Analysis Our Backline

[Vindicater]

Well, we normally play 7 defenders and between you and me I think Ridley will probably deserve a place.

I actually think that seven though (Ridley, Lave, Reid .... Kelly ... Redman, Heppell, Hind) will be our starting 7 next year, with Cutler, Zerk and Stewart as depth in the VFL. The coaches seemed to want to get games into Reid and with another preseason they may do it from the go.

Lol. Imagibe missing Ridley... i guess Ridley takes Heppells spot and heppell comes down from a wing

 

[Ants]

Lol. Imagibe missing Ridley... i guess Ridley takes Heppells spot and heppell comes down from a wing

As I said, we pretty much always select 7 defenders in the team, so Rids can just be added on.

 

[faible]

Maybe Stewie is going forward again.

I think Hind was sent forward in the EF? (unless I'm not remembering accurately) which doesn't seem right because we know how well he rebounds, but that would accommodate Kelly and solve the small forward quandary.

In the EF that Hind didn't play in?

 

[ghostdog]

In the EF that Hind didn't play in?

Oh wow. That is shite. Kids, don't smoke d@#$%zzzzz!

 

[Ants]

Blame the roast chicken....

 

[Ambrosia]

For mine Cutler showed enough as flexible defender in the back half of the year that recruiting Kelly wasn’t needed.

That being said Heppell’s days are numbered, Reid is still unproven, Laverde and Stewart are extremely injury prone so it’s not hard to see a situation where where in need of defenders next year

 

[Ants]

For mine Cutler showed enough as flexible defender in the back half of the year that recruiting Kelly wasn’t needed.

That being said Heppell’s days are numbered, Reid is still unproven, Laverde and Stewart are extremely injury prone so it’s not hard to see a situation where where in need of defenders next year

I see Kelly as an upgrade on Gleeson. The EF showed that one injury to our small/medium defenders meant Gleeson was in. Adding Kelly means that someone better than Gleeson is first depth position.

IMO we still need an additional depth player (can be developing) there. The only other options is keeping Gleeson (not optimal) or playing someone from midfield/forward there (like Guelfi, who I think is a rubbish defender). Happy for that developing depth player to be a draftee from U18 or state level.

 

[Ambrosia]

I see Kelly as an upgrade on Gleeson. The EF showed that one injury to our small/medium defenders meant Gleeson was in. Adding Kelly means that someone better than Gleeson is first depth position.

IMO we still need an additional depth player (can be developing) there. The only other options is keeping Gleeson (not optimal) or playing someone from midfield/forward there (like Guelfi, who I think is a rubbish defender). Happy for that developing depth player to be a draftee from U18 or state level.

Sort of depends what they see Francis as going forward.

 

[Ants]

Sort of depends what they see Francis as going forward.

I think they see him as a key forward or key back IMO, so not competing with Kelly. When he was in the side down back Ridley shifted down to play on the smalls. Francis was played as a tall whenever he was selected.

Which is a way to get that second 'depth' player. Bring in Zerk or Reid, shift Ridley down to play on a shorter player. Its just not ideal as we want Ridley playing taller and intercepting more.

 

[Ambrosia]

I think they see him as a key forward or key back IMO, so not competing with Kelly. When he was in the side down back Ridley shifted down to play on the smalls. Francis was played as a tall whenever he was selected.

Which is a way to get that second 'depth' player. Bring in Zerk or Reid, shift Ridley down to play on a shorter player. Its just not ideal as we want Ridley playing taller and intercepting more.

I don’t think they have penciled Ridley into a tall or small box. He will always play on a variety of types. I think all of Stewart, Laverde, Reid and even Francis have scope to play on a variety of types which is a strength of our backline imo.

I do prefer Francis as a forward though he seems too enigmatic to be a backman

 

[Ants]

I don’t think they have penciled Ridley into a tall or small box. He will always play on a variety of types. I think all of Stewart, Laverde, Reid and even Francis have scope to play on a variety of types which is a strength of our backline imo.

I do prefer Francis as a forward though he seems too enigmatic to be a backman

We can think that, but the only player to shift from a tall to a medium/small (or vice versa) during the season was Ridley. No other backman was asked to change roles. Lav, Stewart, Francis played exclusively tall all year. Heppell, Redman, Hind played small all year, no midfield. The only one to switch was Ridley, and Cutler into the backline (well, and Cahill after he failed down back). A smidgeon of Guelfi as a small back early doors, not at all later.

Truck seems to like players having designated roles, I think he brought in Kelly so that others wouldn't be switching.