Remove this Banner Ad

Melbournes defence

  • Thread starter Thread starter DemonDoob
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

D

DemonDoob

Senior List
Joined
May 3, 2004
Posts
275
Reaction score
5
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
Why does melbourne play broadbridge instead of lamb? Its so stupid. Lamb is a great defender and is hard at the ball. He had heart. Broadbridge is weak and will never be great. He isn't blessed with great skills and isn't ever going to be key position player, and doesn't have the smarts either.
Lamb was great in 2002. adds physical presence and could quality opposition players. Why did he fall out of danihers favour?
 
Lamb is;
*Crap
*One positional at FB
*Not as good as about 5 other full back options
*Not a smart footballer
*Crap
*Struggles to spoil
*Gets easily outbodied
*Average skills
*Crap
*Had some shocker VFL performances against VERY average opponents.

Broadbridge is;
*Versatile
*Quick
*Good mark
*Average skills
*Average football brain
*Able to play a variety of roles in the backline, wing or pinch hit forward
*A chance to get regular games in the coming years

I may have put it more bluntly than it needed to be but it's pretty simple really. Nicholson is that much better at FB than Lamb is that it isn't funny, and that's the only position Lamb can play.
 
But we don't have a full back!! Don't call nicholson a full back because he isn't as he is simply far to slow. Even a part timer kicks easy goals on him. Nicholson is a great centre half back and will always be. The sad fact is we just don't have a full back to take the lloyds, tarrants, gehrigs and other forwards who always kick bags on us. Every other AFL team has a full back so why don't we? The fact is our defence is lacks depth and we should bring back solid and smart defenders. Go to the 2002 stats, and you'll see that lamb that he was solid.
Please don't talk up broadbridge, why would we want another soft, doesn't get the hard ball, can't tackle, no physical presence, gets outbodied easily footballer in our first 22?

Don't we have enough of these kind of players???? !!!!
 
atm we dont need lamb and i'd rather take broadbridge

why dont they perhaps do a rivers/nicholson swap

shove rivers back there at FB
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Originally posted by DemonDoob
But we don't have a full back!! Don't call nicholson a full back because he isn't as he is simply far to slow. Even a part timer kicks easy goals on him. Nicholson is a great centre half back and will always be.
Click to expand...

You moron, name 1 game where he's played at Centre Half Back!
 
rivers doesn't have the bulk to be full back just yet. He is too valuable across half back anyway. What happen yesterday though? did he receive an injury?
 
lol why he a moron i'd luv another Nietz

i'd shove him straight to CHB and let him play were he started off

but yeh Nicholson plays centre halfback against port and pies against tredrae and rocca

and played CHB against carlton on whitnall, let carroll take fev at FB
 
I'd like to join the bring back lamb club. He's a good option for us with Nicho at CHB and Rivers on the 3rd tall. Or even better would be brink back Ferguson, I know he'd been injured, but he'll slot in perfectly when he returns.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

We need another big bodied type player down back. Lamb is a perfect option. Broadbridge & fergurson & rivers just don't have the body type to take bigger bodied players. Therefore why wouldn't gather another option, instead of forcing us to revolve around nicholson. Although he is good he isn't great. He is a solid performer week in week out, but if he is not having a good day we have noone who can cover him. Especially without Bizz. I think its not a bad idea putting carrol in. He would be a lot better with some more experience.
 
Rivers is currently way ahead of fergeson

i think its good that finally we have 2 many tall defenders as apposed to a severe lack of them in previous years

nicholson and rivers and wheatley/broadbridge/bizzel on return, will be out 3 tall defenders this year.

i cant see fergy playin 2 many games when hes fit and carroll will struggle to get back 2
 
I can see Fergs playing a different role to the permanent backmen he was, I see him playing a lot more up forward replacing the mainly useless occasionaly ok Holland, and pinch hitting in the ruck if needed and going down back if he needs to. i also wouldn't mind seeing Rivers having a crack down forward for a quarter or two here or there. He reads the play so well he might just be good down there and will enhance his development. This sort of versatility enhances our options, whereas now we are stuck with having Holland down forward because you cant have him and nicholson in the back half.
 
we realli just need neitz at FF and Miller at CHF and bruce at half forward occasionallly and thats enough talls

holland just forces the opposition to send another tall defender down there which realli clogs things up

i cant see rivers being a forward mainly coz we luv him so much in defence

fergy maybe but ruck, white is best when he rucks on his own i think and we also have jolly and jamar

also fergy is 2 lil at the moment
 
Originally posted by melbournemartin
we realli just need neitz at FF and Miller at CHF and bruce at half forward occasionallly and thats enough talls

holland just forces the opposition to send another tall defender down there which realli clogs things up

i cant see rivers being a forward mainly coz we luv him so much in defence

fergy maybe but ruck, white is best when he rucks on his own i think and we also have jolly and jamar

also fergy is 2 lil at the moment
Click to expand...

You've made several good points there, but I am talking about when fergy does get bigger and fitter he can play a much more versatile role than what Holland offers the team. And we don't want to burn White out, and Jolly and Jamar can't play anywhere else.

I think Millers development this year will allow us to demote Holland pretty soon. He probably hampers Robbo's game as well.
 
Bizz, fergs, broadbridge, wheatley, whealan, yze, rivers are all of similar builds. Although there great defenders we need something more back there. where is our solomon or archer? As seen last sunday, we need a backmen who can impact physically. This is why i think read is such a great inclusion for our side. Holland is a decent inclusion too as it adds much needed strength to our side. but the 1 department where we don't have grunt and strength is our backline. I say bring back carrol, bring back lamb, lets get someone there in our backline with some 'grunt'.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Originally posted by DemonDoob
I say bring back carrol, bring back lamb, lets get someone there in our backline with some 'grunt'.
Click to expand...
If you were in control our backline would be:

Bizzell Lamb Carroll
Rivers Nicholson Wheatley

This thread has so much insanity I can't bring myself to logically reply to its points.
 
Originally posted by BT
Everyone is entitled to their opinion mate, but I too have given up on it.
Click to expand...
I know, that's why I decided to stop responding to it early on.

On a side note, in this thread I'm going to start a Dale Carson for Full Forward campaign!
 
Incorrect. The problem is ive been watching melbourne for many many years and can see the same repetitive problem.
The backline as i would prefer to see it would look like this:-

B:- Whealan Lamb Bizz
CB:- Rivers Nicholson Brown

Whats wrong with that ? I would have wheatley coming off the bench for rivers and also filling in some minutes on the wing.
 
this is wat our lineup normally consists of and should contine u to do so

3 talls:

rivers, bizzel, nicholson OR lamb OR Carroll OR Fergeson

1 medium:

wheatley, broadbridge

2 smalls (ordered in importance)

brown, whelan, ward, walsh, williams
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom