Analysis Mihocek-Cox-Reid: Yes, No, or Maybe going forward?

[Finn Jim]

Given suspension and injuries, this was a forward line I was curious to see tried out. (I was actually curious going all the way back to Reid coming back into the side). Looking at the stats from tonight, these three combined to kick 6.1, took 16 marks, (of which 6 contested, 7 inside 50), and 35 total disposals. Though not exactly world-beating numbers, I felt like they worked well together and were each able to impact the game, especially given the size mismatch with the Dogs.

So: Is this a combination we want to see in upcoming games? It's a departure from how we've been playing, but it didn't fall flat on its face today. Personally I think when we're back at full strength we won't need it, but it might be a good option to counter (for example) WCE and their Kennedy/Darling duo that have had our number of late...

 

[Markfs]

3 tall forwards to counter west coast forwards?

 

[nahnah]

 

[Thatsmyname]

The bigger question is Reid or Cox

 

[stevebbb]

Give it another go this weekend. Leaning towards no, but wouldn't hurt to see it again.

 

[Thatsmyname]

September surprise: Go Small or Go Home

Langdon Moore Scharenberg/Howe
Maynard Crisp Roughead

Grundy Pendlebury Adams
Beams Sidebottom Treloar

Brown WHE Stephenson
Elliott De Goey Thomas


Sier Mayne Phillips Mihocek

 

[Visions]

Today when the ball came in and it hit the floor after a marking contest, the Bulldogs took it away with minimal pressure. Our shocking tackles inside 50 numbers showed that. Playing them all is not the way forward if we want to lock that ball in and create forward pressure.

 

[Finn Jim]

3 tall forwards to counter west coast forwards?

That's a fabulous point, I think I confused the names that annoy from West Coast with their intercept-marking game... which has made me look rather foolish in hindsight! Oh well, a horrible example, we all make them now and again. The question of what to do with the talls remains though...

 

[sirlothie]

Our arm is bent now Stevo is gone. I actually liked how they all bobbed up, they are still a handful together.

 

[barrackers]

I don't remember seeing a passage of play with all three involved, so it I'm not sure how much we actually used all 3 at the same time outside of when Grundy had a spell. Certainly it would have helped us keep 2 tall forwards on the ground for most of the day, does that make our structure to predictable?

Today when the ball came in and it hit the floor after a marking contest, the Bulldogs took it away with minimal pressure. Our shocking tackles inside 50 numbers showed that. Playing them all is not the way forward if we want to lock that ball in and create forward pressure.

Plus Howe was off for most of the day meaning we had one less taller player across the ground. When he may have helped defensively at times, it would have also made us slower.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Yes, I'd persist.

I'd be interested to know wht Cox didnt ruck though

 

[Quicky]

Given suspension and injuries, this was a forward line I was curious to see tried out. (I was actually curious going all the way back to Reid coming back into the side). Looking at the stats from tonight, these three combined to kick 6.1, took 16 marks, (of which 6 contested, 7 inside 50), and 35 total disposals. Though not exactly world-beating numbers, I felt like they worked well together and were each able to impact the game, especially given the size mismatch with the Dogs.

So: Is this a combination we want to see in upcoming games? It's a departure from how we've been playing, but it didn't fall flat on its face today. Personally I think when we're back at full strength we won't need it, but it might be a good option to counter (for example) WCE and their Kennedy/Darling duo that have had our number of late...

It would be interesting to compare what the three talls scored as a group to what the Dogs scored from moving the ball from defence to forward. I reckon they'd shade us. I think it makes it difficult for us to maintain forward pressure and to lock the ball in. To generate repeat opportunities. I want us to keep with our previous structure because it suits our strengths.

I think a few have mentioned, but this may be getting trialled with an eye on the Eagles game and challenging their intercept marking game, so from that perspective its good to see the coaches are proactive. I'm not sure it will work though.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

It doesn’t work. A big “no” from me.

Cox as primary option, Reid as a backup, but until Elliott gets back we’re probably stuck with both.

Would prefer Daicos got a run.

It’s not a reflection on Reid, who was good yesterday, it just kills our forward pressure and our skills going inside 50m aren’t good enough, we NEED repeat entries.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Going forward I think we look better with them when going forward

 

[Chrispiesssss]

I’m happy to play the 3 tall forwards, if our small forwards are effectively. Unfortunately, they weren’t very effective yesterday.

I particularly like the 3-forward formation when Grundy is off the ground. We still can kick the ball forward with confidence as Cox is forward instead of being in the ruck.

 

[DaVe86]

Worth another shot.

I think (as mentioned above), the setup works really well when Grundy is resting. We tend to look a bit undersized at times during the 10 minute to 20 minute mark of most quarters because Cox or Reid have a rest at the 10 minute mark, then replace Grundy at the 15 minute mark until Grundy comes back on and the setup goes back to normal.

I also think Reid is going to be very dangerous with Cox taking the bigger defender. I don't think it hurts Mihocek's game because he plays more as a mobile option anyway.

I agree that the Doggies rebounded it too easily in the first half. But they are the number 1 ranked team in the comp for transition. That's basically how they play. So it's hard to say whether it was just because we were tall, or because the Dogs were just good. I reckon structurally we were off all over the ground, but undoubtedly we looked vulnerable when the ball hit the ground up forward.

The other aspect worth considering is how we manage Grundy in the 2nd half of the year. We don't want to work him into the ground. So Reid and Cox could share some ruck duties during games to give Grundy a lesser workload. That's something that needs to be considered.

The jury is still out, but I would persist for now.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Cox:
is a definite.
If fit he plays.
There is no player on our list who provides such a stretch for the opposition.
A far better ruck back up than anyone else.

Mihocek:
Be my second option. But Reid becomes his nemesis if Reid makes himself so valuable. Has an uncanny ability to get under the guard of opposition.

Reid:
Fights it with Mihocek if they go for only two talls. Adds that extra smart position ing so needs to ensure he’s invaluable.

 

[atomiser]

Yes

 

[LuckyLee]

We've looked our most dangerous in the past season-and-a-half with Cox close to goal, Mihochek as a mobile second tall and a combo of Stephenson, DeGoey, WHE, Elliott, Thomas and Brown buzzing around at their feet. WHE, Stephenson and Elliott are all great overhead, so effectively play taller than their height suggests. Opposition sides usually have 3 big defenders and get caught out by the mobility and versatility of this set-up. Typically they try to double- or triple-team Cox, which might restrict his goal tally but creates plenty of crumbs for the others to feast on. That's the set-up that gives us the best shot at a premiership.

For mine, Cox is a must. Mihochek is the preferred second tall in the above set-up but if he gets injured or has a form slump, Reid can fill-in. So really its Cox plus one of Mihochek/Reid, not Cox v Reid or all three.

 

[mike123]

The bigger question is Reid or Cox

Both

 

[ColinMochrie]

Hard to judge off that one game, especially coming off a bye where strange things happen.

I think it depends on the opposition. I think it is handy to have players that can be thrown around the ground. Cox can play forward and ruck, reid and checkers can play forward and defence. Could really allow us to change things up when things aren't going our way.

 

[Shaneprice97]

Reid’s actually in decent form and makes this hard.

He doesn’t command the 2/3 on 1s that Cox does, but he’s still hitting the score board.

1.7 goals a game isn’t to bad, he’d probably be averaging over that if he didn’t miss those sitters.

 

[Shaneprice97]

Hard to judge off that one game, especially coming off a bye where strange things happen.

I think it depends on the opposition. I think it is handy to have players that can be thrown around the ground. Cox can play forward and ruck, reid and checkers can play forward and defence. Could really allow us to change things up when things aren't going our way.

I also wouldn’t mind experimenting Mihocek through the midfield for minutes at a time as an extra big body midfield option, similar to Roughead in his Coleman medal year.

 

[Brad Goodman]

Probably a better proposition at the G, and against a different opposition. Ground balls are the Dogs strength so it's no surprise they got the ball out of defence pretty easily.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

We can’t beat the better teams with this three tall set up.

I love Reidy, but it’s not worth throwing a chance at a flag away just to give everyone a warm fuzzy that he’s in the side.

We need to be ruthless.