Pendlebury and Swan - why no attention?

[Higgins2Waite]

When we played Collingwood last year, Beams and Pendlebury combined for 62 possessions and three goals.

We won by five.

The fact that we continually turned the ball over through the middle is what cost us the game.

We hit simple targets, we win.

You are right. I just think shut them down and we win by more.

 

[Daz]

If we tried to shut them down we may not have been so dominant at stoppages. It's not as simple as just playing a tagger and shutting out their best player.

 

[Black Diamond]

If we tried to shut them down we may not have been so dominant at stoppages. It's not as simple as just playing a tagger and shutting out their best player.

Do you reckon we persist and demand the players execute better, or make a structural change to incorporate a "tagger"?

 

[Daz]

Do you reckon we persist and demand the players execute better, or make a structural change to incorporate a "tagger"?

I don't want to mess with the quartet of Swallow, Ziebell, Cunnington and Wells on the inside.

I'd like a tagger in the mould of Liam Picken to take outside types. Even Collingwood, who tag as rarely as us, have used Marty Clarke in that role occasionally. It achieves two things. Firstly, we're a good chance at shutting out the Jetta, Pearce, Hill, Simpson, Sidebottom, Gaff types because they don't win their own footy. It also means we get to boot out Gibson/Anthony/Jacobs which I'm adamant is our biggest weakness. If we don't have dominant wingers, we may as well try to stop the opposition's runners.

 

[Daz]

In a perfect world Taylor Hine becomes our Picken/Nick Smith. Those two can run all day with wingers but can also defend them inside 50.

 

[Saintly31]

You are right. I just think shut them down and we win by more.

That's exactly where I am coming from Brett, also with your previous post.

Turnovers cost us in this game no doubt and many keep saying that, but so did letting Pendlebury tear through us, all the whilst being left unchecked. I can't see why they are seen as one and the same thing, we can improve on both.

It's far from the first time either. I am not necessarily saying we need a tagger, either do that or have defensive structures in the midfield in place (Ie; what Swans manage to shut down certain players) - we have neither.

 

[Saintly31]

If we tried to shut them down we may not have been so dominant at stoppages. It's not as simple as just playing a tagger and shutting out their best player.

Out stoppages may be dominant by the numbers, but Collingwood had the better of the clearances by a fair margin in hurt factor IMO.

 

[Daz]

Out stoppages may be dominant by the numbers, but Collingwood had the better of the clearances by a fair margin in hurt factor IMO.

Well they only scored one goal from stoppages so it didn't hurt that much.

 

[Saintly31]

Well they only scored one goal from stoppages so it didn't hurt that much.

That's a stat where the goal is direct from the stoppage.

It's not a reflection of their effectiveness and quality of the clearance around the ground. We won more but that in itself means little if we turn it over with a rushed kick to a 3 on 1 contest.

 

[Higgins2Waite]

That's a stat where the goal is direct from the stoppage.

It's not a reflection of their effectiveness and quality of the clearance around the ground. We won more but that in itself means little if we turn it over with a rushed kick to a 3 on 1 contest.

exactly, it doesn't mean much when the clearance going in/around the 50 was skyed and they had players sitting back outnumbering our forwards.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Why? They can still.play.

Just means one (whoever) plays to limit touches not get them. What did Gibson do? Id rather he get no touches and limit a damaging opponent than get 15 or 20 or so nothing stats.

Because you are still only allowed 4 players in the centre square. Unless you're saying you want one of Swallow/JZ/Cunners to be the tagger?

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

exactly, it doesn't mean much when the clearance going in/around the 50 was skyed and they had players sitting back outnumbering our forwards.

Tagging Swan or Pendles is not going to change that either.

 

[Saintly31]

Because you are still only allowed 4 players in the centre square. Unless you're saying you want one of Swallow/JZ/Cunners to be the tagger?

I would be prepared to bring in a person (whether Hine, Gibson, Harper or whoever) to apply pressure to a dangerous outside mid if it meant JZ started outside the square.

JZ too often just bangs it on the boot blindly, his clearances aren't that flash. Spitta/Cunners (very good clearance players) with a third person limiting the opposition c/would work.

JZ as a utility (like Goddard in his better years) is preferred than his current role anyway IMO.

 

[Daz]

Ziebell's too slow to play any other position IMO.

 

[Saintly31]

Ziebell's too slow to play any other position IMO.

I think he would be handy on a HFF, rotating through the middle when required and to provide bullocking/clearance work in and around the forward 50.

His nice kick (when he has time) would see him slot a few goals too I reckon.

 

[Devil Fish]

Scott thinks he is Batman and has employed a 'no tagging' rule.

Nothing's changed. Pearce Handley can attest to that.

 

[Gasometer]

Nothing's changed. Pearce Handley can attest to that.

Check my new thread on this disgrace....a roll call of whos who of the AFL.

 

[Daz]

Nothing's changed. Pearce Handley can attest to that.

Greenwood tagged Rockliff.

Carlton and Melbourne are the only teams who play more than one tagger. Mainly because they have rubbish midfields. If we play another tagger that means our good midfielders get pushed out of the midfield.