Red Black and Blue
Brownlow Medallist
Played parts on Crameri in the round 7 game this year. Most of the time he just plays loose and goes third man up.
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
General Bombers Talk How many talls?
- Thread starter fishardansin
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Played parts on Crameri in the round 7 game this year. Most of the time he just plays loose and goes third man up.
eth-dog
Tier 1 WW Player
they only had Glass and Schofield as KPD's though, and IIRC it was Hurn who played on him most of the time
Red Black and Blue
Brownlow Medallist
I watched it recently, It was Mackenzie starting on him, but Mac got moved to Ryder and Waters got moved on to Crameri who got the better of him so they switched him with Glass as the third man. Thats just it though, most quality defense's have medium/talls like Waters/Pears who can play tall and small to give them options.
bombermick
Norm Smith Medallist
The Eagles play very tall, but their rucks are extremely mobile. It's personnel as opposed to numbers of talls.
As for our backs with poor kicking skills (Hooker, Hardingham, Bags), the only one who is untouchable is Hardingham as he's quick enough to take small forwards without sacrificing strength or height.
As for our backs with poor kicking skills (Hooker, Hardingham, Bags), the only one who is untouchable is Hardingham as he's quick enough to take small forwards without sacrificing strength or height.
When has he shown the ability to play small? I keep reading this about Pears but I cannot recall him being used in this role and he does not appear to have speed and in particular the agility to 'play small'.
Eleven 38
Norm Smith Medallist
- Apr 22, 2010
- 6,213
- 5,435
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Canucks, Cowboys, Renegades
i think 4 proper KPP, 2 rucks, and 2 slightly smaller KPP's, a medium back, with the bigger Midfielders resting forward as the 4th forward Goddard, Jobe etc..
so this year for us Fletch, Carlisle, Pears, Belly, Paddy, Hurley, JD/Gumby, Crameri, med Hardingham.
I guess this puts Pears as 2nd or even 1st tall (and probably puts a weak spot in our defence, but i think it will be good for Pears in the long run) even though i think his best position would be 3rd tall,, we just don't the cattle to have him 3rd tall at this stage, plus Fletch has done his time playing on the big key forwards time to let the young blokes do it!
Defence is definitely an area where we need to find someone to play 2nd tall with Carlisle so Pears can played 3rd once Fletch is gone...Will it be Hooker? im not overly confident, i think think we are a short 1 KPP, unless of course Gumby and JD can play every game allowing Hurley to go back, but at this stage i think that's a pipe dream.
so this year for us Fletch, Carlisle, Pears, Belly, Paddy, Hurley, JD/Gumby, Crameri, med Hardingham.
I guess this puts Pears as 2nd or even 1st tall (and probably puts a weak spot in our defence, but i think it will be good for Pears in the long run) even though i think his best position would be 3rd tall,, we just don't the cattle to have him 3rd tall at this stage, plus Fletch has done his time playing on the big key forwards time to let the young blokes do it!
Defence is definitely an area where we need to find someone to play 2nd tall with Carlisle so Pears can played 3rd once Fletch is gone...Will it be Hooker? im not overly confident, i think think we are a short 1 KPP, unless of course Gumby and JD can play every game allowing Hurley to go back, but at this stage i think that's a pipe dream.
Red Black and Blue
Brownlow Medallist
Meant medium/small like Aaron Edwards, and your Monfries/Ebert types.
yaco55
Hall of Famer
Usually the two rucks of Hille/T-Bell/Ryder - 3 defenders Fletcher,Hooker, Carlisle, 2 forwards Hurley and Crameri - So it's 6, but 7 if you include Crameri - seeing that many of us can't decide if Crameri is a forward. Any more and we are top heavy, unless JD proves to be a freak from day 1.
yaco55
Hall of Famer
Tall/small/snails/pace/structure - It's all meh !
The most important feature is high level skills across the board, especially kicking.
Skills is by far the most important component.
The most important feature is high level skills across the board, especially kicking.
Skills is by far the most important component.
eth-dog
Tier 1 WW Player
Skills are useless without the right structure in place. They're equally as important as each other IMO
Pick more talls!!! Esp against Blues and WB. They will be so jealous.
So when you said "We play best when we have 7 talls", where you "don't include Crameri as a tall"... it's never actually happened has it? Not once.
yaco55
Hall of Famer
Skills are more important than structure.
Look at the GF in 2013 - Hawthorn lost because of skills and not structure. And look at the 20008 GF.
eth-dog
Tier 1 WW Player
And if you get a shithouse structure your skills go to waste and you get smashed. You have to be in it to win it- Structure is what gets you there
There is a real fallacy in looking at the way other sides line up and assuming that it is a model and/or that it is what best suits our list. Almost exclusively sides play the way they play because almost no list is perfectly balanced and they are covering a weakness as much as playing to a strength.
The reason I wouldn't follow Hawthorn, for example, is because when you have individuals that can own the key defensive posts there isn't as much need to use the midfield to protect the defence or multiple defenders on one forward (there is also a bit to be said for wanting to take advantage of the better potential for midfield run we have at our disposal as opposed to the more possession based footy the Hawks play).
I'd say that Hawthorn realises this, anyway, because they have played Roughead at CHB so far and it seemingly requires them to play Hale more prominently as a KPF with the addition of an extra ruckman (which would come at the expense of a small player). At the very least, without the additional ruckman, the movement of a really good KPF/2nd ruck into defence is a concession to a weakness in their game which has held them back for two years now.
The reason I wouldn't follow Hawthorn, for example, is because when you have individuals that can own the key defensive posts there isn't as much need to use the midfield to protect the defence or multiple defenders on one forward (there is also a bit to be said for wanting to take advantage of the better potential for midfield run we have at our disposal as opposed to the more possession based footy the Hawks play).
I'd say that Hawthorn realises this, anyway, because they have played Roughead at CHB so far and it seemingly requires them to play Hale more prominently as a KPF with the addition of an extra ruckman (which would come at the expense of a small player). At the very least, without the additional ruckman, the movement of a really good KPF/2nd ruck into defence is a concession to a weakness in their game which has held them back for two years now.
I think to a degree it's a reaction to having to squeeze all of Franklin, Roughead, Hale, Bailey and Gunston into the side. You're right that there is a significant upgrade to the key defensive spots, as Lake and Roughead together are replacing Schoenmakers, and presumably also pushing Stratton out through freeing Gibson up a bit, or allowing a Burgoyne or Suckling to move up field.
If Bailey breaks down again though I'd be very surprised not to see Roughead return to sharing forward/ruck duties with Hale, given Lake already offers that defensive boost by himself.
If Bailey breaks down again though I'd be very surprised not to see Roughead return to sharing forward/ruck duties with Hale, given Lake already offers that defensive boost by himself.
I don't think Stratton is in any danger and that, generally, Schoenmakers is one of the most unfairly maligned players in the competition even though Lake may squeeze him out of the side (which I think is more about Hawthorn knowing that their best chance of getting another flag is to do it in 2013 than it is about any long term view on Schoenmakers).
What they are doing is putting together a more stable group of individual defenders which will, as you've put it, free Burgoyne and Suckling in particular to play more up the ground to get more zing in their midfield. Stratton and Gibson will be freed up to play on less physically imposing forwards which further plays to their strengths as defenders and rebounders. I think Hibberd and Pears should have a similar presence in our side.
To address the query raised by someone, I know that Pears has no known form line of playing on small forwards (although his ability to play on the medium players is a given). I based his potential in the role on the physical similarities he shares with Hibberd and even Hardingham. Simply, if he is roughly the same height, weight and has the same speed and agility (which I guess he does) he ought to be able to play in the role. If the match is just too much of a stretch in terms of speed and agility, say Betts, Gartlett instead of Milne of Ballantyne, then Pears just doesn't play on those guys.
What they are doing is putting together a more stable group of individual defenders which will, as you've put it, free Burgoyne and Suckling in particular to play more up the ground to get more zing in their midfield. Stratton and Gibson will be freed up to play on less physically imposing forwards which further plays to their strengths as defenders and rebounders. I think Hibberd and Pears should have a similar presence in our side.
To address the query raised by someone, I know that Pears has no known form line of playing on small forwards (although his ability to play on the medium players is a given). I based his potential in the role on the physical similarities he shares with Hibberd and even Hardingham. Simply, if he is roughly the same height, weight and has the same speed and agility (which I guess he does) he ought to be able to play in the role. If the match is just too much of a stretch in terms of speed and agility, say Betts, Gartlett instead of Milne of Ballantyne, then Pears just doesn't play on those guys.
Jeez, I'd say Hardingham would be the one spot (of the 12-15 genuine 'best 22' guys over Hird's tenure) they'd be wanting to put the most pressure on.
Does anyone else find this as bizarre as I do? Get a short guy who's awesome overhead but awful by foot, to play the role of a tall guy who 'plays short' as a rebounder with a superb boot.
Oh Tayteridge
Club Legend
- Oct 8, 2009
- 1,142
- 802
- AFL Club
- Essendon
If Tayte wasn't quick he wouldn't have been our number 1 option to play on Fevola as a second year player. He also wouldn't have annihilated him.
Going to make a big call here
As good as Hille is, I would happily trade him to get Josh Jenkins back.
He has more tricks up his sleeve and is a true Ruck/Forward with a massive upside to him.
As good as Hille is, I would happily trade him to get Josh Jenkins back.
He has more tricks up his sleeve and is a true Ruck/Forward with a massive upside to him.
Donakebab
Hall of Famer
Veteran
10k Posts
30k Posts
Essendon Player Sponsor 2022 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Essendon Player Sponsor 2022 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Essendon Player Sponsor 2021 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Essendon Player Sponsor 2020 - Orazio Fantasia, Anthony McDonald Tipungwuti, Shaun McKernan
Essendon Player Sponsor 2019 - Orazio Fantasia, Anthony McDonald Tipungwuti, Shaun McKernan
Errrr... how good do you think Hille is these days?
He was quick for a kpd, nobody disputing that.
Some are suggesting he could play small defender role which would put him up against Betts, is he quick enough for that?
