Last night highlighted a need for a change of team structure. There was one thing that was different last night, and it produced one of the best games of the season from one of our most experienced players. Harry played half back flank, and what a difference that was. Up on the wing, Harry is no where near as effective as when he is on the half back flank. His run out of the backline was awesome to see again.
With the loss of Heath Shaw out of the backline, and the introduction of Adams into the midfield rotation, surely that equalled the experiment of Harry on the wing not going forward. We need Harry down back, we have lost a lot of experience down there, and his inclusion last night to the back six was brilliant.
I actually think that the same applies for Clinton Young, he simply is not good enough on the wing, and if he is not good enough on other half back flank, he shouldn't play in the seniors. His long kick clears the zone instantly, and we need to see his accountability. That could be questionable, but we need to try. We have too many players that can play midfield that are being tried in defence, like Sidebottom and Fasolo that are better suited midfield compared to Young, it is an obvious change. I would have him kick out every kick out too. He stuffed one up last night, but to have him come in for one kick in for the night, no one is getting used to the role like Heath Shaw got used to. Maxwell, then Fasolo, then Keeffe, then Frosty kicking in is not going to work. Pick one hopefully Young, and STICK TO IT.
Swan looks lost from form, yet the persistence in the midfield didn't help us AT ALL last night. I thought with Swan getting older, he would of been to rest him often in the forward pocket. Where was that idea last night?
Fasolo was rusty as anything. I don't get the thought from Buckley to think lets go with Adams as sub, when Fasolo was always going to be rusty. And rusty is an understatement. His kicks at times slipped off the side of the boot, and missed his target by 4-5 meters on quiet a few occasions. You don't play a rusty player, who has barely played a game in the dangerous position of deep back against Geelong. Just a silly idea from Buckley. He should of been forward, after he came into the game from Sub.
Adams seemed to be tough at the contest, and did o.k when he came on, as he did last week, but we need him from the start, because from what I could see, Luke Ball is getting too old for a four quarter effort. Inside mids we are not rich in. Ball, Adams and Josh Thomas is it without looking into 17 year olds. So why let Ball do it all at his age.
Fraser all over again. Grundy needs a break. He is starting to mistime his jumps exactly the way Fraser did at this stage. Fraser always used to get folded over with the bigger ruckman seen with two hands firmly in the top of the back, bending him forward. I remember yelling out "Give the kid a free kick", but never did it come. By the time Fraser built to take the push forward, he was sapped of confidence. I seen a lot of Fraser in Grundy last night, apart from that tough attitude Grundy has that will push him a lot further and better than Fraser did, but the poor timing to avoid that front on contact, that would hurt a young kid after a while. Conclusion, Witts was said to be running around like a rover in our practice match, I think we play him every second week, to bring him on as quickly as Grundy. If they are both out of form, we still have Hudson.
So that brings me to the BIG point that I want to make. I have brought it up time and time again, and as obvious as it is to me, it seems to be avoiding others. My last such frustration of an obvious idea to use was to try Tarrant down back. He was quick, he had a good leap, why not try him back. Not a good idea said A LOT of supporters. That was until Tarrant went to Freo, they tried it, made a defender out of him, and then he came back as a very useful defender. So here is my next one, and I know that this guy is on a long term contract, so we can't have another team show us how to do it, but TRAVIS CLOKE IS A CENTRE HALF FORWARD. He is NOT a FULL FORWARD. I guarantee if Buckley puts him out at CHF it will work.
Defence is an easy thing to work out in a way. You pick a spot on the ground where it is easiest to kick a goal from. I nominate Goal Square! In the goal square you can not think without the defender hearing it. He is as tight as a sized four shoe on Sandilands. As you go to harder part of the ground, lets say deep in the pocket, the pressure is lessened by the defender. In a way, a defender will tempt a midfielder to kick to their player in a ridiculous spot if tired, because the percentages are so low. When fresh, the pressure extends into the pockets, but in a fast frenetic game, when multiple hits and leads are contended with, it can be the case more as the game rolls on. At CHF, a player will have more room to move and the defender with contest, but not live in the forwards pocket. This is all obvious stuff to most of us.
Cloke has a fit bloke, he has a huge motor, and he can learn to run all day. Cloke is not overly quick from 0-10 meters, he is fairly quick, but in comparison to Tarrant at full forward for instance, he is slower at the getting to his quickest. Cloke needs to wear his opponent down. He is not a player that needs to see it in front of him to succeed. He is a great two way player. He is a good mark, and a long kick. If Cloke was getting 90% of his ball from 45m-85m out from goal, he would be better value to our team. Closer is no guarantee he will kick it anyway, so using him further out, is not eliminating a big strength. We haven't had a CHF since Anthony Rocca. Cloke could be a Carey like CHF, where he marks and gets back quick, and uses that huge left foot kick to penetrate our forward line quickly. White on the flipside is more suited to deeper forward. See his best games from Sydney, deep forward. Cloke currently is zoned there.
Reid when Forward is better deep. Reid is a great Full Forward, because he uses his body to perfection. White is best deep because the bloke is 200cm tall.
Malthouse made the mistake of developing Cloke as a full forward, and Buckley simply followed, but I have never seen a more obvious mistake.
Swan being a forward pocket, Elliott on the other forward pocket, with White or Reid at Full forward would work a treat. Imagine if Lonergan scragged and took White out of the game. BIG DEAL. But what we can't have, is our Million Dollar player getting taken out, and rendered useless. Cloke should of played on Harry Taylor last night at CHF, and he would of got heaps more touches, and we would of been better served.
At the moment too, our midfielders are coming out of defence, and instead of using the corridor which is CHF, they are crabbing the ball around out to the wing, into the flank near the boundary, then bringing it in. The centre up, with a player like Cloke at CHF would be earlier. The the big kick in to the hot spot.
I will leave it at my biggest point coming away from the game last night, but other than these things, I am quite happy with where we are at. Many thought we'd drop out of the 8, many thought Geelong are top 4, so to just lose to them without Reid, and without these set ups correct, I think that was great.
With the loss of Heath Shaw out of the backline, and the introduction of Adams into the midfield rotation, surely that equalled the experiment of Harry on the wing not going forward. We need Harry down back, we have lost a lot of experience down there, and his inclusion last night to the back six was brilliant.
I actually think that the same applies for Clinton Young, he simply is not good enough on the wing, and if he is not good enough on other half back flank, he shouldn't play in the seniors. His long kick clears the zone instantly, and we need to see his accountability. That could be questionable, but we need to try. We have too many players that can play midfield that are being tried in defence, like Sidebottom and Fasolo that are better suited midfield compared to Young, it is an obvious change. I would have him kick out every kick out too. He stuffed one up last night, but to have him come in for one kick in for the night, no one is getting used to the role like Heath Shaw got used to. Maxwell, then Fasolo, then Keeffe, then Frosty kicking in is not going to work. Pick one hopefully Young, and STICK TO IT.
Swan looks lost from form, yet the persistence in the midfield didn't help us AT ALL last night. I thought with Swan getting older, he would of been to rest him often in the forward pocket. Where was that idea last night?
Fasolo was rusty as anything. I don't get the thought from Buckley to think lets go with Adams as sub, when Fasolo was always going to be rusty. And rusty is an understatement. His kicks at times slipped off the side of the boot, and missed his target by 4-5 meters on quiet a few occasions. You don't play a rusty player, who has barely played a game in the dangerous position of deep back against Geelong. Just a silly idea from Buckley. He should of been forward, after he came into the game from Sub.
Adams seemed to be tough at the contest, and did o.k when he came on, as he did last week, but we need him from the start, because from what I could see, Luke Ball is getting too old for a four quarter effort. Inside mids we are not rich in. Ball, Adams and Josh Thomas is it without looking into 17 year olds. So why let Ball do it all at his age.
Fraser all over again. Grundy needs a break. He is starting to mistime his jumps exactly the way Fraser did at this stage. Fraser always used to get folded over with the bigger ruckman seen with two hands firmly in the top of the back, bending him forward. I remember yelling out "Give the kid a free kick", but never did it come. By the time Fraser built to take the push forward, he was sapped of confidence. I seen a lot of Fraser in Grundy last night, apart from that tough attitude Grundy has that will push him a lot further and better than Fraser did, but the poor timing to avoid that front on contact, that would hurt a young kid after a while. Conclusion, Witts was said to be running around like a rover in our practice match, I think we play him every second week, to bring him on as quickly as Grundy. If they are both out of form, we still have Hudson.
So that brings me to the BIG point that I want to make. I have brought it up time and time again, and as obvious as it is to me, it seems to be avoiding others. My last such frustration of an obvious idea to use was to try Tarrant down back. He was quick, he had a good leap, why not try him back. Not a good idea said A LOT of supporters. That was until Tarrant went to Freo, they tried it, made a defender out of him, and then he came back as a very useful defender. So here is my next one, and I know that this guy is on a long term contract, so we can't have another team show us how to do it, but TRAVIS CLOKE IS A CENTRE HALF FORWARD. He is NOT a FULL FORWARD. I guarantee if Buckley puts him out at CHF it will work.
Defence is an easy thing to work out in a way. You pick a spot on the ground where it is easiest to kick a goal from. I nominate Goal Square! In the goal square you can not think without the defender hearing it. He is as tight as a sized four shoe on Sandilands. As you go to harder part of the ground, lets say deep in the pocket, the pressure is lessened by the defender. In a way, a defender will tempt a midfielder to kick to their player in a ridiculous spot if tired, because the percentages are so low. When fresh, the pressure extends into the pockets, but in a fast frenetic game, when multiple hits and leads are contended with, it can be the case more as the game rolls on. At CHF, a player will have more room to move and the defender with contest, but not live in the forwards pocket. This is all obvious stuff to most of us.
Cloke has a fit bloke, he has a huge motor, and he can learn to run all day. Cloke is not overly quick from 0-10 meters, he is fairly quick, but in comparison to Tarrant at full forward for instance, he is slower at the getting to his quickest. Cloke needs to wear his opponent down. He is not a player that needs to see it in front of him to succeed. He is a great two way player. He is a good mark, and a long kick. If Cloke was getting 90% of his ball from 45m-85m out from goal, he would be better value to our team. Closer is no guarantee he will kick it anyway, so using him further out, is not eliminating a big strength. We haven't had a CHF since Anthony Rocca. Cloke could be a Carey like CHF, where he marks and gets back quick, and uses that huge left foot kick to penetrate our forward line quickly. White on the flipside is more suited to deeper forward. See his best games from Sydney, deep forward. Cloke currently is zoned there.
Reid when Forward is better deep. Reid is a great Full Forward, because he uses his body to perfection. White is best deep because the bloke is 200cm tall.
Malthouse made the mistake of developing Cloke as a full forward, and Buckley simply followed, but I have never seen a more obvious mistake.
Swan being a forward pocket, Elliott on the other forward pocket, with White or Reid at Full forward would work a treat. Imagine if Lonergan scragged and took White out of the game. BIG DEAL. But what we can't have, is our Million Dollar player getting taken out, and rendered useless. Cloke should of played on Harry Taylor last night at CHF, and he would of got heaps more touches, and we would of been better served.
At the moment too, our midfielders are coming out of defence, and instead of using the corridor which is CHF, they are crabbing the ball around out to the wing, into the flank near the boundary, then bringing it in. The centre up, with a player like Cloke at CHF would be earlier. The the big kick in to the hot spot.
I will leave it at my biggest point coming away from the game last night, but other than these things, I am quite happy with where we are at. Many thought we'd drop out of the 8, many thought Geelong are top 4, so to just lose to them without Reid, and without these set ups correct, I think that was great.
