Griffiths/Post/Miller at full forward?

[santa claws]

[/B]

I would of thought with the new sub rule picking vickery with selection 8 was an advantage (master stroke )

If Vickery becomes a FF come ruckman & gives us the flexabilty of going into games with only 1 full time ruck + vickery thats a good win for us & cant see how its a bad thing.

To answer an earlier point you made about playing all of vickery/riewoldt/griffiths in the same foward line cant see why that would also be an issue.
With jack spending more time up the ground we maust realise that up the ground these days means all the way upto chb.
where a midfielder could go foward for a rest would constantly crate the mismatch.

if vickery can become a player like ottens primarily a ruckman but can go forward and provide a different setup and option all well and good.

as a permanent set with griffiths and jack well i disagree it wont work.

with taylor growing to 192cm im already looking at a set up that has him as a third tall option.
i would hope for a scenario that the dogs have with jarrad grant.

riewoldt griffiths and taylor would be good with a ruckman forward in vickery going forward as a change up or attempt to stretch sides.it does not allow for post who imo is a far better forward prospect than vickery.
to me vickery to survive needs to play primarily as a ruck. i disagree that there is a permanent forward role for him.

 

[Dr Tigris]

I'm pretty much ignoring Taylor in this scenario as he has yet to prove he can make the AFL. And with his ability if he gets AFL ready then I would be playing him through the middle into the forward line. Much like Morton.

To me what they want to do is play two big strong mobile traditional KPFs (TV, Griff, Post) to provide a strong stable forward structure. Then play JR as a mobile third tall, freewheeling type of player. If this is done right JR will be able to lead and crumb and float. Given his talent and size that means that teams have to try and find a tall mobile KPB who can also deal with crumbers and imaginative forwards - of which there are very few. If they can do that and have the mids kicking a few goals we have dangerous forward line that is not predictable because there are always multiple routes to goal. This also has the advantage of us having 1 or 2 rucks in the forward line. So our ruckman doesn't have to deal with 1/3 of the ground.

This sort of set up will take time to get drilled into the players. The forwards need to learn how to lead and make space for themselves and the other tall forwards. The mids need to learn to hit a structure rather than indiviudals. But if they can get it working it could be a fantastic forward line.

Also all the big guys are mobile and have fairly good defensive attitudes. So we might get the best of all worlds. But there is a long way between here and there. Which is why I don't really think results are so important this year. getting the structure right is what it is about. Miller will be useful if the young guys lose their mojo, need a rest or are injured, otherwise VFL.

 

[Haggard H]

I'd like a 'mobile triangle', setting up as Jack at FF with Post and Griffiths effectively on forward flanks. These two fill the hole behind each other, a crumber covers them both from CHF with greater forward movement from midfielders coming through, all fed by long passes from Lids and Newman.

The whole triangle can rotate at any time.

Vickery/Graham rest in the pocket but fill the goalsquare during any forward thrust.

Wow, I'm a frickin' genius!

 

[Dr Tigris]

Pretty good I reckon. I'll pass it onto Dimma next time he asks me about what to do .

We've got a really interesting range of forwards. Lots of mobile talls, some small defensive guys and ...

it'll be an interesting year to see what happens

I'd like a 'mobile triangle', setting up as Jack at FF with Post and Griffiths effectively on forward flanks. These two fill the hole behind each other, a crumber covers them both from CHF with greater forward movement from midfielders coming through, all fed by long passes from Lids and Newman.

The whole triangle can rotate at any time.

Vickery/Graham rest in the pocket but fill the goalsquare during any forward thrust.

Wow, I'm a frickin' genius!

 

[Goldust]

SIMPLY put, if Jack isn’t our starting full forward and slotted to play there almost permanently, we aren’t serious about winning games.
None of Griffiths, Post, Vickery or Miller has shown any inkling that they will contribute major goal hauls. Bags of four, five or six from Jack, with cameos of two from the remainder, including the smaller forwards and midfield are our best shot at victory.
You don’t move your number three batsman to four or five if he’s making plenty of runs!!!

 

[docko911]

IMO post is the most physically ready ahead of griffiths and vickery so I would probably look to give him a crack at CHF the first 6 games but I would like to see vickery or griffiths play a support FF/HF role to riewoldt and post. We need 2-3 talls in the forward line to be more dominant. I would also have Taylor there because he is both an aerial threat and ground threat. The remaining spots in the forward line can be filled by king, nason etc or with midfielders like houli and Morton. We need everyone in there to be a goal threat.

 

[Bazzar]

SIMPLY put, if Jack isn’t our starting full forward and slotted to play there almost permanently, we aren’t serious about winning games.
None of Griffiths, Post, Vickery or Miller has shown any inkling that they will contribute major goal hauls. Bags of four, five or six from Jack, with cameos of two from the remainder, including the smaller forwards and midfield are our best shot at victory.
You don’t move your number three batsman to four or five if he’s making plenty of runs!!!

Couldn’t agree more. Who was the bright spark that decided a player who had such a break-out year at FF, winning the Colman Medal, All Australian selection also at FF, and club Best & Fairest, should change positions

It’s almost as bad a decision when Idiot Spud Frawley had the brain fade to get Richo to pile on the muscle to be a stay at home FF a la Alistair Lynch… Fail.

 

[NinjaHamster]

You don’t move your number three batsman to four or five if he’s making plenty of runs!!!

You do if your TEAM is losing despite this one batsman making plenty of runs, and if there is someone you wish to "groom" for the role in order that there is a greater chance that the team starts winning games in the future (even if that means the one "in form" batsman's average takes a bit of a hit, or even that the team goes backwards IN THE SHORT TERM).

In my opinion Griffiths should be playing full forward here and now - this is the role to which he is best suited and the one for which he was drafted.

If this means that Jack Riewoldt moves to half forward and kicks fewer goals next year, being only as useful to our team as NICK Riewoldt is to St. Kilda, then so-be-it ...

 

[Bazzar]

You don’t move your number three batsman to four or five if he’s making plenty of runs!!!

You do if your TEAM is losing despite this one batsman making plenty of runs, and if there is someone you wish to "groom" for the role in order that there is a greater chance that the team starts winning games in the future (even if that means the one "in form" batsman's average takes a bit of a hit, or even that the team goes backwards IN THE SHORT TERM).

Give us an example of an Australian (or any other country for that matter) number 3, in his prime, in form, who has been dropped to 5 for the good of the team?

 

[NinjaHamster]

Give us an example of an Australian (or any other country for that matter) number 3, in his prime, in form, who has been dropped to 5 for the good of the team?

I see - so your point is that it doesn't happen rather than that it shouldn't happen ? Your argument is not that "that wouldn't work" or that that would be a worse scenario, but rather that "that hasn't happened yet to the best of my knowledge" ?

Actually, I can remember Steve Waugh moving to 5 from 3 when he was still (relatively) in his prime so that a young Ricky Ponting could take over the number 3 position - there are also numerous examples of batsmen moving in the other direction from where they would regularly bat ... Gilchrist was batting at his natural position of Number 7 in the one day team - till they decided to use him as an opener (which was an experiment caused by the paucity of other openers in form at the time). It ended up being a magnificent success. Same with Shane Watson (who's "natural" position as an allrounder would be 6 or 7, but who now opens for Australia, at least in the one-dayers) and, you know what ? Jack Riewoldt moving to CHF might (shock, horror !) actually lead to him being of MORE use to the team, just as it did with Gilli !!!

So, just to simplify this idea for you and to make it as clear as possible, the argument that "You don't move your number three batsman to four or five if he's making plenty of runs!!!" is essentially an argument that "if it ain't broke don't fix it" - if it is working now, don't change it. What I am saying is that this is a fearful outlook on life and that it is sometimes worth changing things - even things which are working - because there is a chance they can work EVEN BETTER ... and if they don't you can always move Jack Riewoldt back to full fwd, you can move your number 5 batsman back to number 3, or you can move Adam Gilchrist back to number 7 ... to suggest there is some "rule" that you can't change something that is currently working is a very limited (and LIMITING) form of thinking - thank God the Australian cricket team don't think in this manner.

Trivia Alert: Gilchrist has actually played for Richmond before ... At the age of 18, Gilchrist played for the Richmond cricket club in England.

 

[Bazzar]

Actually, I can remember Steve Waugh moving to 5 from 3 when he was still (relatively) in his prime so that a young Ricky Ponting could take over the number 3 position - there are also numerous examples of batsmen moving in the other direction from where they would regularly bat ... Gilchrist was doing pretty well (in good form) at his natural position of Number 7 in the one day team - till they decided to use him as an opener (which was an experiment caused by the paucity of other openers in form at the time). It was a magnificent success. Same with Shane Watson (who's "natural" position as an allrounder would be 6 or 7, but who now opens for Australia, at least in the one-dayers) and, you know what ? Jack Riewoldt moving to CHF might (shock, horror !) actually lead to him being of MORE use to the team, just as it did with Gilli !!!

.

Your all over the place. This isn’t about batsmen changing spots, that happens all the time, but it was about 3 going to 5 in their prime. Waugh was batting at 5 before Pontings first test, as Boonie was at 3.

Add to your trivia…. Lara, Tendulka and Border all moved from 3 to 5 after they turned 35.

 

[NinjaHamster]

Your all over the place. This isn’t about batsmen changing spots, that happens all the time, but it was about 3 going to 5 in their prime. Waugh was batting at 5 before Pontings first test, as Boonie was at 3.

Add to your trivia…. Lara, Tendulka and Border all moved from 3 to 5 after they turned 35.

You are not quite getting something here - something is not quite "clicking" for you ... My point was explained VERY clearly (I even provided a simplified version specifically for you) and you are continuing to be deliberately obtuse ... Let's say (for argument's sake) that EVERYTHING I said about cricket in the previous post was incorrect (it's not, but still), my stated argument that we should not be too scared to change something that is working, as the alternative may work better, is perfectly valid - yet remains unacknowledged and unaddressed by you (I suspect as you KNOW it is perfectly valid and cannot think of any comeback, but don't wish to admit your previously expressed sentiments could even possibly be wrong - so you choose to focus on an unimportant sundry aspect of the argument in the hope that you can just ignore the rest and it will just go away - Good Luck with that !!)


But at least one thing you are saying makes perfect sense (and in fact harks back to the argument I just made - Hallelujah !!) and that is that "this is not about batsmen changing spots" ... not only that, but ... get this ... it's not even about CRICKET at all - LOL !!! It's about Jack Riewoldt moving away from full fwd - something you think is utterly stupid and nonsensical, and something I contend MAY work and is worth a try - so which part of this is too hard to understand or acknowledge ??

 

[Bazzar]

You are not quite getting something here - something is not quite "clicking" for you ... My point was explained VERY clearly (I even provided a simplified version specifically for you) and you are continuing to be deliberately obtuse ... Let's say (for argument's sake) that EVERYTHING I said about cricket in the previous post was incorrect (it's not, but still), my stated argument that we should not be too scared to change something that is working, as the alternative may work better, is perfectly valid - yet remains unacknowledged and unaddressed by you (I suspect as you KNOW it is perfectly valid and cannot think of any comeback, but don't wish to admit your previously expressed sentiments could even possibly be wrong - so you choose to focus on an unimportant sundry aspect of the argument in the hope that you can just ignore the rest and it will just go away - Good Luck with that !!)


But at least one thing you are saying makes perfect sense (and in fact harks back to the argument I just made - Hallelujah !!) and that is that "this is not about batsmen changing spots" ... not only that, but ... get this ... it's not even about CRICKET at all - LOL !!! It's about Jack Riewoldt moving away from full fwd - something you think is utterly stupid and nonsensical, and something I contend MAY work and is worth a try - so which part of this is too hard to understand or acknowledge ??

Cool story Bro

 

[NinjaHamster]

Cool story Bro

 

[NinjaHamster]

Actually, speaking of cool stories, here's one which is VERY close to home and will illustrate my argument perfectly:

Back in 2007 there was an AFL football club who had one of the most successful forwards of all time (he had played variously at Full-Forward and Centre-Half Forward for this team) ... This guy had over 700 goals in the AFL and really was his team's dominant "focal point" in the forward line at that time ... so clearly he was "doing well" (I'd say VERY well) in this position.

However, come 2008 the powers-that-be decided that this person's career was in the twilight stages, that the forward line was too predictable with just one focal point and that some young players could be played in this position to help shore up the club's FUTURE prospects ... of course, as you suggest, this was an incredibly stupid decision to make - just as it would be stupid to move Jack Riewoldt from Full-Forward now when he's doing so well there - however "Richo" didn't have a BAD year playing up the ground and actually came 3rd in the Brownlow that year (which was better than his previous years in the Forward line) - Hell, he almost kicked as many goals from the Wing as he did as a Fwd in 2007 anyway !! And the person who was allowed to develop in the Fwd position without Richo being the focal point ? It was none other than Jack Riewoldt ... and I'd say he benefitted from the accelerated development opportunity, wouldn't you ?

So why do you already know that moving Riewoldt from Full Forward is the epitomy of stupid decisions ?

 

[Bazzar]

Big difference. Richo was at the end of his career and they needed to find someone for post Richo life. They found him, now want to move him. Also Richo played heaps out of the FF zone over the years because of his athletic ability. We have no other key forward that has shown he can stand up at the moment, but if Griff can overcome his shoulder problems he will be the perfect FF and Jack will go up the ground.

Im tipping they will experiment with Jack, but will eventually move back because the others, post, Griff, Vickery and Taylor wont be up to it and dominate this year. Why do you think they drafted Miller? It’s obvious they also are a little concerned.

 

[NinjaHamster]

Exactly - you have just agreed with my point - the VERY FIRST point I made in this post, and which you seemed to vehemently disagreed with ... and that is that Griff. is a natural full forward, he was recruited as a full forward and he should be PLAYED as a full forward, even if that means (as it will) giving him some time and leeway (just as we originally did with Riewoldt).

Finally, some agreement ... Man - and you said I was all over the place - LOL !!!

PS. I'm also tipping the experiment won't quite work this year, but as I made clear, my argument was not this WILL work, it was that this COULD work and that it is not stupid to try it - not at all ... it would actually be stupid NOT to give it a go ... for the long term good of the team (Hell, I doubt ANY of us believe that we are in our "Premiership Window" this year so we should be doing everything we can to develop our young players so that they are as ready as they can be in a few years time).

 

[Bazzar]

What’s with all the words in capitols? You do it in every post like you think we are all stupid or something.

 

[NinjaHamster]

What’s with all the words in capitols? You do it in every post like you think we are all stupid or something.

Um - you mean the "capitals" ?

No, I certainly don't think you are all stupid ... just the ones who prove themselves to be, well, ah, how to put this ... "stupid" - LOL !

Now, I'm not saying that is you, but, statistically speaking, would it not be as likely that there are "stupid" people here as it is likely there are "stupid" people in any field of endeavour ? Surely just because someone is, or becomes, a Richmond supporter, they don't get a corresponding IQ boost, any more than they become "more stupid".

There was once a US President who became incredibly disturbed when he found out that approximately 50% of his citizens had a "below average" intelligence - ROFL !!!

 

[tugga]

Keep the posts on the thread topic or I will delete them.
There should be no misunderstanding of that.

 

[Bojangles17]

Ive only come in late on this but Id have to concur that YES it is the epitomy of STUPID decisions to shift the reigning coleman medalist from FF....errr, why, it makes as much sense as recommending Damian Oiliver be a strapper rather than ride the ****en horse. FFS...we have FF covered, next challenge is to find someone to fill the other key forward post on HF line.

I'm a great believer in the basics, that means when a kid arrives at the club as a centurion goalkicker, errr don't play him at FB...if a kid was a matchwinning ruckman through juniors don't think he has a KP covered. Stick to the basics and we might just, and i mean just begin to make some progress...but hey this probably all sounds a little crazy

 

[IDGAF]

Ive only come in late on this but Id have to concur that YES it is the epitomy of STUPID decisions to shift the reigning coleman medalist from FF....errr, why, it makes as much sense as recommending Damian Oiliver be a strapper rather than ride the ****en horse. FFS...we have FF covered, next challenge is to find someone to fill the other key forward post on HF line.

I'm a great believer in the basics, that means when a kid arrives at the club as a centurion goalkicker, errr don't play him at FB...if a kid was a matchwinning ruckman through juniors don't think he has a KP covered. Stick to the basics and we might just, and i mean just begin to make some progress...but hey this probably all sounds a little crazy

Yes ... JR won the coleman , but to suggest that his role for the next ten years is a stand alone FF is very narrow minded .

You have to flexible and you have to be fit .

He has the footy brain to be "potentially" a lot more . He may be more of a benefit to us down the track as a lead up forward . He does not have the size to be a monster key forward . So why not continue his footy development by learning a number of roles ?

Geez pal ... you've seen a fair bit of footy . How did we go for 15 years with a monster power forward standing the goal square ?

We have to flexible and unpredictable in the modern game and if that means JR having the tools to play further up the ground then we will only be the better for it . IMHO JR looks to have the tools to do it ... where as you look at a kid like Griffiths and he could lean towards being more of the forward inside 50 target .

Keep an open mind to what Dimma is doing and think outside the square .

Disco Roach came to us as wingman remember Pigeon-holing kids based on what they did in their junior footy is ridiculous

 

[santa claws]

Cool story Bro

is that an acknowledgement of being wrong. cool.

 

[santa claws]

i have to ask as a junior where did jack play most of his footy. oh thats right chf.
so why are we playing him at ff.

where does jonno brown play oh thats right usually where needed. want someone who is a nightmare to match up on then make that person versatile.

 

[santa claws]

SIMPLY put, if Jack isn’t our starting full forward and slotted to play there almost permanently, we aren’t serious about winning games.
None of Griffiths, Post, Vickery or Miller has shown any inkling that they will contribute major goal hauls. Bags of four, five or six from Jack, with cameos of two from the remainder, including the smaller forwards and midfield are our best shot at victory.
You don’t move your number three batsman to four or five if he’s making plenty of runs!!!

so you think its all about winning for us atm.
when do we put development and finding structures that will enable us to actually win more than a handful games first. seems to some theres never a good time for that.