Is playing with no tall forwards the right way to go in the future?

[The City Boyz]

We've seen the key forward's role in footy diminish over time- is it time to bite the bullet and just play with small pressure forwards? Discuss.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Only if you have no choice.

 

[GCStormie]

I personally think its more to do with the number of quality KPP declining due to the increasing size required to be a KPP... 190cms used to be plenty to run around as a full forward/CHF - now clubs are looking for guys 197+ to play those roles (previously ruckman sized). the guys that used to be full forward size are now playing in the midfield.
Lockett 191cms, Dunstall 188cms, Sumich 190cm
D. Moore 203cm, J Daniher 200cm, T Lynch 199cm

The higher you set the bar (im so punny) the fewer quality footballers you'll get because there simply aren't as many guys that tall, let alone are that tall, AND Athletic, AND Choose AFL.

 

[chiwigi]

We've seen the key forward's role in footy diminish over time- is it time to bite the bullet and just play with small pressure forwards? Discuss.

Then everyone will change to small backs, then someone will bring a tall forward who will dominate ad infinitum.

 

[Smithdogmaddog]

If you’ve got decent ones who can play then you can play two.

Problem is most tall player lack coordination and ability to apply any pressure. That’s why good ones are so sought after. It’s only a small percentage of the talent pool at that height who can actually play.

 

[Seeds]

We've seen the key forward's role in footy diminish over time- is it time to bite the bullet and just play with small pressure forwards? Discuss.

no

 

[Seeds]

so op would play franklin in the reserves. wouldnt last long as coach.

 

[Jeff76]

Hope so then we can drop Hawkins.

 

[Grrr]

They either have to be very good overhead like Ben Brown or very versatile like Riewoldt.
Hogan has been very impressive this year as a mobile CHF. Third talls like Menzel or Darling are now second talls giving more flexibility. Until something new comes along..

 

[Blackas87]

No, you still need targets up forward, if not marking being the ball to ground.

Kicking the ball insude 50 and having the oppositions defence consistently mark the balk can kill teams.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Hope so then we can drop Hawkins.

lol, I asked the question on the Geelong board last week, on whether or not Hawkins was an automatic inclusion after his sore back. I promptly got shouted down.

iirc, over the last 3 or 4 seasons, he's missed maybe 7 games and Geelong have won 5 or 6 of them. They complained that against Port with no Hawkins, Menzel got double teamed and only kicked one goal. I pointed out that Geelong won by 34 points with 24 to 15 scoring shots, nope doesn't matter.

But we only scored 84 points. Yeah but we won by 34 points. Doesn't matter, we need Hawkins in there for structure, he straightens us up etc etc.

We won by 34 points. He's a consistent 50 - 60 goal a year player they say. We still win without him I say.

 

[Snake_Baker]

We've seen the key forward's role in footy diminish over time- is it time to bite the bullet and just play with small pressure forwards? Discuss.

If you are one of the handful of people that actually enjoy the current borefest.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Tall forward game plans (if you haven't got a decent one) = WWI trench warfare and set pieces.

Small forward line = SAS, agile and adaptable.

 

[Seeds]

lol, I asked the question on the Geelong board last week, on whether or not Hawkins was an automatic inclusion after his sore back. I promptly got shouted down.

iirc, over the last 3 or 4 seasons, he's missed maybe 7 games and Geelong have won 5 or 6 of them. They complained that against Port with no Hawkins, Menzel got double teamed and only kicked one goal. I pointed out that Geelong won by 34 points with 24 to 15 scoring shots, nope doesn't matter.

But we only scored 84 points. Yeah but we won by 34 points. Doesn't matter, we need Hawkins in there for structure, he straightens us up etc etc.

We won by 34 points. He's a consistent 50 - 60 goal a year player they say. We still win without him I say.

a sample size of 7 games is meaningless, especially since geelong win most of their games when hawkins is playing too. Your whole argument is based on faulty statisical analysis.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

richmond are the exception but franklin, patton, cameron, ben brown, waite, josh kennedy, darling, walker, jenkins, dixon, roughead, gunston are the good forwards playing for sides in the top 8.

for sides in the bottom 10 there's hawkins, tom lynch who's team is rebuilding, hogan who plays up the field these day, daniher who's way out of sorts and hipwood and charlie curnow who are promising but certainly not the finished article yet.

having good key position forwards playing well makes a huge difference. Just because it's not the 80s anymore where the full forward kicks 11 goals a game doesn't mean they aren't important.

 

[Juddernaut08]

We've seen the key forward's role in footy diminish over time- is it time to bite the bullet and just play with small pressure forwards? Discuss.

Nope. There will always be a place for at least 1 for the way it forces the defence to structure up.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

I personally think its more to do with the number of quality KPP declining due to the increasing size required to be a KPP... 190cms used to be plenty to run around as a full forward/CHF - now clubs are looking for guys 197+ to play those roles (previously ruckman sized). the guys that used to be full forward size are now playing in the midfield.
Lockett 191cms, Dunstall 188cms, Sumich 190cm
D. Moore 203cm, J Daniher 200cm, T Lynch 199cm

The higher you set the bar (im so punny) the fewer quality footballers you'll get because there simply aren't as many guys that tall, let alone are that tall, AND Athletic, AND Choose AFL.

It's an important point - evolved tactics, rules and interpretations have transformed the basic requirements of the role into something that is outstripping the available talent that can meet them. The very shallow talent pool means the gap between say the 5th best CHF and the 25th best CHF is going to be way bigger than the 5th best and 25th best mid.

You'll often hear fans and pundits talk about the unrivaled athleticism of basketballers for example, yet the average and median height of NBA players is 6'7, which covers less than 0.1% of the US adult male population. Shows people really don't consider basic demographics when trying to understand these things.

 

[Dr Tigris]

No
You still have to have a forward marking target. Otherwise teams will play tall mobile defenders and intercept mark all day.

But do you need 2 or 3? No.
You need to have that safe outlet so that under pressure you can hit the hot spot and reliably get some result (mark or ball to ground).

But it's still very useful to have multiple marking targets. They stretch the defense and allow multiple options going forward. The Tigers use Dusty, Caddy, Cotch and Castanga for those second marking targets. These guys make a hard match up, too mobile for traditional backs, but good overhead. Despite this it is noticeable that if the ball is bombed in deep and there is a taller defender they often pick the ball off.

 

[Milanista28]

Yep Ben Brown would struggle to find a club if delisted at the end of the season, He's just too bog.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

a sample size of 7 games is meaningless, especially since geelong win most of their games when hawkins is playing too. Your whole argument is based on faulty statisical analysis.

At this point in time they are the only stats available because Hawkins is the only real tall forward Geelong have.

 

[Power Raid]

There's always room for KPF but their role has expanded from standing in goal squares to being very active in play and defensive aspects of the game. I dare say the no chopping of the arms has lead to ever increasing size of KPF.

My gut feel is Matty Richardson and Franklin would easily play in the same attack and so could a Carey and Franklin. Even a Carey, Franklin and Ablett line up, would go OK.

 

[juss]

Then everyone will change to small backs, then someone will bring a tall forward who will dominate ad infinitum.

And this is why the game constantly changes and evolves.
Trends and tactics are successful for a period, then eventually worked out or not as effective and new trends and tactics come in and the cycle continues.

 

[juss]

If you are one of the handful of people that actually enjoy the current borefest.

It's actually quite enjoyable to see your team win with 22 contributors each week. Tigers have got no issues scoring 100 points.

 

[Taylor]

I think clubs would rather play 6 tall forwards than six small forwards, they just want the running work of the six smalls. If you can find six talls who can run, close space, pressure, tackle like a small forward then you'll have six in your team.

The minimum standard for a forward is set much easier by a small, but if you can add leap and marking into the package then that player gets picked over the small.

There might not be six total in the AFL who aren't a liability at ground level.

My point is that the talls aren't a result of wanting to go small, it's about wanting more from the forwards and there are far more smalls who offer that than tall options.

 

[Silent Alarm]

It's because more and more tall forwards are absolute pussies, who tighten at the sound of footsteps.