Harry up forward for the Eagles game

[The Flying Magpie]

The way I see it we are OK down back and in the middle, it’s up the front end where on some occasions we are lacking, Dawes will be good in the ensuing years and even better when he can consistently take an overhead mark and learn tho use his bulk properly. My thoughts are that if Maxy is back for the game against the Eagles, then it would not such a bad idea to play Harry up the front end for that game, Harry at present would have to leading in the amount of goals kicked from actual shots at goal, he is a very good overhead mark, knows how to position his body to advantage and to date has been very accurate at the goals from any distance, my line of thinking is from what the Doggies did with Brian Lake against us, unlike the Doggies who can not cover for Lake down back, we have a couple of players playing in the VFL who could.

 

[beez]

I think Captain Maxy has dibs on this idea. He suggested after Monday's game we play defenders in the forward line and vice versa. Can't wait to see Presti slot some through the big sticks

 

[mattys123]

I think Captain Maxy has dibs on this idea. He suggested after Monday's game we play defenders in the forward line and vice versa. Can't wait to see Presti slot some through the big sticks

As long as we don't put Ben Reid forward, I really don't see the "harm" in trying a few different things up forward, especially if Anthony continues to struggle with his form.

I still see the Cloke, Dawes and Anthony forward line as the future, but no doubt all 3 have to be in form and fit to maintain the forward pressure that makes us a good team.

 

[PieLebo87]

I don't understand why these sorts of things cannot be experimented with.

What would be the harm, when having back up defenders, in playing Harry up at CHF, or inside forward 50 if required.

Or when Heater isn't touching it, in placing him in the middle, on the wing, or even up at HF?

Whats the worst that can happen when doing these experiments? We might just find a new centreman, or HF, or FF ect.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

My rationale would be that our problem up forward is not really personnel. It's that we're too easily flooded because of painfully slow and indirect ball movement. It was bleedingly obvious against Melbourne that our forward line lacked any space, whereas theirs was wide open and they often sent it in with a numbers advantage. With that much crowding up there, it wouldn't matter if Jebus himself was lined up in our forward 50m, he still couldn't mark it.

Harry has been an accurate kick up forward when used as the "lay-off" option, however I'm not sure I've seen him take a mark, or even kick over the mark yet. I know he's an excellent half-back though, and we need run and creativity there more than we need Harry as a permanent forward IMHO. We lost a lot of our ability to "take the game on" when we lost Ben Johnson from the line-up, I would hate to see how stagnant we'd look from the back half without Harry.

 

[Number 10]

There is something about Harry that just screams Collingwood. He bundles up all the good thing about Shaw, Swan, Davis and Didak into one. He has that galloping run out of defense full of bounces and backed with confidence, he's also very tough and yet has more flair than Davis and Didak put together.

Although it's a very intriguing prospect (and I certainly wouldn't mind a boost in the forward line), CFC would not be the same without his dash from the backline - he defines our club from that position and I love it!

 

[Keele]

I would most cetainly consider Reid being played again as a forward for one full game... just to see.

 

[Kirby]

Harry has given me absolutely no indication that he could play as a forward at all. He looks and plays like a player who needs the ground to be open in front of him.

He's a top class half back and I would leave him there.

 

[mike_]

As pointed out before, the only issue up forward is the inability to kick to a leading forward, as there is absolutely no space up there by the time we're ready. Until Malthouse/the players take it upon themselves to either take the game on utilising the corridor, or kick longer along the wins, we will not beat the flood.
Personally I think Harry should remain a defender. He's having a great year, one of the shining lights down back.


And besides, if he became a forward, instead of the sheer awesomeness of kicking a 70 meter 'H-Bomb', we'd have a lackluster 20 meter conversion. Can't have that can we?

 

[notorious_zhang]

I don't think our defence is really as great as everyone thinks this year... and our forward line isn't because of lack of quality although Medhurst and Davis are out of form.

However you have to assume that our lack of goals/forward power isn't because these 2 players are absolute sh*t atm but our forward structure.

Our forward structure and movement really only complements one or two huge pack marking key forwards. We DEFINETLY do not have these.

I wouldn't mind experimenting it, but not in the main season. The NAB cup is generally where you experiment with players and different positions.

 

[Quicky]

Harry has given me absolutely no indication that he could play as a forward at all. He looks and plays like a player who needs the ground to be open in front of him.

He's a top class half back and I would leave him there.

This. I actually think this talk stinks of desperation given how totally inept our forward line has looked this year and last. I think we'll find the solution in a tweak to the gameplan by improving our ball movement, settling the forward line with two KPP's not three talls and persisting with one of Dawes or Anthony in a KPP until they have the experience to be consistent.

 

[shawthing09]

This. I actually think this talk stinks of desperation given how totally inept our forward line has looked this year and last. I think we'll find the solution in a tweak to the gameplan by improving our ball movement, settling the forward line with two KPP's not three talls and persisting with one of Dawes or Anthony in a KPP until they have the experience to be consistent.

It is desperation but in some ways it is needed. We are not good enough our movement of the ball fails in big games. It came up in the 3 from the past decade thread but your window is short and your margains are small and in someways you have to make your own luck. Our window is now and we need to eliminate as many question marks as possible and our foward line, or ball movement foward is the biggest.

I am repeating myself but I think it is too easy to look at the games where guys like Anthony and Dawes play well and say see we moved the ball quick and direct and they played well. Or to look at the final ball in where the foward line is congested and say what hope do the fowards have and then blame the foward problems entirely on the movement of the ball from up the ground.

My problem with that is it's not like players are actively ignoring good options infront of them in favour of holding onto the ball. We consistantly break down across the half foward line because either Cloke goes chasing and then isn't a good enough kick and doesn't have good enough options or we don't have an option presenting to the kickers from defence that is good enough. It has been mentioned before but St Kilda's ball movement is not all that disimilar to us, difference is Riewoldt is a freak and gives them a linking option out of defence and then uses the ball better then Cloke and also often gets back to then be the deep foward option.

My point is part of the reason our ball movement fails is because our options foward of the ball don't demand to be used. In the games that Dawes played well earlier in the year we moved the ball fast. That was because Dawes had space infront of him and made himself a good option. Unfortunately you can't always rely on that kind of space. Ben Kinnear would have looked good in the Carlton and Essendon games.

Our ball movement needs to be fixed to give our fowards a better chance, our fowards need to present better options to make our ball movement faster IMO. So if one of Anthony or Dawes or Rusling can create an option that commands the ball all good and well, if not I am not against trying defenders foward.

 

[Quicky]

My problem with that is it's not like players are actively ignoring good options infront of them in favour of holding onto the ball. We consistantly break down across the half foward line because either Cloke goes chasing and then isn't a good enough kick and doesn't have good enough options or we don't have an option presenting to the kickers from defence that is good enough. It has been mentioned before but St Kilda's ball movement is not all that disimilar to us, difference is Riewoldt is a freak and gives them a linking option out of defence and then uses the ball better then Cloke and also often gets back to then be the deep foward option.

My point is part of the reason our ball movement fails is because our options foward of the ball don't demand to be used. In the games that Dawes played well earlier in the year we moved the ball fast. That was because Dawes had space infront of him and made himself a good option. Unfortunately you can't always rely on that kind of space. Ben Kinnear would have looked good in the Carlton and Essendon games.

Our ball movement needs to be fixed to give our fowards a better chance, our fowards need to present better options to make our ball movement faster IMO. So if one of Anthony or Dawes or Rusling can create an option that commands the ball all good and well, if not I am not against trying defenders foward.

The bold bits do get lost in this debate quite a bit and it's a really good point you make. So ignoring the issue of ball movement (although the issues are linked both ways) I guess the question is who can we play that will present and provide a stronger forward target? And what structure will support them best? Our options are:

> Cloke - The issue with Cloke is that he tends to lead too far up the wings chasing the ball whether through coaches instructions; because no-one else is providing a target; or under his own steam. I actually think in regards to who will provide a strong marking option and a leading target who continually presents, Cloke is hands down our best option. The issue is ensuring he plays deeper where he is actually going to be a dangerous forward option. People will bemoan his dodgy set shot, and no doubt it is an issue, but I see him similar to Mooney who plays a similar role at Geelong with similar limitations. I think much of our forward issues comes from being unable to find someone to support him in this role.

> Dawes - His massive tank allows him to comfortably play CHF with the flexibility of playing deep as well. His major strengths are his ability to get to a lot of contests which also addresses an issue you were referring to. But his major weakness is his overhead marking and ability to bring the ball to ground, which in games against tight defences means that even though he is getting to contests he allows the defence to mop up and rebound much too easily. This costs us dearly. I could forgive his overhead marking skills if he at least competed and locked the ball in. I'd question whether this is simply an issue of giving him more senior gametime and experience.

> Anthony - I think is our best hope to provide the support Cloke needs. He is our best set-shot, a good over head mark and brings the ball to ground when he can't. He doesn't present as well, or perhaps more to the point as smartly, as you'd like. His only real issue is his lack of fitness to play up the ground at CHF as well. This limits Cloke to CHF which I don't believe is the best for our structure. But if you are talking about making your own luck, from the perspective of ability/experience i'd say Anthony is our best hope. It's largely an issue of fitness. If I were the fitness staff i'd have Anthony working his arse off to be able to play a more versatile FF/CHF role in time for the few weeks leading up to finals. My biggest issue would be can he play CHF?

Reid - Gets forgotten in this debate a lot but i'd say he could arguably our most talented KPF option. If we were to switch anyone from the back half with the expectation of addressing our forward issues it would be him. He's quick, has the ability to play up the ground, can take a mark, from my distant memory presents well but there is the query on his kicking. If we were looking to make our own luck he's the guy i'd be looking at if we were brave (or stupid) enough to make the switch.

This ones a bit left field but I think our only other viable option may be...

Maxwell - I'm sure i'll get baked for this but I think if we could cover anyones position in defense it would be his. Reid or Goldsack could play that role, Brown could be brought in as a KPD. When I make this suggestion i'm thinking of the success of guys like Rooke, Hahn and to a lesser extent Campbell Brown. I'd be asking him to present and present and to use his tenacity and fight to lock the ball in. He's a decent mark and one of our best set shots.

On the Harry suggestion i'd like to know what people think he'll bring to the forward line that will make his successful there? I guess the problem is as he's never been used in that role it's hard to say. I just don't see it though.

My problem with these sort of suggestions is that they have the potential of robbing someone like Dawes or Anthony the experience they need before they can be consistent in their position.

 

[soreplums]

The bold bits do get lost in this debate quite a bit and it's a really good point you make. So ignoring the issue of ball movement (although the issues are linked both ways) I guess the question is who can we play that will present and provide a stronger forward target? And what structure will support them best? Our options are:

> Cloke - The issue with Cloke is that he tends to lead too far up the wings chasing the ball whether through coaches instructions; because no-one else is providing a target; or under his own steam. I actually think in regards to who will provide a strong marking option and a leading target who continually presents, Cloke is hands down our best option. The issue is ensuring he plays deeper where he is actually going to be a dangerous forward option. People will bemoan his dodgy set shot, and no doubt it is an issue, but I see him similar to Mooney who plays a similar role at Geelong with similar limitations. I think much of our forward issues comes from being unable to find someone to support him in this role.

> Dawes - His massive tank allows him to comfortably play CHF with the flexibility of playing deep as well. His major strengths are his ability to get to a lot of contests which also addresses an issue you were referring to. But his major weakness is his overhead marking and ability to bring the ball to ground, which in games against tight defences means that even though he is getting to contests he allows the defence to mop up and rebound much too easily. This costs us dearly. I could forgive his overhead marking skills if he at least competed and locked the ball in. I'd question whether this is simply an issue of giving him more senior gametime and experience.

> Anthony - I think is our best hope to provide the support Cloke needs. He is our best set-shot, a good over head mark and brings the ball to ground when he can't. He doesn't present as well, or perhaps more to the point as smartly, as you'd like. His only real issue is his lack of fitness to play up the ground at CHF as well. This limits Cloke to CHF which I don't believe is the best for our structure. But if you are talking about making your own luck, from the perspective of ability/experience i'd say Anthony is our best hope. It's largely an issue of fitness. If I were the fitness staff i'd have Anthony working his arse off to be able to play a more versatile FF/CHF role in time for the few weeks leading up to finals. My biggest issue would be can he play CHF?

Reid - Gets forgotten in this debate a lot but i'd say he could arguably our most talented KPF option. If we were to switch anyone from the back half with the expectation of addressing our forward issues it would be him. He's quick, has the ability to play up the ground, can take a mark, from my distant memory presents well but there is the query on his kicking. If we were looking to make our own luck he's the guy i'd be looking at if we were brave (or stupid) enough to make the switch.

This ones a bit left field but I think our only other viable option may be...

Maxwell - I'm sure i'll get baked for this but I think if we could cover anyones position in defense it would be his. Reid or Goldsack could play that role, Brown could be brought in as a KPD. When I make this suggestion i'm thinking of the success of guys like Rooke, Hahn and to a lesser extent Campbell Brown. I'd be asking him to present and present and to use his tenacity and fight to lock the ball in. He's a decent mark and one of our best set shots.

On the Harry suggestion i'd like to know what people think he'll bring to the forward line that will make his successful there? I guess the problem is as he's never been used in that role it's hard to say. I just don't see it though.

My problem with these sort of suggestions is that they have the potential of robbing someone like Dawes or Anthony the experience they need before they can be consistent in their position.

I agree with this one. But it's a tough decision when he is playing well and is starting to look settled down back. He was drafted as a forward and very early on he was taking quite a few contested marks and had quite a few shots on goal. Being a little bit older and having a few more senior games may settle him when kicking for goal. If N Brown wasn't injured, it wouldn't be a bad idea to give it a go, but like I said... He is starting to settle dawn back.

I still think if Jack, Dawes and cloke play together, Jack has to be the one to come out of the square and lead into space. Cloke and Dawes can both give options up the ground and then push back and lead behind Jack. Cloke and Dawes play better when they are both in the team.

If Rusling was fit and had any form, he would be the best person to take Jack's role out of the square as his pace leading from the square would allow him to find space better and improve delivery into the forward line.

If Cloke and Dawes are up the ground and we need to help them out with leg speed, then our FP can play high and outside the 50m.

I agree with the Maxy call too, but I wonder if his leadership back there is too important

 

[Go_Brad_Dick]

+1 for Harry up forward..
would love to see this.
Has the potential to be a 4goal a game player..
wasted in defence I think.

 

[danielnajdek]

I've got a really outrageous idea.























Play Dawes as FF