SANFL Round 8

[Allefgib]

Did the Big Key Forward perform in those Grand Finals?

Essendon 2000 - Lloyd 4 goals and Barnard also kicked 4 goals
Melbourne - Neitz 2 - 3, and Schwarz did nothing
You could say that from those figures that if Schwarz performed then Melbourne may have won but Barnard kicked 4 and I wouldn't call him a talented big man!

Brisbane 2001 - Brown 2 - 2 and Lynch 2 - 4
Essendon - Lucas 4 -2, Lloyd 5 -2
This is a real case in point to me, Essendon had better performance scoring wise from their big men and they lost the game. It was the lesser light in Bradshaw that was the highest scorer for Brisbane and more output from the rest of the team.

Brisbane 2002 - Brown 1-0, Lynch 4-2
Collingwood Rocca 4-1, Fraser 3-2
Lynch did well, but so did Rocca and Brown was minimal and Fraser gave a greater output. We all know that Brown is the better talent than Fraser who is not a KKP or a ruckman but a bit of both.

Brisbane 2003 - Brown 2-0, Lynch 4-2 and Aker kicked 5-3 and I wouldn't call him a big forward!
Collingwood - Tarrant 1-2, Fraser 1-0 (Didak was their highest goal kicker)
Ok Lynch is consistent in GF's, but it was the smaller players that dominanted the scoring on this occassion apart from Lynch. Was he the difference or was it Aker?

Port 2004 - Tredrea 1-2 (Wanganeen was their highest goal scorer along with Pickett)
Brisbane - Brown 0-1, Lynch 0-0, Notting and Aker their highest goal scorers though
It was the smaller forwards and midfielders that decided this game.

Sydney 2005 - Hall 2-1
WC - Hunter 2-1
Low scoring game with the same output from both their Key Forwards. Hunter isn't a mug and is quite hard to match up on.

WC 2006 - Lynch 3, Embly, Hansen and Cousins all with 2 goals
Sydney - Hall 0-2, O'Loughlin 3-1 and Davis 3 were their highest goal scorers
For WC it was their tall mobile fleet and Cousins that performed. Hall did nothing, Micky did well except for his inability to kick a score and again a smaller player in Davis that feed off the packs.

You also only have to look at our success in 97 and 98 against teams that HAD those dominant big guys - Hall for the Saints and Carey for the Roos, did they manage to take that one step that got them a premiership? Who assisted us in 97 to take that step? Ellen did, and the whole team performed well and how much can we take that they lifted that extra cog because of Ellen being that surprise packet in the first quarter and then having to lift as well due to injuries that meant we couldn't use our bench effectively.

In 98, my family and friends all thought Hart should have been the Norm Smith Medallist as he kept us in the game in the first half. It was the younger guys that never gave up that weren't stars at that stage of their career that got us over the line in the end in that game.

I hate this misconception that people have that their team needs a big star before they can take that next step.

Fabulous Post Nikki but I'm still going to disagree with you.

ALL of the examples you quoted above.. ALL of those teams have the types of players we are talking about. What else do they have in common? They are playing off for a premiership cup! Can you honesty can't tell me they got there without those big/key forwards not being a MAJOR part of their success throughout the year. 97/98 for us was kinda weird. Lets not forget we had quite a decent, without quite being a star, CHF in one M Robran (we'd LOVE to have a guy like that right now) who played a CRUCIAL role in our TEAM structure and kicked a few decent bags on occasion as well (98 prelim had a game worth bottling). 97 we also had mods til the the prelim then a very very talented forward in D Jarman bobbed up and kicked a bag to win the GF (Ellen was good in a team role but without Jarman we don't win. Without Ellen.. well we find another 'doughty' type to fill the role ). A certain D Jarman backed it up the following year as well I believe

I'll use Lynch, who you mentioned above, as a key example. Who did we use to play on Lynch? A very team-oriented, tried his guts out EVERY game Nathan Bassett. What was typically the result when Bass played on Lynch? Lots of mouth guard throwing and Bassett arguing with the umpire IIRC. Why? Because Lynch was too big, too strong and too good for Bassett.

I think we all want to fill our team with the 'Bassetts' (or Doughty types) of this world. But I also feel you really really want a Lynch/Browns/Pavlichs/Lloyds/Jarmans/Modras etc. There is NO reason those players can't be as team-oriented as the 6foot nothing try their heart out guys, but why wouldn't you want the big/key forward types?

I'd never advocate a star system, but as Stiffy quite rightly points out.. you NEED talent and should actively go out and get it. What I do think some sides do too much is possibly drafts athletes over talented footballers but that is another discussion

 

[CrowHop]

Let me say, this is one of the best debated threads Ive seen here in a long while. All examples have been backed up by explanations and stats and debated accordingly without any, 'you are stupid' type comments. Good work guys.

I'll post later as Im working at the moment but it's always good to be on a forum with people who post quality.

 

[Cap]

In all honesty I agree with Allegrib, Q Lynch of WC is a perfect example, he is not a star but he was one of the major differences between WC winning and WC getting there. They add a massive amount to the team structure because regardless of who you are playing they HAVE to put their No.1 defender on him. Barry Hall is a prime example of this, you have to play Rutten on him, he doesn't kick 10 each week and is by know means an out and out star, but he does his job for the team.

I would suggest without Barry Hall the swanies would be a good team, but wouldn't have won a flag, regardless of how many he did/didn't kick in the GF.

 

[NikkiNoo]

I presonally think it's a case of I'm a little bit right and Allefgib is also a little bit right.

I agree that a talented forward will definitely help assist a team getting to a GF but they also need a decent midfield and backline to back them up. Alaistair Lynch is a case in point, what was the midfield that he was getting service from? Brisbane's backline at that stage was kinda awesome too. Compare him to Richo who is tall, quick and a nightmare for defenders to try and keep up with and look at the midfield service he gets, you could also argue that due to the quality around him that he is the only focal point and hence makes his output harder to judge in comparision to other forward line players.

Personally I think some forwards are overrated in comparision to others and you need to take into account the team structure that they are performing within and the quality around them, not just the pure numbers.

The 97 and 98 flags I think can be debated for many years without a definitive answer as to if Mods played would we have won them? Honestly I think it was the surprise of Ellen and then the last half of Jarman going forward that won the game for us in 97. It was more coaching moves that day using the very talented and also using the not so talented players that were at his disposal.

It's all about balance for me. You can have the greatest player ever in a team but unless everyone else around them knows the struture, and they know it and adhere to it as well, then a team will not be successful in my mind. That structure must also not rely on them to continually provide an output that is not achieveable everytime they take the field.

 

[Cap]

yes, your right ! its all about balance - but why do you think Craigy craves a McGregor or Hentschel type player ?Why do you think we recruited Tippet/Sellar/Maric/Meesen and Griffin (not all just because of the rucks !!) and why was he trying to develop biglands into a forward ? - we are trying to find the balance and that is the balance of a big strong FF/CHF who can take a strong contested mark, bust the packs and feed the crumbers.

In all honesty I believe that the difference between us and a GF last year was Trent Hentschel

 

[NikkiNoo]

I agree Cappy, but those ruckmen he is looking at developing as tall marking option would not be there for the whole game. I have no problems with a talented big man what I was talking about was the "star" forward who I don't think there are really too many of. Many of them often spend the whole game up forward whereas our team structures now seem to have them resting on the bench and coming on for bursts each quarter. How much of this is what Craig wants as the ideal for his forward structure and how much is neccessity in relation to what is available to him is unknown at this stage.

In reality it is this perception that a big player is needed to win the big games. I often think they go missing in those big games as the expectations are much greater than what they can ideally produce and the focus is very much on them so much that the opposition often are able to counter their output. It can be argued that if they weren't there then the other players around them would not be able to capitalise on the focus on that player and get under the guard of the opposition.

For me it is the talented big player and not a star big player that is what we need. So it comes down to perceptions of what or who a star player is and who is a talented player.

The only people that think Trent is a star forward is us, and I'm happy for people to underestimate our players and I agree that we really did miss him in the finals Personally I also think that Bock's output lately has been due in part to the opposition paying a lot more attention to him due to his form for the first two matches. This has then allowed our other forwards to pop up and score.

 

[Cap]

I agree Cappy, but those ruckmen he is looking at developing as tall marking option would not be there for the whole game. I have no problems with a talented big man what I was talking about was the "star" forward who I don't think there are really too many of. Many of them often spend the whole game up forward whereas our team structures now seem to have them resting on the bench and coming on for bursts each quarter. How much of this is what Craig wants as the ideal for his forward structure and how much is neccessity in relation to what is available to him is unknown at this stage.

In reality it is this perception that a big player is needed to win the big games. I often think they go missing in those big games as the expectations are much greater than what they can ideally produce and the focus is very much on them so much that the opposition often are able to counter their output. It can be argued that if they weren't there then the other players around them would not be able to capitalise on the focus on that player and get under the guard of the opposition.

For me it is the talented big player and not a star big player that is what we need. So it comes down to perceptions of what or who a star player is and who is a talented player.

The only people that think Trent is a star forward is us, and I'm happy for people to underestimate our players and I agree that we really did miss him in the finals Personally I also think that Bock's output lately has been due in part to the opposition paying a lot more attention to him due to his form for the first two matches. This has then allowed our other forwards to pop up and score.

Wouldn't you say a truely talented tall forward is generally considered a Star ?
While Trent was considered a Star by those at the AFC his ability was starting to be noticed around the comp prior to injury.

Your point on Bock (I think we could be argueing a similar point in a different way !), imagine our forward line without Bock ? I don't believe that Perrie would be able cope as he is - no disrespect to Perrie becuase he does what he does and he does it well ! but Bock is a more dangerous forward which results in the best defender now going to Bock instead of Perrie

 

[NikkiNoo]

Wouldn't you say a truely talented tall forward is generally considered a Star ?
While Trent was considered a Star by those at the AFC his ability was starting to be noticed around the comp prior to injury.

I think the definition of a star player is thrown too early on many players from east of our border who truely haven't done anything to earn it, they are very talented yes, just not a star, a star has to be consistent with his performance. A star player to me is along the Barrie Robran line and there are not too many these days that come close to the awesomeness that was that man at his prime.

Your point on Bock (I think we could be argueing a similar point in a different way !), imagine our forward line without Bock ? I don't believe that Perrie would be able cope as he is - no disrespect to Perrie becuase he does what he does and he does it well ! but Bock is a more dangerous forward which results in the best defender now going to Bock instead of Perrie

Yep - same result just coming at it from a different angle It's why I was happy with the Carey trade as it meant that welsh finally wouldn't have to struggle with the best defender week in and week out. Only downside was that our team becase too Carey concious and would pass to him out wide on the flanks when he was leading that way to be the dummy lead. This is the inherient trouble with a star player in a team. That not only is the opposition focus totally on him but also him own teammates. It's why I would much rather 3 tall talented players over 1 star player.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Ok, I get this talk thats its about structure BUT no one can convince me that a star or a superstar key forward can't play in the same structure and in the same role as some of our key forwards and not perform better and not have a greater impact on the game.

I do agree that our forward line is built on structure, patterns and multiple options and its ABSOLUTELY the way to go. No arguments for me what so ever.

Now, as big a Perrie fan as I am and I also do rate Bock but no one here can convince me that if your took out Perrie and Bock out of that structure and replaced then with Pavlich and Hentschel that we wouldn't be MUCH more potent without actually changing the structure or the patterns of the forward line.

Its a simple phylosophy that works. Talent will win you games. Now if you introduce genuine top talent to the strong system and structure than you have, you improve a lot.

Would we be struggling to kick big scores if we had Pavlich and Hentschel instead of Bock? I would say no. In fact I would say we could well have been unbeaten this year.

I mean, hell these superstars put up match winning performances when they have 2 or 3 players hanging off them every time they get near it. Now consider what sort of havoc they would cause in a system where they will have others pinching on to take the pressure off them. They would be putting up thos kinds of performances with a lot less heat from the opposition.

Star players demand respect from the opposition and in a structured system like ours, it not only makes their job easier but they make the team around them better by making it easier on his team mates.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Yep - same result just coming at it from a different angle It's why I was happy with the Carey trade as it meant that welsh finally wouldn't have to struggle with the best defender week in and week out. Only downside was that our team becase too Carey concious and would pass to him out wide on the flanks when he was leading that way to be the dummy lead. This is the inherient trouble with a star player in a team. That not only is the opposition focus totally on him but also him own teammates. It's why I would much rather 3 tall talented players over 1 star player.

You are using Carey example here but IMHO its like trying to fit a square into a round hole. We used completely different system all over the field to the one that we are using now.

Last year we had Roo as our star forward and he demanded respect. But it didn't stop Hentschel AND Burton both pinching in with 40 odd goals each. We had 3 players that kicked 40+ goals. One of those players was a star. Now imagine if you could put a genuine KPP into that forward line and that structure. Imagine what a forward line of Pavlich, Hentschel, Ricciuto and Welsh would be able to do in that structure with that star power.

We defiently weren't Roo concious last year. We went to him no doubt we didn't go to him any more than we went to Hentschel or Burton. The structure that we have in place would utilise the talent of a star better with less pressure on him because he wouldn't be the only option.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

The key is to have numerous forwards contributing & not become too reliant on a "star" to kick the winning score each week - makes a forward line harder to shut down. IMO, Stiffy is correct in saying that we would be better off with a Trent or Pav, as long as we stuck to the same system & didn't become overly reliant on them.

 

[NikkiNoo]

The key is to have numerous forwards contributing & not become too reliant on a "star" to kick the winning score each week - makes a forward line harder to shut down. IMO, Stiffy is correct in saying that we would be better off with a Trent or Pav, as long as we stuck to the same system & didn't become overly reliant on them.

That's what I was trying to get at! Yes a star would improve us IF they were a part of the structure and followed those rules and not all the players that are currently labeled stars can do that.

Personally I think we learnt from the Carey conciousness and that is why we have improved our forward line, although it is still a big work in progress.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

That's what I was trying to get at! Yes a star would improve us IF they were a part of the structure and followed those rules and not all the players that are currently labeled stars can do that.

Personally I think we learnt from the Carey conciousness and that is why we have improved our forward line, although it is still a big work in progress.

Most of us are probably in agreement, just saying the same thing differently.

 

[Stiffy_18]

That's what I was trying to get at! Yes a star would improve us IF they were a part of the structure and followed those rules and not all the players that are currently labeled stars can do that.

Personally I think we learnt from the Carey conciousness and that is why we have improved our forward line, although it is still a big work in progress.

Now Nikki as a professed Neil Craig secretary you should know that he is ALL about team and he wouldn't allow his team to become star concious. If hopefully we get Pavlich it won't be about Pavlich, it will be about AFC and what Pavlich needs to do to make us better. Craig would NOT allow the team to become Pavlich concious. He will utilise Pavlich in the system but he won't chance his system to accomodate Pavlich.

Thats where the argument comes in

 

[NikkiNoo]

I kinda thought I that the end belief we all had was the same, just coming at it from different angles. That's what you get for allowing a girl to talk about footy

I'm his Press Secretary Stiffy, get it right I don't think I would be able to make all the coffee he needs in a day, then again I don't make my current boss coffee, she is quite capable of doing it herself.....

 

[Alex99]

Now Nikki as a professed Neil Craig secretary you should know that he is ALL about team and he wouldn't allow his team to become star concious. If hopefully we get Pavlich it won't be about Pavlich, it will be about AFC and what Pavlich needs to do to make us better. Craig would NOT allow the team to become Pavlich concious. He will utilise Pavlich in the system but he won't chance his system to accomodate Pavlich.

Thats where the argument comes in

Exactly right, I believe we need a Mathew Pavlich type to achieve the ultimate success. .

Take the Chicago Bulls in the 1980’s and 1990’s. In the early 1980’s Michael Jordan was averaging 40 PPG and dominating games by himself but they were not getting the team success. The bulls were relaying on Jordan’s individual brilliance to win games of basketball and were not fulfilling the team’s potential; Phil Jackson made MJ realize that he needed to change his style of play and accommodate a team orientated structure before the ultimate success could be achieved.

Basketball and Football are compliantly different sports but the principals of team work are the same, shut down the individual star and the team will struggle. Work as a team and the structure will thrive and success will be achieved.

In a team orientated structure it would not matter if we had Nick Riewoldt, Jonathon Brown, Mathew Pavlich or even Warren Tredrea because a star player will adapt to that structure or they will fail. Team structure is the key to team success and that is what everyone plays for. It doesn’t matter how big the star is because at the end of the day the rewards will be the same.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Exactly right, I believe we need a Mathew Pavlich type to achieve the ultimate success. .

Take the Chicago Bulls in the 1980’s and 1990’s. In the early 1980’s Michael Jordan was averaging 40 PPG and dominating games by himself but they were not getting the team success. The bulls were relaying on Jordan’s individual brilliance to win games of basketball and were not fulfilling the team’s potential; Phil Jackson made MJ realize that he needed to change his style of play and accommodate a team orientated structure before the ultimate success could be achieved.

Basketball and Football are compliantly different sports but the principals of team work are the same, shut down the individual star and the team will struggle. Work as a team and the structure will thrive and success will be achieved.

In a team orientated structure it would not matter if we had Nick Riewoldt, Jonathon Brown, Mathew Pavlich or even Warren Tredrea because a star player will adapt to that structure or they will fail. Team structure is the key to team success and that is what everyone plays for. It doesn’t matter how big the star is because at the end of the day the rewards will be the same.

While I agree in principle I don't quite agree with the baketball comparison. In basketball you base your system around the star. If you don't have that superstar, you are not going to win the title (I am basing this on the NBA game). Piston of course being the exception to the rule but its highly debatable just how close Sheed is to being a fanchise guy.

In basketball you are not going anywhere without your star. You get that superstar and then you build a system that best utilises his needs and surround him with players that complement him. Heat won't be a run and gun team with Shaq at C nor will the Spurs be a run and gun team with Duncan at PF. They both utilised a system that suits those players and surrounded them with other player that complement their superstar and the system and you get yourself the championships.

In our case, we have a system in place and you can plug in players into that system and they will perform at a high level. I guess its the "chicken or the egg debate"

But in principle, I know what you are saying and you are right. You utilise that key forward superstar in our system rather than design a new system to suit that player