Fullforward: What are the options?

[The rabbi]

I think that if Geelong has a glaring weakness it is at fullforward. The Cats have tried Lonergan, Nablett, Hawkins. While I think that Hawkins or Ablett could play there in the future they don't appear to be up to it yet. Is there any other options?

Hawthorn was playing a smaller player at fullforward with success (Williams)and I remember Riccutto playing there in 97 (?) Leigh Matthews even played there in his later days. Could another player be an option?

 

[Stokes-Selwood-Prismall]

nope... im happy... SJ has been playing mostly at FF in the last few weeks with Nath playing a bit in front on saturday... dont change the formula

 

[SJ]

The side as it is now is our best, bar Chapman in for Byrnes and Rooke in if available. Nathan Ablett is more than adequate. We are the highest scoring team in the competition. Leave it that way.

 

[Hood007]

The side as it is now is our best, bar Chapman in for Byrnes and Rooke in if available. Nathan Ablett is more than adequate. We are the highest scoring team in the competition. Leave it that way.

Exactly.
We can't call FF a "glaring" weakness when we're kicking big scores consistently.
We've only had 3 players kick 5 goals in a game this year, Nath and Cam (both in the Richmond game) and Stokesy on Saturday. That means we don't need a FF who kicks goals because we have an even spread of goal kickers every week...

 

[finrod]

The answer is Mr Charlie G!!

 

[Rustybugles]

The answer is Mr Charlie G!!

You are being sarcastic - but it might just come true. The stuff of dreams. Bomber resurrects the forgotten Charlie Gardiner - he kicks 4 goals and he's in the side for the rest of the H & A rounds! Everyone else kicks 4 goals but that is irrelevant.

 

[chapmanmagic35]

Yeah, Kingsley is honest and Graham is coming towards the end of his career. Hopefully we can land Nathan Ablett, Gary's younger brother who is reluctant to committ to the big time. Jumping Jack's son looks like a good prospect, even though he still has a couple years left at Melbourne Grammar. We will have to rely on good delivery..........

Oh, hang on, it isn't 2004. It is 2007!

For crying out loud, aren't we the highest scoring team? The team that kicked 35 goals in Round 6? The team that has a % of over 150?

 

[finrod]

No, I'm not being sarcastic. Out of Hawkins, NAblett, and Gardiner I think Gardiner has been in the best form in the VFL recently going by all reports... So I say at least give him a chance in the next few rounds to see if he's capable of holding down a spot. Mind you, if we had a major injury, I would be promoting Grima and trying him in the seniors instead.

 

[hobart cat]

was that Kelly I saw leading out from FF a few times Saturday?

I thought he looked good.

He's too slow for our midfield, but looked pretty decent overhead and strong attacking the contest.

 

[costanza23]

We should only allow 2 key forwards in the side at one time.
At the moment, it should be Nath CHF and Mooney at FF. Nath is better with the open spaces, thus, leave Moons in the goal square.
When Hawkins is in, it should be Mooney CHF and Hawkins at FF. Hawkins isn't fit enough to be running around at CHF and I believe he is best suited at FF anyway.
Our key forward set-up should also look like this for next year, with Grima (hopefully having been promoted off the rookie list by then) as back-up. The good thing about Grima is he is like Mooney; can crash through packs and can play either CHF or FF.

 

[Rockford]

Kelly started at FF against the Dockers and was effective before he got rotated up the ground. Hawkins would do a job at FF if he just stayed in the square.

 

[Cohzee]

I'd love to see Grima get elevated next year.

 

[Stokes-Selwood-Prismall]

Nath and Hawk will be more developed next year... so bringing Grima in would be silly IMO. I think we groom him as a backman.

 

[Reg Hickey]

Nath and Hawk will be more developed next year... so bringing Grima in would be silly IMO. I think we groom him as a backman.

No.

He's played some reasonable footy down back in the VFL, because he's a good player, but he's clearly a natural forward.

If we think he's good enough to be an AFL player (which I do), then not keeping Grima in his best role (as a forward) is poor short-term thinking, which is the main reason clubs don't stay at the top. Remember he's only 20, which means he still has a fair bit of development to go. In three years time he will be 23 and Moons will be about to turn 31, and he will be ready to take over a full time role in the forward line. In the meantime, what if Moons and NA go down with injuries? By this time next year he will easily be the best back-up option.

If we think ahead now to what our needs will be in 2, 3, 4 years time, there's no reason we can't stay a power side. Think about our 2011 premiership side - a superstar forward line with NA at age 25, Grima (24), Hawkins (23), Dog (28), Stokes (26), Varcoe (23).
Midfield with Chappy (29), Rooke (29), Corey (29), Gaz (27), Selwood (23), Bartel (27), Prismall (25), Hogan (22), Blake (25), West (23)
The backline is the one we really have to look at now - we have Egan (27), Djerrkura (22), Monica (30), DJ (29), J Hunt (29), maybe Scarlett (32), maybe Lonergan (27). We clearly need to draft a couple of defenders now, who by 2011 could be nearing their peak.

 

[finrod]

If we think ahead now to what our needs will be in 2, 3, 4 years time, there's no reason we can't stay a power side. Think about our 2011 premiership side - a superstar forward line with NA at age 25, Grima (24), Hawkins (23), Dog (28), Stokes (26), Varcoe (23).
Midfield with Chappy (29), Rooke (29), Corey (29), Gaz (27), Selwood (23), Bartel (27), Prismall (25), Hogan (22), Blake (25), West (23)
The backline is the one we really have to look at now - we have Egan (27), Djerrkura (22), Monica (30), DJ (29), J Hunt (29), maybe Scarlett (32), maybe Lonergan (27). We clearly need to draft a couple of defenders now, who by 2011 could be nearing their peak.

I like your thinking, but that bunch sounds a little on the old side to me...

 

[chapmanmagic35]

No, I'm not being sarcastic. Out of Hawkins, NAblett, and Gardiner I think Gardiner has been in the best form in the VFL recently going by all reports... So I say at least give him a chance in the next few rounds to see if he's capable of holding down a spot. Mind you, if we had a major injury, I would be promoting Grima and trying him in the seniors instead.

You want Byrnes in ths side too. Suicide if you have those two together, let alone one.

 

[Partridge]

The side as it is now is our best, bar Chapman in for Byrnes and Rooke in if available. Nathan Ablett is more than adequate. We are the highest scoring team in the competition. Leave it that way.

Right on the money SJ.

I do think we have a weakness regarding our second key forward (N.Ablett or Hawkins), but it's more of a time issue than talent. I believe both Nathan Ablett and Hawkins will make it, I also think Nathan Ablett is clearly ahead and should remain in the side for the rest of the season. He still requires a good opponent, and his skills at ground level are brilliant for his size. Once the marking power properly develops he's going to be very, very useful.

I would leave Mooney as FF for now, as he's a stronger mark and more deadly in front of goal. Ablett seems to appreciate being able to roam far and wide leading up the ground also. But no personnel changes regarding the big guys. We've got it right as is.

(As a postscript, I see round 1, 2008 as the earliest the three-pronged forward line will be used. Hawkins after vastly improving his fitness will be FF, N.Ablett will be CHF, and Mooney will be one very dangerous floater. As hungry for success as I am, you have to be realistic. I can't see it being any earlier.)

 

[Solstice Raver]

The answer is Mr Charlie G!!

Oh dear.

was that Kelly I saw leading out from FF a few times Saturday?

I thought he looked good.

He's too slow for our midfield, but looked pretty decent overhead and strong attacking the contest.

Funny thing is Kelly's kicking for goal is so much better than spotting up a man down field. Play the positives. Put him so far up the ground he doesn't haveto spot up a man and kick goals instead. It's WIN WIN.

I'd love to see Grima get elevated next year.

*Licks his lips with anticipation*

 

[charlie4prez]

Exactly.
We've only had 3 players kick 5 goals in a game this year, Nath and Cam (both in the Richmond game)

I'm pretty sure that was the round 2 Carlton game

 

[Cattery]

Why does it "have" to be either Nablett or Tomahawk, think we're getting carried away with the notion of having a second big bloke down forward.

The Swans came within a whisker of winning back to back flags with just the one "power" forward in Hall and a group of mediums and smalls, can see no reason why we couldn't adopt the same tactics.

If Nathan hasn't shown a fair amount of improvement in the next few weeks I'd suggest Rooke, if and when he's available, would slot perfectly into his spot.

 

[Partridge]

Why does it "have" to be either Nablett or Tomahawk, think we're getting carried away with the notion of having a second big bloke down forward.

The Swans came within a whisker of winning back to back flags with just the one "power" forward in Hall and a group of mediums and smalls, can see no reason why we couldn't adopt the same tactics.

If Nathan hasn't shown a fair amount of improvement in the next few weeks I'd suggest Rooke, if and when he's available, would slot perfectly into his spot.

I think you do need a second big forward. Get a game where the midfield is under pressure delivering the ball and it becomes pretty bloody hard to mark the ball. Imagine Rooke on a 6 foot 3 defender with crap forward disposal. He wouldn't get a touch. You've got to have 2 big guys.

 

[sarah.13]

At 6"3 O'Louglin might not be a power forward but could not be considered a medium forward either.
If you haven't got them you can't play them. We've got one and I agree with Partridge you play them.

 

[Cattery]

I think you do need a second big forward. Get a game where the midfield is under pressure delivering the ball and it becomes pretty bloody hard to mark the ball. Imagine Rooke on a 6 foot 3 defender with crap forward disposal. He wouldn't get a touch. You've got to have 2 big guys.

Don't really agree that you "have" to have a second big forward, of course if you have two it's a bonus, but as pointed out Sydney won a flag, and almost a second, with just one, which would suggest it's certainly not essential.

The pills on the ground far more then it's in the air [ not an original statement but true never the less ] and I'd suggest Rooke would be better value then Nathan when it does, plus with the way we've been bringing the ball into the forward line this year I don't think "crap disposal" would be an issue.

The fact is that although Nathans taller he isn't [ yet ] very good overhead, takes very few contested marks.

 

[Cattery]

At 6"3 O'Louglin might not be a power forward but could not be considered a medium forward either.
If you haven't got them you can't play them. We've got one and I agree with Partridge you play them.

Gets most of his marks on the lead though, you wouldn't say he's a strong pack marking type of player, plus he's only one cm: taller then Rooke, so I see no reason why Max couldn't perform a similar type role to him.

When you say "we've got one" are you referring to Nathan as a power forward in the same mould as Mooney or Hall, because if so I'd have to disagree, he certainly has the height but seldom uses it to advantage, and I don't think we should pick one player ahead of another just because he has a few extra cms.

Probably looks like I'm bagging Nathan here but that's not the case, still think [ hope ] he's going to become a very good player for us, but unless he shows quite a bit of improvement in the next few weeks I don't know if he's real value.
Hypothetical question, if twenty one positions were locked in and there was one vacancy up forward, who would you prefer, Nathan in his present form or [ a fit ] Max Rooke?

 

[Duskfire]

I liked Kelly up forward for the brief time he played there against the Dockers. A bit unusual, but something that Thompson could use to throw a bit of a spanner into the works. Rooke is a good option too, although depending on who we play we may want him to be tagging. Ling is also a very good forward, but the same applies to him as Rooke.

I wouldn't mind seeing Nablett play up the ground a bit more, get some fitness and posessions into him. With the midfield we have he would be fed quite a bit often, and maybe hit some good form come finals for him to be pushed back to the forward line.