Autopsy Is the 3rd tall forward becoming redundant?

[Rosscoe_666]

Elite quality talls will never be replaced - most teams struggle to find more than one or two however.
Hypothetically, if a team had all of Lynch, Daniher and Brown I reckon they would play all 3 at once.... nightmare to man them all....

We had all of Lynch, Bradshaw and Brown, and they WERE a nightmare to man them all!

 

[Bored_Pie]

No better third tall in a structure than Leigh Brown.

 

[captain cotch 9]

Townsend played more as a 2nd tall than 3rd in his last 5 games but played a bloody good role.
He was a defensive shut down forward but also kicked bags.
Non better than the 2 on grand final day against Lever

 

[Grrr]

It could be argued that the second tall forward is becoming redundant.

Ty Vickery was our second tall and the goal ump was more use.

We had all of Lynch, Bradshaw and Brown, and they WERE a nightmare to man them all!

and all of them were mobile and below 195cm.

 

[Grrr]

Ty Vickery was our second tall and the goal ump was more use.

and all of them were mobile and below 195cm.

Don't usually hang s**t on players and thought I'd deleted the TV quip...

 

[Jesslc]

Which is why we went small. It wasn't predominately through design but through necessity. We just didn't have another tall to support Jack up forward who was good enough. On the other hand, we had an over abundance of small forward and midfielder talent so we rewarded form and talent. This was the catalyst for the extreme change.

In the GF we had - one tall forward (Jack), two mid sized forwards/mids (Caddy & Townsend), three smalls (Rioli, Butler & Castagna) plus a rest mid (Edwards, Dusty, Cotchin).
Jack role was to force the ball to ground, Caddy to use his bulk to make every disputed ball a contest, Townsend was a defensive forward (who still kicked a sh.te load of goals) and the rest crumbers. Everyone of them we defensive first, offensive second. If the ball was in the air, instead going for the mark they instead first made sure their opponent didn't mark it. When it came to ground the pressure was applied and repeat stoppages or goals were the result.

If we had of played a second tall then our pressure would have diminished. Griffiths and Vickery (or almost every other genuine tall forward in the comp) just don't have the agility to apply the pressure that a small can. If they can get the ball to ground then they win the contest 9/10.

This is why I don't want another genuine leading/marking tall forward in our side. I feel that they become a liability the minute the ball hits the ground.

wasn't really looking for a chat about Richmond....Think you misinterpreted my comment.

 

[Football Tragic]

wasn't really looking for a chat about Richmond....Think you misinterpreted my comment.

Then why name two of our ex tall forwards?

 

[Jesslc]

Then why name two of our ex tall forwards?

They were the examples I was responding to..... I didn't bring them up.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

I think the third tall forward is good if you have three decent talls. The problem is that most clubs struggle to get even two, so the quality often drops significantly by the third.

Geelong went through 2007-2011 without having a star full forward, but it doesn't mean we didn't want one. I think Richmond was in a similar position of playing small due to necessity. But if either had three quality tall forwards they'd play them.

 

[10571z]

100% dead. 1 tall possibly 2 talls and 4/5 guys who can lay frantic pressure. Sure it may change in future but I'd say Geelong 2007-2011, hawks three peat, dogs and Richmond all did it without 3 or even 2 talls

 

[Janus]

If I was picking an ultimate forward line, I would have:

1. A contested marking beast who can apply pressure and put the fear of god into defenders...the guy who can halve a contest and bring the small forwards into play (Dixon type)

2. An athletic lead up/link up centre half with a good kick who can push up the ground and assist with getting the ball out of defence (Franklin type)

3. A resting mid-forward who is capable one-on-one and dangerous around goals (Martin type)

4. Then I’d fill the remaining spots with smalls.

The third tall spot now goes to a swingman/utility that can follow the ball up and down the ground. The game is about pressure now, and wasting a spot on the field on a player that will come into the game only when a team has the ball is dumb.

 

[Football Tragic]

If I was picking an ultimate forward line, I would have:

1. A contested marking beast who can apply pressure and put the fear of god into defenders...the guy who can halve a contest and bring the small forwards into play (Dixon type)

2. An athletic lead up/link up centre half with a good kick who can push up the ground and assist with getting the ball out of defence (Franklin type)

3. A resting mid-forward who is capable one-on-one and dangerous around goals (Martin type)

4. Then I’d fill the remaining spots with smalls.

The third tall spot now goes to a swingman/utility that can follow the ball up and down the ground. The game is about pressure now, and wasting a spot on the field on a player that will come into the game only when a team has the ball is dumb.

I like your analysis if you were just thinking forward 50. The lead up/link forward now also helps up the ground at stoppages when in dispute where a tall forward can become a liability. Works if they can mark but otherwise you are a player down when applying pressure, winning the contested ball and weaving through traffic in attacking chains.

 

[tonygeeks]

Elite quality talls will never be replaced - most teams struggle to find more than one or two however.
Hypothetically, if a team had all of Lynch, Daniher and Brown I reckon they would play all 3 at once.... nightmare to man them all....

Or even 1 says the dockers fan


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[tonygeeks]

Vickery was never the same after he got knocked out by that ghost
So hard to come back from such a traumatic , life altering event
How are you supposed to concentrate on football when you are constantly wondering when the next poltergeist is going to take a dislike to you and drop you again


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[tonygeeks]

People seem confused about what defines a 3rd tall forward.

Some see it as including a resting ruckman, like Hale?

Others see it to include a legitimate 2nd best tall forward, like Darling?

Some see it as the third tallest forward in the F50?

Or see it as the 3rd most talented of the tall forwards?

Or..... you just know one when you see one.... like Gunston, who often plays as the first forward?



IMO......If you have one, a legitimately good one, then you can thank the footy gods and look forward to much success! But what are they?

6'2/3 with wheels, hands and a dab of fairly dust on each cheek for mine


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Fat Tony!]

This topic is relevant to how the Demons line up this year given the availability of Hogan, Tom McDonald, Pedersen and Weideman as forwards. Most Melbourne supporters have included only Hogan and McDonald in our best 22, with Pedersen missing out largely for team balance. (Weideman would need to improve on last year to be considered.) None of our key forwards are great chasers, which is the reason I don’t think we will play three talls. In saying this, Pedersen would have to be one of the unluckiest omissions in the AFL if he can perform like he did last season. And you would have to think that a forward line including Hogan, Tom McDonald and Pedersen might work, provided that all three were fit and in form.

 

[mopsy]

I think the third tall forward is good if you have three decent talls. The problem is that most clubs struggle to get even two, so the quality often drops significantly by the third.

Geelong went through 2007-2011 without having a star full forward, but it doesn't mean we didn't want one. I think Richmond was in a similar position of playing small due to necessity. But if either had three quality tall forwards they'd play them.

Na surely not.

2007 premiership Mooney 67 gls and N Ablett 34gls with ottens resting. 2009 Hawkins 34, Mooney 46 , Ottens resting. 2011 Podsiadly 52, Hawkins 27, Ottens.
West, Blake and King all played as ruckmen as well in those g/f's there was also a bloke called Johnson who was 189cm 95kg who kicked 50 something goals a season over that period.Tom lonergan played as a kpf in 2010 and dan Menzel and Max rooke both played fwd one in a flag and both are tall 190cm 189cm.

you can argue if they are out and out stars or not but pods, hawkins and mooney were very good players.

Geelongs teams certainly did not lack for tall fwds in that period or ruckmen.

 

[Testekill]

A tall that is selected for the sake of being a tall is redundant. Teams are preferring medium sized forwards that can play taller than what they are instead

 

[Grrr]

Na surely not.

2007 premiership Mooney 67 gls and N Ablett 34gls with ottens resting. 2009 Hawkins 34, Mooney 46 , Ottens resting. 2011 Podsiadly 52, Hawkins 27, Ottens.
West, Blake and King all played as ruckmen as well in those g/f's there was also a bloke called Johnson who was 189cm 95kg who kicked 50 something goals a season over that period.Tom lonergan played as a kpf in 2010 and dan Menzel and Max rooke both played fwd one in a flag and both are tall 190cm 189cm.

you can argue if they are out and out stars or not but pods, hawkins and mooney were very good players.

Geelongs teams certainly did not lack for tall fwds in that period or ruckmen.

You are right there, but I think the trend has moved a bit. Last two premierships played with a small forward lines has got to say something other than both sides lacked alternatives. The speed of the game has really ramped up, hence guys like Lloyd and Miles not getting games.
Will be interesting to see how it pans out. I do agree that if we had an Ottens or a Johnson we would play them as a second tall (they were both very good and mobile), but quality like that doesn't fall of trees.

 

[Sir_Loin]

We had young Tim O’Brien play as a ruck/fwd instead of TV. TV just wasn’t good enough

I’m as stumped as anyone as to why it didn’t work out at the Hawks

 

[mopsy]

Ty Vickery was our second tall and the goal ump was more use.

and all of them were mobile and below 195cm.

Browny was 195cm all three were big men. by big i mean size and weight Browny was 100+ kg.
Lynch closer to 100kg bradshaw was only 191cm i believe but played at 95kg. they were mobile but Bradshaw aside i wouldnt call them quick bradshaw was quick of the mark and subsequently a very good lead.

In defense They had Michaeal at 190cm but 100kg Leppa at 191cm and 97kg they were tall enough but clearly it was the size and strength that enabled them to compete against types just like their team mates iin Brown and Lynch.

So often there are height discussions and the size of players is forgotton or ignored, as is the attributes the players have for playing kp or as a third tall.
Could anyone really see Mal Michael competing against a Jon Brown if he was only 90kg.he was only 190cm but he had the physical attributes to play on the bigger key fwds.

How long i complained about Vickery and Griffiths for i dont know ages. Imo they are the reason why so many of my fellow supporters are so reluctant to see us bring in a second tall fwd. I mean to say two 200cm blokes who did very little when the ball was on the ground and they did not compete in the air often enough.As it panned out we were better of bringing in a small and a medium who at least gave us a defensive presence. But to me that does not mean an agile quick tall cant bring defensive pressure and give us an aerial presence.

 

[gbatman]

The game went towards finding midfielders being around that 190cm size.

The game has gone back to having key forwards that are around 190-195cm size. Not that they ever really left, just there was a trend for a short while of finding giants more 200cm tall.

Now teams are finding out which of their 190cm ish midfielders can actually be pretty useful key forwards and turning them into multi-positional players like with Dangerfield and Martin.

The top 4 goal kickers this season were all giants but they weren't necessarily from overly successful teams.

The Game went from having guys like Lockett, Dunstall, Lloyd, Carey and Ablett as key forwards who weren't giants to people saying they wouldn't get a game in current football to guys around this size, power and skill being what's really coming into use by the top AFL sides. These players would potentially be trained differently now and be used in the middle for bursts in the current game.

Guys like Franklin, Brown, Daniher, Cloke, Hawkins, Tippett, Petrie who are extra tall forwards have come into fashion and while are still goal kickers have gone out of fashion a little for harder running more versatile marking options.

I think there's room for a really tall forward in the team but the other tall/talls need to be mobile.

Third tall for a while was often seen as the ruckman sized forward who rucked a little where now it can be seen as the tall midfielder who goes forward and comes out of the square.

Some teams are going with marking targets who are permanent forwards. Some teams, all marking targets go onto the ball at times like with Richmond who used Martin at full forward and Riewoldt at center half forward. One played center and one rucked a little. Could you argue that all their main targets were in that third tall role?

 

[captain cotch 9]

I think guys 190cm+ that can tackle will still be used.
If a player cant tackle or put on any pressure they wont get a gig.
Sam Lloyd is a good example from last year. In 2016 he was one of Richmonds best players. In 2017 he hardly got a go.