Autopsy Pies win by 11 points

[Buckley is my hero]

As a defensive forward I also liked what Daicos brought to the table in that last quarter. Her showed a willingness to chase the exiting defender and harass. A couple of his small, defensive acts resulted in turnover goals. I'm hoping young Browny brings a similar skill set when he plays. Our sheer inability to prevent easy transition from opposition defence is the number one thing that slaughters us I reckon. Massive area of need and so encouraging to see young Daics having an instinct for that area. So often that effort by the small forward prevents an easy inside fifty mark at the opposite end.

Just on the Daicos tap in the forward pocket that ended up in the hands of De Goey for a goal, an Essendon player was about to grab that ball and if he had, there was another Essendon player streaming away to take the handball receive to deliver the ball down the other other end. That could have ended up another turnover goal to add to the other 10 we gave away. That's the sort of thing that Daicos does that Elliot and Fasolo don't do. Sidebottom is the only other player in the team I can think of who does things similar to Daicos. Browny is different again. He is more of a contested ball player and ball magnet who plays out of the centre.

 

[Mkcaptain]

At this stage I have White ahead of Cox. Yes you lose a lot in the second ruck but I think White suits Moore better as the second forward. White can higher up than Cox can.

 

[TradeDraft]

At this stage I have White ahead of Cox. Yes you lose a lot in the second ruck but I think White suits Moore better as the second forward. White can higher up than Cox can.

Depends IF you want to play Moore at FF or CHF

 

[Stoods]

At this stage I have White ahead of Cox. Yes you lose a lot in the second ruck but I think White suits Moore better as the second forward. White can higher up than Cox can.

I feel Cox's presence would help Moore's game though, to the point of the spare man would be more worried about Cox and Moore wouldn't have 2 hanging off him and gets a clean run at the ball.

 

[Snoop Dog]

My best 22 is far from set right now. It might also differ by the fact we play the Dogs in Round 1.

At the moment, I think r1 may look something like:

B: Maynard, Dunne, Howe
HB: Goldsack, Reid, Ramsay
C: Wells, Treloar, Sidebottom
HF: Fasolo, White, Mayne
F: Elliott, Moore, Hoskin-Elliott

R: Grundy, Pendlebury, Adams

I: Varcoe, Crisp, Greenwood, De Goey


However, I'm very much playing around with the idea of dropping Goldsack and bringing in Keeffe. Keeffe to play back up ruck and also slot in down back or up forward. Otherwise I would probably have Cox over Mayne.

I know scodog above suggested playing Cox against the Doggies would be foolish, but I've always thought you can stretch the Dogs for height down back. I know Moore has kicked a few bags

I largely have the same 22 other than White and Greenwood out and Cox and Smith in (I think). Smith got a spot because I think they need the extra defender unless you play Varcoe or Adams back.

i get Scodog10 point with the Dogs and hence be happy with either Cox or White but dont think you can have both. I think its a big bet to try and stretch them on a fast deck. I'd rather pick up the extra ball winner as winning the ball vital against them. be interesting to look at the mix when we nearly beat them both games last year to see what we did at selection.

 

[jackcass]

I largely have the same 22 other than White and Greenwood out and Cox and Smith in (I think). Smith got a spot because I think they need the extra defender unless you play Varcoe or Adams back.

i get Scodog10 point with the Dogs and hence be happy with either Cox or White but dont think you can have both. I think its a big bet to try and stretch them on a fast deck. I'd rather pick up the extra ball winner as winning the ball vital against them. be interesting to look at the mix when we nearly beat them both games last year to see what we did at selection.

It will be interesting to see how it develops over the pre-season but I think at this stage 3 of White, Moore, Cox and Keeffe will play round 1.

We need to see a marked improvement from Moore in the next 2 JLT games or as unlikely as it would seem, he may actually find himself missing out. More realistically, I'd have Cox in ahead of Keeffe because he is both a better forward and a better ruckman, with Moore and White the other 2 tall forwards. Keeffe has missed a lot of footy and may well improve in both areas. Time will tell.

 

[DaVe86]

I reckon White plays more as a tall forward flanker anyway. He's agile, gets up the ground and also plays as second ruck.

So I don't see why we couldn't play 2 key talls and Jessie White.

If we are concerned about flexibility, then again I'd advocate Keeffe coming back in, and probably going with one less tall down back (ie Goldsack out).

Keeffe can pretty much play anywhere on the field including ruck. It doesn't mess with the dynamics of the side as much as if Cox was named.

Anyway, I think we'll see most sides going with 2 ruck this year anyway. With the new ruck rules, you can't afford a dodgy second ruck and just use the third man up to cover. Even Melbourne who has Max Gawn experimented with 2 rucks in the first JLT and it worked quite well.

It's a fair dilemma to have.

I just reckon a forward line with White and Moore as the only key forwards just has no aerial presence. Moore will get beaten body to body (he needs a run and jump at the ball), and White has never been a good contested mark. I think we need someone like Cox who is a presence in the air, and draws multiple defenders.

Otherwise, we rely on precision ball movement to hit out targets inside 50, and this has never been a strength.

 

[PIrOed]

I can't see Cox working as the deep man because KPD's have learned to body him and our ball use further afield isn't good enough to get him on the lead. It'll lead to a heap of long bombs to the top of the square. The only advantage is he'll rarely be outmarked, but once it hits the ground he's dead in the water creating an outnumber on top of the loose number we'll already allow them.

If we're playing him he needs to be on the move as often as possible I50 because with his reach you can't stop him on the lead without infringing.

Even though I personally think it would be folly to play Cox as a forward, given he was vastly more impressive in the ruck, if it happens the support cast has to be ground level types aside from Moore. Then we have the most important aspect of all this is, the opponent.

The Dogs aren't the type of team you want to allow control of the ball to in their D50 because with Murphy, JJ and Suckling they are sharp in transition. You'd need at least 8 goals from the KPF's given you'll probably leak at least 2 the other way with the loss of ground level presence. I just don't see that impact in our group. As you said another marking threat would be handy about now...

Reading your post I find it hard to disagree with your arguments yet I'm not willing to concede mine. We both see the same problems, lack of marking power and poor defending of opposition movement out of forward 50, but see different methods to address them. I appreciate that you see going for a more mobile forward line as a way to limit the Dogs ability to control the ball out of the back half. However your focus on Murphy, JJ and Suckling does not address their abilty to take intercept marks. Those marks in particular can release their transition game with much more venom than a ball won at ground level is likely to.

Earlier I saw that you compared the Grundy/Cox combo to Grundy/Witts. I agree Cox looked the goods as a ruck on Thursday but unlike Witts he does have some value forward. My reasoning is that where Cox drops marks when his opponent puts contact on him, Witts was out marked. Given that most teams play some sort of forward press a lot of I50 entries are going to be repeat entries and therefore most likely to a contest. If your forward line lacks contested aerial power as any more mobile forward line usually does it makes it much easier for the opposition to intercept those kicks and hence rebound. This is the reason I have come to favour Cox in the forward line with Moore as he provides that contest and if utilised correctly should reduce the number of opposition marks in Collingwood's forward 50. Additionally if structured right and the smaller forwards crumb these contests well then any oppossition extra numbers will find it difficult to win the ball cleanly. My thinking is that if you have someone like Easton Wood going third man up against say a White or Moore he probably takes the intercept mark. If that occurs it doesn't matter that those two could give chase as the Dogs have possession. However in the same contest Cox is more likely to bring the ball to ground or draw a free creating another contest for players at ground level and providing time for the players up the ground to structure up.

 

[PIrOed]

I largely have the same 22 other than White and Greenwood out and Cox and Smith in (I think). Smith got a spot because I think they need the extra defender unless you play Varcoe or Adams back.

i get Scodog10 point with the Dogs and hence be happy with either Cox or White but dont think you can have both. I think its a big bet to try and stretch them on a fast deck. I'd rather pick up the extra ball winner as winning the ball vital against them. be interesting to look at the mix when we nearly beat them both games last year to see what we did at selection.

Round 10: Dogs Won 53-74
B: Alan Toovey, Jack Frost, Jeremy Howe

HB: Taylor Adams, Ben Reid, Josh Smith

C: Travis Varcoe, Adam Treloar, Steele Sidebottom

HF: Jordan De Goey, Darcy Moore, Jesse White

F: Alex Fasolo, Mason Cox, Jarryd Blair

Fol: Brodie Grundy, Scott Pendlebury, Levi Greenwood

I/C: Jack Crisp, Brayden Maynard, Ben Crocker, Adam Oxley

Round 21: Dogs Won 95-92
B: Jonathon Marsh, Nathan J. Brown, Jeremy Howe

HB: Josh Smith, Tyson Goldsack, Travis Varcoe

C: Steele Sidebottom, Jack Crisp, James Aish

HF: Rupert Wills, Darcy Moore, Jordan De Goey

F: Adam Oxley, Jesse White, Jarryd Blair

Fol: Brodie Grundy, Scott Pendlebury, Taylor Adams

I/C: Adam Treloar, Levi Greenwood, Tom Phillips, Brayden Maynard

Round 10 was the round where they would likely of won were it not for all the injuries they sustained, playing the last quarter with essentially no bench. Oddly enough considering the discussion here all three of White, Cox and Moore played that game. Even more interesting for me is how putrid that round 21 forward line looks yet how close the team got to kicking a winning score.

Given that and reading the stats from the two games I think it is fairly clear that forward set up is not the most important factor going into round one. All stats were pretty even except for clearances which considerably favoured the Dogs in both matches and tackles which favoured the Pies. If Collingwood is going to get over the line round one then clearance numbers are where the improvement is going to need to be.

Also for the Aish fans out there he was a big difference for Collingwood between the two games, missing round 10 but putting in a strong display in round 21 gathering 28 possessions, 17 kicks, 11 handballs, 9 contested, 19 uncontested at 85% DE and getting 5 clearances, second from Collingwoord behind Taylor Adams with 7 and in front of Pendlebury and Crisp tied for third with 4 each followed by Grundy and Treloar with 3 each.

One final tid bit from the stats, Collingwood had 52 and 51 I50's in rounds 10 and 21 respectively yet scored 53 and 92 in those matches. The Dogs similiarly got greater return from the same number of I50's in round 21 over round 10. How much of that do you put down to the differences between the MCG vs Etihad?

 

[Mongo Ming]

When's Parma night?

Wednesdays. Wood fired pizza night Tuesday. Burger night Monday. Your week sorted;-)

 

[DaVe86]

Round 10: Dogs Won 53-74
B: Alan Toovey, Jack Frost, Jeremy Howe

HB: Taylor Adams, Ben Reid, Josh Smith

C: Travis Varcoe, Adam Treloar, Steele Sidebottom

HF: Jordan De Goey, Darcy Moore, Jesse White

F: Alex Fasolo, Mason Cox, Jarryd Blair

Fol: Brodie Grundy, Scott Pendlebury, Levi Greenwood

I/C: Jack Crisp, Brayden Maynard, Ben Crocker, Adam Oxley

Round 21: Dogs Won 95-92
B: Jonathon Marsh, Nathan J. Brown, Jeremy Howe

HB: Josh Smith, Tyson Goldsack, Travis Varcoe

C: Steele Sidebottom, Jack Crisp, James Aish

HF: Rupert Wills, Darcy Moore, Jordan De Goey

F: Adam Oxley, Jesse White, Jarryd Blair

Fol: Brodie Grundy, Scott Pendlebury, Taylor Adams

I/C: Adam Treloar, Levi Greenwood, Tom Phillips, Brayden Maynard

Round 10 was the round where they would likely of won were it not for all the injuries they sustained, playing the last quarter with essentially no bench. Oddly enough considering the discussion here all three of White, Cox and Moore played that game. Even more interesting for me is how putrid that round 21 forward line looks yet how close the team got to kicking a winning score.

Given that and reading the stats from the two games I think it is fairly clear that forward set up is not the most important factor going into round one. All stats were pretty even except for clearances which considerably favoured the Dogs in both matches and tackles which favoured the Pies. If Collingwood is going to get over the line round one then clearance numbers are where the improvement is going to need to be.

Also for the Aish fans out there he was a big difference for Collingwood between the two games, missing round 10 but putting in a strong display in round 21 gathering 28 possessions, 17 kicks, 11 handballs, 9 contested, 19 uncontested at 85% DE and getting 5 clearances, second from Collingwoord behind Taylor Adams with 7 and in front of Pendlebury and Crisp tied for third with 4 each followed by Grundy and Treloar with 3 each.

One final tid bit from the stats, Collingwood had 52 and 51 I50's in rounds 10 and 21 respectively yet scored 53 and 92 in those matches. The Dogs similiarly got greater return from the same number of I50's in round 21 over round 10. How much of that do you put down to the differences between the MCG vs Etihad?

It's a terrific post. It's basically what I wanted to say in relation to the forward line setup, but I didn't bother to do the research like you did.

I also recall previous years we have always had a key forward dominate the Dogs. Initially it was Cloke who kicked a few bags, and then Darcy Moore booted 5 in an early match in 2015.

While I largely agree that we wouldn't want to be too immobile, I also think Moore and White are extremely agile talls. The problem is that neither are real body to body anchors, and sometimes you need that against teams that zone well defensively. Even the Doggies traded in Travis Cloke as they needed more of a contest up forward.

I think if we still had Cloke, then also playing Cox would be a mistake because all of a sudden you have 2 immobile forwards. But when you have Moore and White, you still have 2 guys who chase...and White gets up the ground more as a half forward anyway.

If we are truly worried about mobility, then Keeffe may be the better option as he can play a variety of roles and has a good defensive element to his game.

However, I reckon teams like the Bulldogs thrive on the intercept marking and then breaking from half back. If you have forwards who keep the defenders honest, or even out-mark them...or alternatively draw numbers, then it can help stop the counter. To counter-attack, the Doggies first need to get the ball. So if a forward is taking marks, that's the best way to stop the counter-attack.

 

[Scodog10]

Round 10: Dogs Won 53-74
B: Alan Toovey, Jack Frost, Jeremy Howe

HB: Taylor Adams, Ben Reid, Josh Smith

C: Travis Varcoe, Adam Treloar, Steele Sidebottom

HF: Jordan De Goey, Darcy Moore, Jesse White

F: Alex Fasolo, Mason Cox, Jarryd Blair

Fol: Brodie Grundy, Scott Pendlebury, Levi Greenwood

I/C: Jack Crisp, Brayden Maynard, Ben Crocker, Adam Oxley

Round 21: Dogs Won 95-92
B: Jonathon Marsh, Nathan J. Brown, Jeremy Howe

HB: Josh Smith, Tyson Goldsack, Travis Varcoe

C: Steele Sidebottom, Jack Crisp, James Aish

HF: Rupert Wills, Darcy Moore, Jordan De Goey

F: Adam Oxley, Jesse White, Jarryd Blair

Fol: Brodie Grundy, Scott Pendlebury, Taylor Adams

I/C: Adam Treloar, Levi Greenwood, Tom Phillips, Brayden Maynard

Round 10 was the round where they would likely of won were it not for all the injuries they sustained, playing the last quarter with essentially no bench. Oddly enough considering the discussion here all three of White, Cox and Moore played that game. Even more interesting for me is how putrid that round 21 forward line looks yet how close the team got to kicking a winning score.

Given that and reading the stats from the two games I think it is fairly clear that forward set up is not the most important factor going into round one. All stats were pretty even except for clearances which considerably favoured the Dogs in both matches and tackles which favoured the Pies. If Collingwood is going to get over the line round one then clearance numbers are where the improvement is going to need to be.

Also for the Aish fans out there he was a big difference for Collingwood between the two games, missing round 10 but putting in a strong display in round 21 gathering 28 possessions, 17 kicks, 11 handballs, 9 contested, 19 uncontested at 85% DE and getting 5 clearances, second from Collingwoord behind Taylor Adams with 7 and in front of Pendlebury and Crisp tied for third with 4 each followed by Grundy and Treloar with 3 each.

One final tid bit from the stats, Collingwood had 52 and 51 I50's in rounds 10 and 21 respectively yet scored 53 and 92 in those matches. The Dogs similiarly got greater return from the same number of I50's in round 21 over round 10. How much of that do you put down to the differences between the MCG vs Etihad?

I think the other key difference between those two results was the form of Grundy. He was only just going in the initial clash, but up and about by the time the return match rolled around. Roughead is now gone for round 1 so Grundy has a real opportunity to stamp his authority over Campbell. In that regard I don't see too much of a need to go with Cox, but I'm personally flexible in a head to head with White so long as one misses (Keeffe has buckleys).

In terms of intercept work for mine it has little to do with the marking ability of the forward and everything to do with the positioning of the defender. One thing I am certain of is that we will use a loose in defense this year and if we allow the Bulldogs that luxury they'll have Wood in that role and I'm personally backing him in as the third up in any contest involving Cox or White deep I50 8-9/10. If we decide to not run with the loose I can mount an argument for going taller in an attempt to stretch them, but like Howe and Scharenberg being a strong intercept player has little to do with the forwards attempts to keep them honest because they read the ball so much better than the likes of White, Cox and Keeffe ever will.

Overall contests against the Bulldogs are won and lost at ground level. Beating them at the contest then using it well to spread their zone is the aim of the game and going tall is too prohibitive. We'll get a better gauge on things v Richmond when Grundy returns and we aren't resting anyone. My take is that whoever runs in support of him and performs better between Cox and White will get the nod for round 1. Its good to have options, but jeez I'd feel much more comfortable if either of them could provide 5-6 marks a game.

 

[Snoop Dog]

Round 10: Dogs Won 53-74
B: Alan Toovey, Jack Frost, Jeremy Howe

HB: Taylor Adams, Ben Reid, Josh Smith

C: Travis Varcoe, Adam Treloar, Steele Sidebottom

HF: Jordan De Goey, Darcy Moore, Jesse White

F: Alex Fasolo, Mason Cox, Jarryd Blair

Fol: Brodie Grundy, Scott Pendlebury, Levi Greenwood

I/C: Jack Crisp, Brayden Maynard, Ben Crocker, Adam Oxley

Round 21: Dogs Won 95-92
B: Jonathon Marsh, Nathan J. Brown, Jeremy Howe

HB: Josh Smith, Tyson Goldsack, Travis Varcoe

C: Steele Sidebottom, Jack Crisp, James Aish

HF: Rupert Wills, Darcy Moore, Jordan De Goey

F: Adam Oxley, Jesse White, Jarryd Blair

Fol: Brodie Grundy, Scott Pendlebury, Taylor Adams

I/C: Adam Treloar, Levi Greenwood, Tom Phillips, Brayden Maynard

Round 10 was the round where they would likely of won were it not for all the injuries they sustained, playing the last quarter with essentially no bench. Oddly enough considering the discussion here all three of White, Cox and Moore played that game. Even more interesting for me is how putrid that round 21 forward line looks yet how close the team got to kicking a winning score.

Given that and reading the stats from the two games I think it is fairly clear that forward set up is not the most important factor going into round one. All stats were pretty even except for clearances which considerably favoured the Dogs in both matches and tackles which favoured the Pies. If Collingwood is going to get over the line round one then clearance numbers are where the improvement is going to need to be.

Also for the Aish fans out there he was a big difference for Collingwood between the two games, missing round 10 but putting in a strong display in round 21 gathering 28 possessions, 17 kicks, 11 handballs, 9 contested, 19 uncontested at 85% DE and getting 5 clearances, second from Collingwoord behind Taylor Adams with 7 and in front of Pendlebury and Crisp tied for third with 4 each followed by Grundy and Treloar with 3 each.

One final tid bit from the stats, Collingwood had 52 and 51 I50's in rounds 10 and 21 respectively yet scored 53 and 92 in those matches. The Dogs similiarly got greater return from the same number of I50's in round 21 over round 10. How much of that do you put down to the differences between the MCG vs Etihad?

Thats really interesting and good analysis. Two major themes;

1. Win the contested footy
2. Be more efficient coming in / inside 50.

What was the DE between the two games?

We are going into Rd 1 with a better team than Rd 21.....at least at this stage.

 

[DaVe86]

Thats really interesting and good analysis. Two major themes;

1. Win the contested footy
2. Be more efficient coming in / inside 50.

What was the DE between the two games?

We are going into Rd 1 with a better team than Rd 21.....at least at this stage.

The Doggies are stronger as well though. They were languishing at that time of the year with lots of injuries. Plus they bring in Murphy, Cloke and Crameri.

They were gone for all money but the week off before the finals saved them in many regards.

That said, I've been saying for a while now that the best time to play the Dogs would be round one. Often premiership sides can take a few weeks to get going again.

 

[robertg22]

Thats really interesting and good analysis. Two major themes;

1. Win the contested footy
2. Be more efficient coming in / inside 50.

What was the DE between the two games?

We are going into Rd 1 with a better team than Rd 21.....at least at this stage.

Good call there.

Round 10 - 74.4%, Round 21 77.98%. Round 21 we had a higher kick to handball ratio also (r10 58% of disposals were kicks, r21 that increased 66%), however r21 was under the roof at Etihad.

Also agree with your statement that round 1 we should be stronger - but having said that the Dogs had a bit of a late season slump before playing out of their skin in the finals. We'll be a huge chance round 1.

 

[PIrOed]

I think the other key difference between those two results was the form of Grundy. He was only just going in the initial clash, but up and about by the time the return match rolled around. Roughead is now gone for round 1 so Grundy has a real opportunity to stamp his authority over Campbell. In that regard I don't see too much of a need to go with Cox, but I'm personally flexible in a head to head with White so long as one misses (Keeffe has buckleys).

In terms of intercept work for mine it has little to do with the marking ability of the forward and everything to do with the positioning of the defender. One thing I am certain of is that we will use a loose in defense this year and if we allow the Bulldogs that luxury they'll have Wood in that role and I'm personally backing him in as the third up in any contest involving Cox or White deep I50 8-9/10. If we decide to not run with the loose I can mount an argument for going taller in an attempt to stretch them, but like Howe and Scharenberg being a strong intercept player has little to do with the forwards attempts to keep them honest because they read the ball so much better than the likes of White, Cox and Keeffe ever will.

Overall contests against the Bulldogs are won and lost at ground level. Beating them at the contest then using it well to spread their zone is the aim of the game and going tall is too prohibitive. We'll get a better gauge on things v Richmond when Grundy returns and we aren't resting anyone. My take is that whoever runs in support of him and performs better between Cox and White will get the nod for round 1. Its good to have options, but jeez I'd feel much more comfortable if either of them could provide 5-6 marks a game.

That's a good point regarding Grundy and the fact the clearance differential narrowed across the two games reinforces that.

On intercept marking I have memories of the round 21 clash with the Dogs last year where Moore was occupied by his opponent and Wood floated across to either take the mark or kill the contest with an emphatic spoil. Moore's marking ability definitely had something to do with the outcome. He is primarily a run and jump player and an opponent taking his run by engaging him gives the third man up the opportunity to kill the ball(either by mark or spoil). This was a similiar issue Cloke had in his final years at the club. However for him it was only an issue when wrestling became his first priority. When he attacked the ball and contest he couldn't be stopped from getting to the ball without infringing. Then once at the ball even if he didn't mark it he brought it to ground. Cloke at his peak may have had more ability in his little finger than Cox will ever have but Cox can at least hit the contest hard and bring the ball to ground even if he doesn't mark(btw I agree White is next to useless as a contested marking target inside 50 and should never again be used as one). The key to this being useful however is having the ground level support. If the ball hits the ground in a 2v1 contest the two players should have no trouble quickly winning possession and moving the ball on, even if that one is Cyril Rioli let alone a 7 foot witches hat. If however that contest is a 3v2 or 4v3 those extra numbers create congestion making it harder to clear the ball. In summary, a defenders ability to read the game gets them in position to intercept but a forwards ability to attack the ball dictates whether they are able to create a contest or if the defender kills it.

That's why I can't see the team being successful without the second marking target up forward. Cox provides that contest better than any other option on the list(Moore being at his best when he has separation on his opponent due to lacking the strength or size to create his own space). Since White isn't a good option deep he can be replaced by say a Blair or WHE to provide a more mobile compliment to the Moore/Cox combo. However White does provide a useful marking option up and down the ground where those two, nor any other similiar players in the discussion, can't. Against the Dogs however I can certainly see the logic in forgoing the third marking forward for a smaller player to assist in winning the ball at ground level, particularly through the middle.

 

[PIrOed]

Thats really interesting and good analysis. Two major themes;

1. Win the contested footy
2. Be more efficient coming in / inside 50.

What was the DE between the two games?

We are going into Rd 1 with a better team than Rd 21.....at least at this stage.

It's more than contested ball. In fact Collingwood won the contested possession count in both games. It's clearances that they need to get better in. In other words they have to do something constructive with the ball when they win it.

In the game last week DeGoey got 9, Crisp 7 and Blair 5. In the season proper I can't see Blair getting those sought of numbers regularly. I think it is important DeGoey spends more time at the contest. I know Knightmare has been big on the club needing to improve their clearance work and DeGoey having an important part to play in that.

 

[pablo disco bar]

Too bad the list is short a second KPF marking threat(cough..Cloke...cough).

On Cox I am starting to come around to the idea of him playing up forward. Sure, he is one dimensional as a forward but rather than turn away from a three tall forward structure the club could instead turn in to it.

HF: Moore Mayne White/WHE
FF: Elliot Cox Fasolo

Something along the lines of Cox out of the goal square with Elliot, Fasolo and Mayne in support and then push Moore and White/WHE right up the ground. My main attraction to this is that although Moore and White can take contested marks, they do so more by jumping at the ball rather than standing their ground. If they push up the ground providing marking targets in transition and Cox is played as the main marking target deep in the forward 50, then hopefully Cox attracts defenders leaving space for the other forwards to work in. Then even if he hasn't found a cure for the case of overhead butter fingers he developed late last season he should still bring the ball to ground and the likes of Mayne can then get to work locking the ball in. As long as the coaches get the structure right and drill it into the players the top heaviness of that line up should not be a problem. If it does't work you could always swap WHE for one of Moore/White to regain some mobility.

I like cox but what makes him a strange player is everything is in straight lines.....i want to see a snap at goal or a pass around his body....i hope he is working on these skills

 

[Obese Arachnid]

I like cox but what makes him a strange player is everything is in straight lines.....i want to see a snap at goal or a pass around his body....i hope he is working on these skills

whiskeytown can you confirm?


Mods delete.

 

[Quicky]

That's a good point regarding Grundy and the fact the clearance differential narrowed across the two games reinforces that.

On intercept marking I have memories of the round 21 clash with the Dogs last year where Moore was occupied by his opponent and Wood floated across to either take the mark or kill the contest with an emphatic spoil. Moore's marking ability definitely had something to do with the outcome. He is primarily a run and jump player and an opponent taking his run by engaging him gives the third man up the opportunity to kill the ball(either by mark or spoil). This was a similiar issue Cloke had in his final years at the club. However for him it was only an issue when wrestling became his first priority. When he attacked the ball and contest he couldn't be stopped from getting to the ball without infringing. Then once at the ball even if he didn't mark it he brought it to ground. Cloke at his peak may have had more ability in his little finger than Cox will ever have but Cox can at least hit the contest hard and bring the ball to ground even if he doesn't mark(btw I agree White is next to useless as a contested marking target inside 50 and should never again be used as one). The key to this being useful however is having the ground level support. If the ball hits the ground in a 2v1 contest the two players should have no trouble quickly winning possession and moving the ball on, even if that one is Cyril Rioli let alone a 7 foot witches hat. If however that contest is a 3v2 or 4v3 those extra numbers create congestion making it harder to clear the ball. In summary, a defenders ability to read the game gets them in position to intercept but a forwards ability to attack the ball dictates whether they are able to create a contest or if the defender kills it.

That's why I can't see the team being successful without the second marking target up forward. Cox provides that contest better than any other option on the list(Moore being at his best when he has separation on his opponent due to lacking the strength or size to create his own space). Since White isn't a good option deep he can be replaced by say a Blair or WHE to provide a more mobile compliment to the Moore/Cox combo. However White does provide a useful marking option up and down the ground where those two, nor any other similiar players in the discussion, can't. Against the Dogs however I can certainly see the logic in forgoing the third marking forward for a smaller player to assist in winning the ball at ground level, particularly through the middle.

Playing devils advocate here; does the marking prowess of our smalls and mediums need to factor into consideration of our marking options? Elliott, Fasolo and WHE all good overhead marks.

It's a bit unconventional in that our smalls play tall, and talls like Jesse White play more mobile. I think on forward balance we can afford to go without Cox deep for this reason if we want.

You make some very good observations and arguments.

 

[PIrOed]

Playing devils advocate here; does the marking prowess of our smalls and mediums need to factor into consideration of our marking options? Elliott, Fasolo and WHE all good overhead marks.

It's a bit unconventional in that our smalls play tall, and talls like Jesse White play more mobile. I think on forward balance we can afford to go without Cox deep for this reason if we want.

You make some very good observations and arguments.

You would always factor it in. To use smalls playing tall effectively you need to isolate them one on one as they lack the size to compete against multiple opponents or have them work in tadem with a KPF. Just think about the big contested marks those players have taken. Most would have been where they jumped over/in front of a pack where the defenders were too concerned about the big key forwards in the vicinity to take their run. They rarely outmark opponents through brute strength but rather through their athleticism, on the lead or in the air.

The problem with playing small, as the Dogs found out circa 2008-2010, is that you minimise your avenues to goal and hence become easier to defend against. If you lack big marking targets, defenders only have to worry about their direct opponent(look to take their run). Those big marking threats require their direct opponents team mates to look to provide support, as the only way to make sure they don't mark is by smothering them with numbers, thus making life easier for those defenders opponents.

For example if the ball is moving forward and Cox is in the goal square with Elliot and Fasolo any extra opposition defenders running into the forward 50 are likely to head to the goal square to provide an extra number against Cox. If you replace Cox with say White, then those defenders are going to see the long kick to the square as less of a threat and therefore more likely to hold their ground guarding space. With Cox in the goal square you now have space for Elliot or Fasolo to lead into meaning the player sending the ball inside 50 can choose to kick to either the leading player or go long to Cox. As long as the kick is executed well enough the most likely outcomes would be either a Collingwood mark or the ball is brought to ground. If there is no big marking target deep then there will be less space for the leading forward, meaning any kick to them has to be perfect and the chance of the forwards in the goal square taking a pack mark is low. In that situation the likelihood of an opposition mark has significantly increased.

Now you play two big marking threats rather than one to again spread the oppositions defense. If you play only one then they can focus some of their players specifically to counter that single big aerial threat(for example a spare man in defense, think the Hawthorn game where Bolton was in charge and Cloke tore them apart until the extra man went back) and then designate everyone else to cover the ground level players. If however you have two aerial threats it becomes almost impossible to smother both without leaving yourself vulnerable elsewhere. The challenge for the attacking team is figuring out where the defense is weakest at any point in the game and attacking that spot(this is an example of where coaches earn their pay on match day).

Summarising you want to have more than just your six most dangerous forwards up front, you want to have a forward group that can hurt the opposition in as many different ways as possible.

 

[DaVe86]

You would always factor it in. To use smalls playing tall effectively you need to isolate them one on one as they lack the size to compete against multiple opponents or have them work in tadem with a KPF. Just think about the big contested marks those players have taken. Most would have been where they jumped over/in front of a pack where the defenders were too concerned about the big key forwards in the vicinity to take their run. They rarely outmark opponents through brute strength but rather through their athleticism, on the lead or in the air.

The problem with playing small, as the Dogs found out circa 2008-2010, is that you minimise your avenues to goal and hence become easier to defend against. If you lack big marking targets, defenders only have to worry about their direct opponent(look to take their run). Those big marking threats require their direct opponents team mates to look to provide support, as the only way to make sure they don't mark is by smothering them with numbers, thus making life easier for those defenders opponents.

For example if the ball is moving forward and Cox is in the goal square with Elliot and Fasolo any extra opposition defenders running into the forward 50 are likely to head to the goal square to provide an extra number against Cox. If you replace Cox with say White, then those defenders are going to see the long kick to the square as less of a threat and therefore more likely to hold their ground guarding space. With Cox in the goal square you now have space for Elliot or Fasolo to lead into meaning the player sending the ball inside 50 can choose to kick to either the leading player or go long to Cox. As long as the kick is executed well enough the most likely outcomes would be either a Collingwood mark or the ball is brought to ground. If there is no big marking target deep then there will be less space for the leading forward, meaning any kick to them has to be perfect and the chance of the forwards in the goal square taking a pack mark is low. In that situation the likelihood of an opposition mark has significantly increased.

Now you play two big marking threats rather than one to again spread the oppositions defense. If you play only one then they can focus some of their players specifically to counter that single big aerial threat(for example a spare man in defense, think the Hawthorn game where Bolton was in charge and Cloke tore them apart until the extra man went back) and then designate everyone else to cover the ground level players. If however you have two aerial threats it becomes almost impossible to smother both without leaving yourself vulnerable elsewhere. The challenge for the attacking team is figuring out where the defense is weakest at any point in the game and attacking that spot(this is an example of where coaches earn their pay on match day).

Summarising you want to have more than just your six most dangerous forwards up front, you want to have a forward group that can hurt the opposition in as many different ways as possible.

Good post again.

Elliott and Fasolo are both terrific marks, but they don't compensate for a lack of Key Position talls.

Elliott and Fasolo are both so deadly because they can out-mark their direct opponent who is typically a smaller to mid-sized defender. If they get a taller defender, then they can be too mobile. When Fasolo booted 6 against Richmond last year, a lot of the goals came when he was directly matched to Rance.

However, in a congested pack situation, or 1 v 2 situations, you don't want to be kicking to Fasolo and Elliott. In that situation, these guys needs to assume the role as crumber...otherwise we are going to have 5 people jumping at the ball with no one at the fall.

I still think there is room to play a Cox, Moore and White forward line.

What I'm not sure about though is whether Mayne fits into that mix.

 

[4#Didak#4]

It is a bit of a puzzle as to what is our optimum forward line. I think Cloke in the past led us to be very one dimensional up forward and I see it as a positive we now have a lot of other genuine goal scorers and different match ups/type of players to share the load.

Cox, Moore & White to me seems 1 too many big guys inside 50, although White & Moore are very mobile. We have so many others that will be more effective as a 3rd forward in my opinion than Cox or White. I see Elliot & Fasolo as marking options although they are smaller, in many ways they are a better overhead marking option than White. So I think we go 2 of those big guys with Moore obviously one of those.

Mayne does not carry all that much excitement but I think he is a smart player who can create the space for the excitement machines. Mayne is a guy that will keep the defence honest, he knows how to mark & lead over & over and you cannot lag off him to double team guys like Cox & Moore. So Mayne can really separate defenders which is a key these days.

At the end of the day it has to be how we maximise the talent of Darcy Moore. I think it is stupidity to expect Darcy to play deep forward and be successful as that makes it very easy for the defence to plan for him and take his run & jump away. Already from the practice & JLT games I see Darcy playing too deep and being negated. Darcy needs to be able to roam the forward half and use his athleticism. So the question then becomes who can play deep forward and give the defenders headaches. The answer there is not Jesse White. Jesse in many ways is a poor mans Darcy Moore, he can play a similar role as outlined above for Darcy, but he can't play deep forward well and attract defenders to him as his threat overhead is not good enough and the oppositions best defender will always beat him.

This leaves Mason Cox. As we saw last year even if he just looks like he may take a few marks the defenders get attracted to him and begin to enter orbit around this great mass of a man. This I see as the only thing he needs to achieve as it makes their defence predictable. Last year seeing the discomfort of gun key defenders like Harry Taylor around him is a great sign - they don't like him in their D50. We will have Fasolo Mayne Elliot & Moore all circling around threatening to mark the ball which means they leave Cox one on one with a shorter guy in the square or they let the others off the leash. Cox like Mayne will allow the forward line to operate better and maxmise our stars output even if they are not kicking bags each week. Cox with these new ruck rules will become a dominant ruckman over time as well, which Grundy needs, so that for me makes it a no brainer to pick him over Jesse.

Where does this leave Jesse White? I think he made big strides last year, beginning with finding form as a defender in the twos. This turned his whole game style around. If he can remain a versatile/flexible player I think he still has a role to play even just off the bench where he can go back/forward/ruck - even wing as required, maybe he is a better utility option than Goldsack. He provides great depth and is more than a useful replacement when injuries hit.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Depends IF you want to play Moore at FF or CHF

No it doesn't.

The side doesn't revolve around Moore, as important as he is.

 

[PIrOed]

I still think there is room to play a Cox, Moore and White forward line.

What I'm not sure about though is whether Mayne fits into that mix.

Agree with you on eveything but White and Mayne. If I'm picking a front six the first five picked would be Moore, Cox, Elliot, Fasolo and Mayne. That sixth spot would be a horses for courses selection. By my reckoning White does not offer much that Moore doesn't with the exception of a mature body. Like 4#Didak#4 I see Mayne as a smart forward who can keep defenders honest while also providing support up the ground through the midfield.

White like Blair and WHE are then in line for that final spot which would be dependant on the opponent. If you want more marking support up the ground or more help in the ruck then White would be your man. If you want to apply more pressure in your forward 50 then Blair would get the nod. If you want more X factor then WHE would be your man. If you want more ground level attacking power Broomhead would be an option. Alternatively you may want to play an extra mid or defender instead.