Strategy Functional Forward Structure (FFS!!!)

Remove this Banner Ad

The reason we are so good in the midfield is because our team has had extra mids playing as forwards. The cost of this was/is a weaker and less efficient forward line.
We need real forwards who know forward running patterns, how to create space, how to force defenders to swap opponents and how to take contested marks in our forward line.

Forwards do need to be able to cover huge amounts of ground though, be able to push right up and all provide pressure on the defenders. This for me means we cant play a 'resting ruck' as a forward - they're just a bad tall forward in most cases (ryder was no exception).

There's also a strong focus on here for traditional KPFs. This isn't quite necessary anymore because of the way defenders play. Its rare to ever get the chance to outbody/outmuscle a defender 1v1 without a spare defender coming over the top in the modern game. In the modern game you need to be able to jump (or be as tall as mason cox) to be taking contested marks. Obviously you still need some strong forwards but they dont actually have to be hulking KPFs, someone like ebert is just as good if you can isolate them in a marking contest 1v1 - this is rare though.

In 2018 the premiers had the best contested marks for the season at both end of the ground - jeremy mcgovern and Jack Darling. 190 and 191cm. They dont need to be key position height. That's what we need though, guys who are genuine contested marks, that are good aerially - and not terrible beneath their feet. If you do this then every panic kick forward both by you and against you becomes to your advantage because you're better in the air.

Our drafting lately seems to have recognised this at least. Rozee, Bergman and Georgiades are all rated very highly for their vertical leap and will provide this ability to compete and mark in the air while still being dangerous at ground level.

We saw the benefits of this at times last year already - our second aerial target wasnt ryder, or westhoff most weeks, it was Connor Rozee. His ability to hit a pack at speed and bring the ball to ground was serious underrated, especially when he was also capable of roving off the packs so excellently when he chose not to compete. If we can have multiple players providing this aerial presence without giving up our ground game, or speed around the ball then this will go a long way to a functional forward line.

The last thing too, and most frustrating thing in my eyes, is getting the ball in the hands of the right players. When Schulz took a mark inside 40m you knew he'd slot it at least 80% of the time. We don't have that reliable kicking accuracy right now, and we need a reliable target like that. In fact according to statsinsiders shot chart, our three best shots for goal are Farrell, Gray and Butters. Not exactly aerial targets.

So with all that said I'd hope in rd 1 we play a forward line that looks something like this:

FF: Ebert - Dixon - Butters
HF: Rozee - Marshall - SPP/Motlop

One of Bergman/Georgiades on the bench and Gray to start in the midfield.

That gives 4 decent aerial targets (dixon, marshall, rozee and bergman/georgiades), 2 players who know how to outbody their opponent (Dixon and Ebert) and 3 dedicated groundball players (Gray, Butters and Motlop/SPP). On paper thats a solid forward line.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I think it's clutching at straws a bit to say our midfield performance is good. We can win the ball but can't really use it well enough...so we're only doing half the job at the moment imo.
 
Only two tall forwards please with the occasional resting ruck or floating westhoff to surprise.

Three or four permanent talls is too many


A mid sized forward from a wines, Houston or Georgiades is important


RGray is up there, so the remaining two positions need a bit of pace, so rozee or Williams may get the nod over Farrell
 
For a functional forward structure get rid of Bassett



imo the Bassett model has failed miserably that is what he has produced. He did ok when defence coach but no way should he be even on the payroll.

Back to defence coach or out the door. That there has been so little accountability in our senior coaches or management is jaw dropping.
The writing was on the wall he won premiership bye kicking 4gls to 3 the fact he is our forward coach is a disgrace. Give Schultz a ring FFS .
 
The writing was on the wall he won premiership bye kicking 4gls to 3 the fact he is our forward coach is a disgrace. Give Schultz a ring FFS .

Agree. Call me crazy but he won flags as a defensive focused coach and failed as a forwards coach at Essendon.

Once Ken has gone we need a coach who has presided over a functional forward line or poach as assistant who has. Even a state league successful coach with an effective forward line would be better than what we have.
 
The writing was on the wall he won premiership bye kicking 4gls to 3 the fact he is our forward coach is a disgrace. Give Schultz a ring FFS .
IIRC our defence under Bassett was one of the best in the league so we move him out of there and get him to coach the forwards.

Help me peeps I'm struggling..... NO wait......... I think I've got it.

When he was our defensive coach we would flood the backline and it worked a treat. Sooooooo.......if we get Bass up front we can flood our forward line

IF we can get our forwards flooding our backline back up the ground before the ball gets there. End result we can have a mangled tangled forward zone

OR our completely knackered forwards kicking for goal from tight angles in the pockets. Throw in some short people as key targets and hey presto it's Hinkley-ball.

It might be inefficient and ugly to look at but we're a battling little blue collar club in a tough comp making our community proud and someone's gotta lose.
 
Only two tall forwards please with the occasional resting ruck or floating westhoff to surprise.

Three or four permanent talls is too many


A mid sized forward from a wines, Houston or Georgiades is important


RGray is up there, so the remaining two positions need a bit of pace, so rozee or Williams may get the nod over Farrell

I would consider both Georgiadis and Marshall as mid sized forwards given the way that they play.
 
Bassett isn't some savant defensive coach. He just overloads the defence with players from other areas of the field.

He's an especially awful forwards coach though. We have no idea how to move tactically to create space.
 
I would consider both Georgiadis and Marshall as mid sized forwards given the way that they play.

Marshall is Westhoff’s replacement on the wing or Watt’s at CHB if he doesn’t improve as a forward
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

..snip

“We lose patience, people, supporters, fans we lose patient with a young tall forward, but I challenge anyone in the competition to have had as many challenges as Todd Marshall has had in his early days as a footballer.”

...snip
Yeah, it's us that have no patience. It's us that weren't willing to put time/games into Salter, Butcher, Shaw, Harvey (lol), Eddy, Frampton.
 
We're up with 3 minutes to go so we flood our key forwards back to save the game rather than continuing to back them in to play the footy that had us in front in the first place.

That, my friends, is why we finish 10th.
Look, I'm the first to admit we have been far too defensive in the past, tried to do it for far too long and when added to a poor forward structure in the first place it's resulted in poor results, but every club would work on such scenarios and they would involve putting a tall behind the ball.

Our biggest problem has been parking the bus for far too long. "Save the game" simulations really aren't effective for more than 2-3 minutes because if you go too defensive, too early you remove the threat of scoring yourself and induce an avalanche.

Hawthorn called it the "2 minute drill" and I remember Malthouse saying that you should never try to "save the game" unless you were 2 or more kicks in front.

The most effective way to save a game is to deny the other team the football. Our problem has been we're far too good at giving it back.
 
The most effective way to save a game is to deny the other team the football. Our problem has been we're far too good at giving it back.

Only time I feel comfortable with our D is when we're in our forward 50 and can set up a wall behind the ball.

Easier to cover a missed kick into your forward 50 then having a pass cut out in the middle of the ground.

Would hate to see us try and turn Todd into Hoff v2 and play a sweeper role behind the ball.
 
They were actually s**t players not up to AFL level.

Not s**t players, just not up to AFL level.

Perhaps the patience being referred to is the patience needed to actually find and nurture a quality talent, instead of just thinking that anyone over a certain height can play key position.
 
Perhaps the patience being referred to is the patience needed to actually find and nurture a quality talent, instead of just thinking that anyone over a certain height can play key position.
I'm pretty sure there are other arguments on why playing other talls, even though they aren't AFL-level. It is not just development.
 
They were actually s**t players not up to AFL level.
Jake Neade was a poor small forward that went from Hinkley golden ticket holder to not getting selected for North Adelaide's reserves side. He had a stretch of (five?) consecutive games where he went goal-less and was still selected. Two of the talks didn't even play a game at AFL level.

I'm not saying they were world beaters. They weren't (Butcher not included of course). Hinkley preaching that WE need to be patient with talls is near peak hypocrisy since he doesn't/didn't seem to be willing to invest the effort in trying to develop them.
 
I'm pretty sure there are other arguments on why playing other talls, even though they aren't AFL-level. It is not just development.

Team A has a coach that plays his preferred formation no matter what players he has. He’s used to playing with two up front, but the team only has one striker that the club paid a lot of money for and one raw as * kid. The coach plays the kid under the guise of developing him, and continues to play him no matter what, completely destroying his confidence as a player and reinforcing bad habits that he could be working on in the reserves.

Team B has a coach that is flexible. He too wants to play two up front, but he recognises that the team only has one striker and a raw as * kid, so instead of pigeonholing the players into his system, he instead takes one of his back up AM and puts him up front, giving the kid game time off the bench and actually developing him properly until he gets confident enough to start a game on his own.

Which coach has a better feel for developing players?
 
Team A has a coach that plays his preferred formation no matter what players he has. He’s used to playing with two up front, but the team only has one striker that the club paid a lot of money for and one raw as fu** kid. The coach plays the kid under the guise of developing him, and continues to play him no matter what, completely destroying his confidence as a player and reinforcing bad habits that he could be working on in the reserves.

Team B has a coach that is flexible. He too wants to play two up front, but he recognises that the team only has one striker and a raw as fu** kid, so instead of pigeonholing the players into his system, he instead takes one of his back up AM and puts him up front, giving the kid game time off the bench and actually developing him properly until he gets confident enough to start a game on his own.

Which coach has a better feel for developing players?
The one with the better record developing players; and if he, meanwhile, can still win games, that's would be a huge plus for me.

The worst coaches can't do neither win nor develop.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top