weeks or we can really kiss this year goodbye.

We have only won the last qtr 4 times this year I believe.

 

[Syphoncom]

I agree and after thinking about it a bit more I think it's definitely a failure in our gameplan more than anything else. The players have used the wings for a long time and it's certainly not a bad thing, it's more about the lack of congruency in gameplan over the entire field.

That is, you've got your teams where you can generally 'bomb it long' and you're generally going to be better off than if the opposition did it - Brisbane come to mind with Fev/JB firing, Dogs to some extent, StKilda with Riewoltd, Hawthorn Franklin etc.

When we don't have this option (or it'snot as good), we can't really rely on this. Yeah we have good crumbers, but against the best opposition we're also failing to use the corridor. Outcome?

One of two things: The first being because we aren't able to get close enough we are getting poor penetration into the f50, essentially bombing the ball into the zone of 25-45. Unfortunately we get repelled too easily, despite the good forward pressure spoken about Medhurst, David, Didak etc. Good defenders at least get it to the boundary where it's already 40+ with a good fist and we're not as dangerous obviously at those areas.

Other option is we go wide and we are really hurting our chances at goal.

These are both fine options and for any lineup are valuable at certain points during the game. But this seems to be our entire gameplan when we lose our way and a team gains possession for more than 1-2 minutes/we lose our flow.

I love Swan but too often his effort is for nothing when we fail to capitalise. We definitely need to use the corridor more often, at the least it would make us less predictable (which helps our forwards obviously) and lets us get a) more shots from 45-55 that are on the run (less time for setup as a set shot), b) deeper penetration into the f50 and c) perhaps a higher % chance for goals with more shots directly in front.

 

[Visions]

I'm not a big fan of this running the boundary line game plan, but I can forgive that if we would have at least one of our forwards leading down the guts 30 out from goal. Instead the stupid forwards lead to the boundary line to take marks, and then we all curse wondering why we kick 9.22!

Lead down the centre you idiots.

 

[knightwheelrqr]

Personally I'd like to go back to a smaller forward structure. We are much more suited to that and instead of us just blasting away to a contest where we don't really have the forward targets. The defence comes away with it 9 times out of 10. We are much more suited to having leading forwards and a more active forwardline.

F: Paul Medhurst Chris Dawes Brad Dick
HF: Leon Davis Travis Cloke Alan Didak

Rotations: Dale Thomas, Steele Sidebottom, Dayne Beams.

 

[rose jam]

Dawes is the obvious in, but need Medhurst to get a good run at it. His inability to find the ball is crueling us.

The Medhurst play where you see him meet the ball at 60m and keep moving for a set-up pass to a leading forward is really missing.

 

[TradeDraft]

Get Leroy "The Spud" Brown out and Chris Dawes back in.

We are best Struture when we have Dawes and Cloke as Dawes can go up the Ground and Cloke can stay closer to Goal. Seems to work well before we Brought a 3rd Tall in the Side

 

[danielnajdek]

Our best forwardline structure is when Dawes,Cloke and Medhurst are in there. Stuffed if I know why we didn't go back to that after Medders came back from injury.

 

[Michael_knoth]

we need dawes back. the forward line was working best with all medhurst dawes cloke working at the same time. anthony came in and couldnt play medhursts position. and since then it just seems that the forward line has been going down hill.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Get Leroy "The Spud" Brown out and Chris Dawes back in.

We are best Struture when we have Dawes and Cloke as Dawes can go up the Ground and Cloke can stay closer to Goal. Seems to work well before we Brought a 3rd Tall in the Side

Brown was not terrible today.

In fact, his form isn't all that much different to Dawes' most recent AFL outings - the difference between the two was that it was a second consecutive week Dawes was ordinary that eventually tipped the scales.

Seriously, people on the forum need to get a grip with these young guys. Until Dawes proves himself more caoable than an option in the 22, he shouldn't be in it. Brown and Dawes have formlines far too similar for mine for an upset to the balance in Dawes' favour.

I'm reserving judgement until after Sydney on Brown. He wasn't our worst today by any stretch of the imagination though.

 

[danielnajdek]

Brown was useless. Hardly touched it all day and didn't get on the score sheet. Forwards are there to kick goals. He did not.

Also Dawes didn't have 2 bad games in a row. If you actually remember he played quite well without scoring a goal against Fremantle. So he got dropped after one shocker.

Will be interesting to see if the same happens for Micks love child. I'd be guessing a huge NO!

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Brown was useless. Hardly touched it all day and didn't get on the score sheet. Forwards are there to kick goals. He did not.

Also Dawes didn't have 2 bad games in a row. If you actually remember he played quite well without scoring a goal against Fremantle. So he got dropped after one shocker.

Will be interesting to see if the same happens for Micks love child. I'd be guessing a huge NO!

Short memory? He played against the Lions and Cats, and was insipid in both.

 

[rose jam]

Brown was not terrible today.

In fact, his form isn't all that much different to Dawes' most recent AFL outings - the difference between the two was that it was a second consecutive week Dawes was ordinary that eventually tipped the scales.

Difference is midfielders will kick the ball to Dawes but not to Brown so our ball movement gets held up. And that's because Brown doesn't make or create space nor does he mark it.

 

[danielnajdek]

Short memory? He played against the Lions and Cats, and was insipid in both.

He kicked 2 goals against the Lions. Cloke kicked 0 and Jack kicked 1. He was made the scapegoat when the other 2 were just as horrid.
I agree he was crap against Geelong not disagreeing there.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Difference is midfielders will kick the ball to Dawes but not to Brown so our ball movement gets held up. And that's because Brown doesn't make or create space nor does he mark it.

Without wanting to project negativity, there are major flaws in Dawes' overhead marking.

I like Brown because he has a bit of physical presence about him and will contest; knock the ball to the front of the pack and give us a chance at ground level. Dawes isn't as good at this bash and crash role; he is a finesse player and would make a good flanker type player if he was 10cms shorter.

Personally, I want Rusling back in the side as soon as he strings a few good performances together in the VFL, but that's been wishful thinking for about four years now.

Brown's versatility is also a positive.

That said, I'm not against Dawes returning to the fray by any stretch of the imagination. I'm more annoyed at the tendencies of (particular) posters on this board that cry foul when Dawes is dropped for his performances yet want Brown dropped on the back of one solid game. I wouldn't have said Brown played poorly today to be honest; he was clearly ahead of at least five players in Barham, Fraser Davis, Shaw and Medhurst today.

 

[shawthing09]

Our foward line looks best when our ball movement is good and Cloke is closer to goal when the ball goes foward. When our ball movement is slow he goes up to be the link player and then we lack any aerial threat going foward.

We really need another strong foward pressence. Someone who can really trouble defenders. Whether it is Rusling with pace, Reid with pace, size and aerial ability, Dawes with size or Anthony with physicality / aerial ability. Someone needs to be able to be a second compotent go to target.

Rusling require his body not breaking down.

Reid requires experince, the move back foward working and the willingness of the staff to change him from the backline foward.

Dawes requires an improvement in his aerial ability

Anthony requires an improved tank.

 

[HFF]

Have always maintained the fact that key forwards should be played as exactly that- key forwards inside 50. Not high-half forwards on wings.

Leroy may be a useful "squad" player, however, we know he cannot be relied upon come finals time. He tries hard and is tough but a key forward must kick goals. He has kicked 2 goals all year, both coming against WB. Before that, he had played in 4 or so games and went goalless. Not good enough output. We cannot pick him and play him because he "tries".

I cannot stress enough the importance of Jack playing at FF. Someone that is so reliable in front of goal is worth their weight in gold. With limited touches he can have an impact, particularly on days where the team needs goals like against Melb among others throughout this season where we have struggled to score with our wayward kicking. He must stop being played outside of the forward 50. He is not fit enough for that and his best work is done inside 50 ala Fev.

Dawes is another that should get a look in because he can kick goals unlike Leroy. If you cannot kick goals as a key forward, you should not be played there. That's my take.

Ideally, in a perfect world we would love to have a fit and firing Sean Rusling at FF but considering he ain't available and probably won't be this season, I thought it was only logical that Jack or Dawes held down FF- preferably Jack because we've seen what he can do at senior level and the attention he gets from oppositions.

 

[Number 10]

Needs more Didak, Dick, Dawes and Anthony than forward sunstitutes like L. Brown, Fraser and to an extent Beams and Sidebottom.


It should look like this, (note the inclusion of REAL forwards)

-Davis, Cloke, Didak
-Medhurst, Anthony, Dick

-I/C Dawes

Dawes and Anthony should sub eachother on and off, never be on the field at the same time.

INSTEAD of:

Beams, L.Brown, Cloke
Medhurst, Fraser, Davis

I/C Sidebottom

 

[Syphoncom]

We have a lot of depth, but that's the problem. Even with a lot of depth and a lot of players to choose from (Dawes/Anthony/Dick not playing much this year), we still haven't really maintained that dangerous look about our forward line we need. With such a depth we should have developed a strategy that works for us a team and that gives us a dangerous aspect. Even Carlton have been able to look dangerous with a small setup with what they've got; St.Kilda doing the same with their restructured team. Not pretty, not even necessarily brilliant, but I just feel worried when you see our players looking lost.

Tarkyn just bombing it in, high up-and-under. It happens to often and makes you question what is going through their heads, and therefore, what is getting put into their heads.

We do scrape a lot of our goals too, which is great and you celebrate them during the game like anything else, but it won't cut it if we can't reproduce it when the finals roll around.

I don't like to pick on individual players and their capabilities in finals (e.g Davis). Instead I think we need to focus on a working gameplan where we're not leaving ourselves vulnerable (ie Cloke roaming up the ground as a link, - mind you taking a few amazing grabs and being sensational - but then merely bombing it in and having it rebounded up through the guts).

If it's horses for courses as MM likes to say then sure, mix up the plan and the way we play, but at least (as I tried to convey in the OP) have them match.

 

[HFF]

Agree N10.

Forward line should be for true forwards only.

Not makeshift players. That is why output fluctuates and we seem to stress about the forward line.

Just look how settled the backline is because it rarely is changed or tampered with.

We need to keep mids and forwards in their respective positions. It is very annoying seeing Anthony on a wing (when he has played this season), Pendles inside 50, L.Brown at FF, Beams/Rusty at HFF etc when we have players such as Didak, Medhurst, Davis, Dick, Anthony all of whom are forwards.

 

[Syphoncom]

Also, our midfield is dominating but seems to lack direction which is disappointing. We really have an insane midfield with a huge tank. Players work hard all day and control the ball.

Also, can someone tell Swan that he has to put it between the 2 middle sticks. I love the guy but the one thing Ablett has over him is his ability to convert. GA would've had at least 1-2 out of those 3

 

[PunchFromBhind]

I'm not a big fan of this running the boundary line game plan, but I can forgive that if we would have at least one of our forwards leading down the guts 30 out from goal. Instead the stupid forwards lead to the boundary line to take marks, and then we all curse wondering why we kick 9.22!

Lead down the centre you idiots.

this sums up our situation perfectly

if we take the mark 40 out directly in front me a more of a chance of kicking a goal than if we were on the boundary

if the ball spills to the front in the corridor it stays in play giving our many crumbers davis, didak dick etc. a chance to get front and center, if we lead to the boundary the ball will spill over the boundary.

my football team has it drilled into us that every time we go forward kick it to the hot spot or the fat side because it gives us the beast chance, is it that hard for collingwood to understand!

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Get Josh "The Spud" Fraser out and Chris Dawes back in.

FYP.

This isn't a roast, I'm not sure whether this is indeed a big problem or, if it is, how to rectify it (aside from perhaps using the corridor more, we are meant to be a skillful side no?).

What's the deal?

It is a big problem, in fact; I'd say our biggest. I don't think our key forward options are that bad, in all honesty. The problem is we're too slow and indirect going forward, allowing the opposition to flood too easily, and meaning we're kicking to 1-on-2's. Yeah, our forwards could take a contested mark occasionally, but the truth is that very few contested marks are taken in modern footy. The reason we drew with Melbourne today is that when they entered their 50m they often had a numbers advantage, which is shocking in itself, however we were badly outnumbered and occasionally had no forwards to kick to at all.

Mick Malthouse said it himself in his presser, (and I'm paraphrasing here because I don't recall the exact stats) "I'd rather have had their 38 inside-50's than our 58".

Short memory? He played against the Lions and Cats, and was insipid in both.

Idiotic statement, he was our best key forward against the Lions. Against the Cats, he was insipid.

 

[shawthing09]

The problem is we're too slow and indirect going forward, allowing the opposition to flood too easily, and meaning we're kicking to 1-on-2's.

My question is how much of it is cause and effect. I know our fowards struggle because our ball movement doesn't favour them. In the past we have chosen to play wide and slow regardless of the state of the game. This year we have seemed more willing to take the game on when it has suited. I wonder how much our ball movement slows down due to lack of options foward of the ball.