Serious Forward-Line Thread

[ezbian]

OTTENS, last chance?.Gees some people are tough. Just who would have been contesting the ruck without him in the side, seeing how our captain is like a Hummer that never gets out of the garage.

KK, he is what he is. Why blame a rover for not being a ruckmen.Its time to try him elsewhere because if you play in the square you just cant be a one trick pony, essp these days. He is quicker than some think, can he play further up the field? Has he ever played on the backline? He is mates with Scarlett and its worked before , with Hinkley. Harley looks like he is damaged goods so lets just try something.

PLAYFAIR, he need fitness but he can play a role

MACKIE, does this kid know what a gym smells like? I think its time for the Hingus solution , 18 months out the game and comes back with arms built like Arnies.

NATHAN , he also needs time in the gym but his future is in his own hands

McCARTHY , poor mans Richo. Sure try him but just like KK , I think we are condeming ourselves to disapointment, just howmant shots at goal will he miss

LONERS/CG , you may well be right but lets hope they can find a way to raise their performance levels, otherwize its just such a waste

Applause. Spot ON!!

 

[ezbian]

From a business point of view these things are easier, motivate, work closley with staff, promote achievements, then if it doesn't work make changes, if that doen't work, time for change (management or staff).

I i was paying a "goal kicker" to kick goals and he can't, i think the answer is easy!

I like this statement. It's funny I was playing golf with one of the major sponsors of the club earlier in the year before the start of the preseason. We were talking about the Cats chances, and he also looked at the game from a business perspective. He is a very successful business man and at the time I thought he was crazy and stupid, but he thought that we should have traded Ling at the end of last year. He gave quite a good business explanantion at the time (which I can't remember) but I thought he had lost his marbles. Would have been fairly strategic now !!!

 

[finrod]

I can't understand why people continuously bag out Tom Lonergan. Sure, he came in for 1 game and did nothing... but seriously, has he had anywhere near the amount of chances that Charlie Gardiner has had? In the first NAB cup game I think he kicked 2 nice goals, and also was it his debut game where he kicked 2 including a long bomb from outside 50? Apparently he hasn't done all that badly this year in the reserves either...

P.S. - I just looked up the GFC website, and found out Tom has only played 5 senior games! And you talk about delisting him!?!? Give him a go!

 

[Copernicus]

• Lonergan = dud. Delisted at the end of the season.
• Gardiner = dud. Delisted at the end of the season.
• Kingsley - I think he has been poor, but I don't bag him the way the rest of you do. To tell you the truth, the delivery and game-plan has been worse than Kingsley's form. We know he's an on-the-lead forward, yet we kick it over his head every week. Possibly dropped to the 2s.
• Playfair - keep him in. Has been injured, but straightened us up last year. Need to get him right. Needs to throw his big frame around.
• Ottens - looked like a brontosaurus chasing after Kellaway (who cant be quick too) on Saturday. Only possibly value now is played from the goalsquare - will take the best defender every week and in a 1-on-1 situation may be able to kick 3 per week. Again, needs to throw his big frame around. If I was 202 and 106, I'd be breaking every pack and contest I could. Goes to ground way too often - on the ground, out of the contest. Seems to have a text-book goalkicking action, but for very poor results. That leaves the ruck free - Peter Street doesn't look too bad now does he?
• N Ablett - might as well play him for the rest of the season. Will have some quiet days, but haven't Kingsley, Ottens and playfair had a quiet 7 weeks? Raw, but got in the best last season. Play him.
• Mackie - impresses me, to be honest. Seems to be a footballer, rather than an athlete. Has played some important cameos in the past, needs to put on a kilo or two. Can take a mark. Can kick a goal. Play him.
• McCarthy - has been desperately unlucky with injuries. Kicked 7 or so in the 2s last year, and broke his arm the week after. Came into the senior side and was injured again straight away. Played well in 2003 (remember the wet Melbourne game at the G, and the West Coast draw at Skilled?). Unlike Playfair and Ottens, puts his body on the line. Busts a pack open. Can't kick, but no one we have can (Playfair, Kingsley, Ottens, Gardiner, Lonergan). May have improved.

This leaves:
OTTENS (last chance)
KINGSLEY (possibly drop, then last chance)
PLAYFAIR (play him)
MACKIE (keep playing him - best still to come)
N ABLETT (ditto)
McCARTHY (deserves another go, has a crack)
LONERGAN (final season)
GARDINER (final season)

Problems Galore.

Not a bad summary, though I think you're too harsh on Ottens. He's not agile, and his last two weeks in the ruck haven't been very good, but he has no back up right now (why Blake didn't play I'll never know) and his fitness can't be fantastic. If we bloody well play a backup for him he'll be much more use to us I'd reckon.

 

[RoyalCatFan]

Our biggest problem is the lack of foward line pressure, ball goes in and bounces straight out, We need Ablett and chappy in the foward line at all times, And a max of 1 lumber at once, so no ottens and playfair at once, one or the other. Kingsley needs to get the flick, as while he was trying to chase, it just wasnt working. I like charlie off the half foward flank because he always presents and has good defensive abilities i know every one else hates him because of his mistakes but his main rival Mackie doesnt produce the same defensive pressure. Steve johnson doesnt do it either, he can be creative too but these days seems like he is trying to hard to be creative,

Ablett Ablett Byrnes
Gardiner Playfair Chapman

Would be my set up with ottens rotating into the foward line every now and then when matchups permit need to start crumbing and locking the ball in on all of our foward 50 entries. This would mean that we need bartel corey and enright to play through the middle more often rather then off the back line and retire ling for the Season and get him to do some bloody sprint training, I love the bloke but he is doing his best impression of running in mud

 

[gregWAllan]

Now people. plese do not turn this into a bagging Kent or playfair thread.

Instead of:

HF: Chap Playfair SJ
FF: GAJ Otto KK

How about:
HF: Chap McCarthy SJ
FF: GAJ Otto Mooney

Otto would still swap with rucking duties, and Mackie etc would then go forward.

I think Mooney has alot to offer to our forward line if settled there. I am aware he re-invented himself down back and through the midfield, but this year i think we need targets up forward to keep the needed goals. Thoughts?

Also, i think McCarthy needs to be tried as an option. Playfair hasnt been playing that bad, but maybe chuck McCarthy up there for a month and see if we get better results.

How about:
HF: Chap McCarthy SJ
FF: GAJ Otto Nathan

with Mooney on ball - but not as a ruckman. That's what King and Blake are for. Playfair off the bench if Ottens is needed in the ruck.

 

[Jack-Packenham]

Why can't Playfair run into form in the VFL.

Do we have to carry him every time he is struggling.

Playfair, Kingsley, McCarthy, Lonergan and Gardiner are all no good, never will be.

Play Nathan and Otto out of the square together for the rest of the year. Try Egan, Scarlett and Mooney at CHF. Play Mackie, Byrnes, Stokes, Ling, Hunt, Kelly etc in the small forward roll and give Ablett and Chapman onball rolls.

With Hawkins coming on board next year and NAblett and Otto given time to develop a partnership, it might not take that long to turn it around. Trade a couple of underperforming big names (Kelly or Ling ) and overrated young players ( Playfair ) and try and get another GUN young forward in the draft. Also trade one of our average midfielders ( Corey or Enright ) for Akermanis.

 

[Turbocat]

Why can't Playfair run into form in the VFL.

Do we have to carry him every time he is struggling.

Playfair, Kingsley, McCarthy, Lonergan and Gardiner are all no good, never will be.

Play Nathan and Otto out of the square together for the rest of the year. Try Egan, Scarlett and Mooney at CHF. Play Mackie, Byrnes, Stokes, Ling, Hunt, Kelly etc in the small forward roll and give Ablett and Chapman onball rolls.

With Hawkins coming on board next year and NAblett and Otto given time to develop a partnership, it might not take that long to turn it around. Trade a couple of underperforming big names (Kelly or Ling ) and overrated young players ( Playfair ) and try and get another GUN young forward in the draft. Also trade one of our average midfielders ( Corey or Enright ) for Akermanis.

The one thing I consistantly like about you Jack , is you are a ruthless bastard.
Its seem you would be willing sell "mother of Jack/daughter of Jack" into white slavery in some Arabian state if meant better kid on our forwardline. I admire that.

Having a read of the Hun today it reminded me of how little chance we have of BomberT actually swinging the sabre. I think the quote was something "after Murphy he said never again, but when Ottens came along he agreed but only thru clenched teeth". Can the Bomber really cut sombody like the names mentioned? I doubt it. The other thing is , the rep for this draft is so huge Im not sure what another club would want to give up their first pick, but it would be a lot. Say Kelly to Ess, would you do it for P17? In the end I much rather play Scarlett at FF,Lonergan at CHF, Spencer at FB etc to test our list out and perhaps get our picks lower.

 

[Turbocat]

Very interesting thoughts Turbo. I am interested to get your rationale behind the ideal world? And who you thought the best 6 for the last 5 premiership sides were? Just wanted to understand more about where you are coming from before I make any comment.

I suppose it realtes to my idea of whats important in a football side.Three key areas of influence. Neutral ball , conversion and conversion prevention

The neutral ball group at ball ups and around the ground etc. , a key forward to convert and reward the upfield effort and the key back to prevent the oposing forward from rewarding their mids. Working in harmony they all help each other out, increasing the confidence of their own group as well as the other groups. Dont missunderstand me the 22 playing together is vital, its more a matter of having a level of profiecency in all the 3 areas that is above just run of the mill thats important. The support staff can be special and important, infact might be match winners but in the end its the Sun the planets revolve around. What did Ackermanis look like R1 this year? A player who lacked the ability to have influence?

Obviously The best 6 is an arbitrary thing.You may well have 14 players who may be in another teams best 6, say Brisbane at its best had what, a super 8 mids, They had 3 key talls while others stuggled to find one, a couple key backs that where great, and probably all of these guys were capable of being in the best 6 on any given gameday.Mmm I wonder why they won 3 GF's? The thing is their 3 areas of influence were in balance. None of the three were over stressed and their appreciation of each others ability enabled the overall level of play to be raised. Players running to receive just on trust , players front and square because they knew the mids would play thru the key forward when under pressure etc.

Brisbane convinced me that the reason we didnt win one of our GF's, our list was out of balance. We simply lacked a quality backman. Did we have a Paul Roos, did we have a Jackovich, did we a Lepitch or Mal Michael. I still think the Saints are us from that period. They lack quality at that end and will pay probably pay the price, Did the Swans have a best 6 last year. Their rucks killed us, Hall kicked a big GF goal and just who took that last mark?

Like all opinions or theorys , one can probably find holes in it or at least variations on it. Thats mine anyway.

 

[ezbian]

Thanks Turbo. Very Insightful. I actually quite like your rationale of the ideal world, and certainly think that if you were to draw a blueprint for the perfect team that was going to win a flag, the positions you have mentioned would certainly be a excellant structural foundation.

Before seeing your latest post I was thinking about challenging the rationale that you don't neccessarily need those this structural make up to win a flag. I think that this is the best way to win a flag, but not the only way, and some of the previous premiership sides are proof of that. Certainly I think in the future there will be a side that its top 6 players are all midfielders. These will be supported by some B+ type key talls, who go okay but aren't superstars. Perhaps we already have this with West Coast. Whether they can win it like this remains to be seen, but I believe more and more sides will try and compete like this. Those sides who don't have the key talls will try and play this way.

As the game continues to evolve, so to will the notion of the perfect game plan. Yes Brisbane and North were probably the best two plans from the last 20 years, but I think we will see more of the Western Bulldogs plan in the future. Who wins with which type of game plan, I don't know, but I am certain the 6 foot 2 midfielder who can kick goals, has lightning speed, polished skills, and an abundance of endurance will become more popular over time.

I for one certainly like the BIG traditional structures, and believe we are too far down the track to try and change now. But I also believe what Eade has done with the Bulldogs is also fantastic, and every now and then when the season is a bit more even this type of side might start to bob up and win a few flags.

 

[unwoken]

Hey Guys,

I think it might be worth looking at the forward line issue from another point of view.

What about the idea that Geelong are playing so poorly, and that our delivery into the forward line is so sub standard, that the team has made it very difficult for *anybody* to play well in our forward line.

The most (un)memorable thing about the Collingwood game was the number of passes that never gave our forward a chance.

It's happened in other games this season. The Bulldogs game, which caused many comments about nablett and lonergan, was similar. At the time i thought it just looked like our delivery was so bad because the opposition used the ball so well. That day, not only was our delivery very average, but we were so slow to get the ball anywhere near the forward line that we hardly gave anyone a chance (>100 possessions more than WB's).

We are making our own forwards look very bad.

I feel that some of our midfielders need to lift their games. Is it possible that some of these guys are half looking at the stats sheet when they make space to a dead part of the ground, then kick to a team mate who is equally as badly positioned?


So my thoughts are, that the midfield should back themselves and try to hit a forward. To attempt to be damaging with posessions, and not merely keep the ball. 'Cause', rather than 'limit', damage.

Having only one leading target in the forward line makes life easy for the opposition. how about multiple leading targets up front? it might look like a big call, but we did it in the later 80's early 90's without each forward being outright champions (excluding Ablett of course). At any time we could have Excel, Lidner, Stoneham, Brownless or Barnes, as well as Ablett giving a target.

Multiple targets. If the opposition stops one, kick to the other. Take the pressure off one individual.

Now we have Kingsley, Nablett, Lonergan, McCarthy, Ottens, Mooney, Playfair, Gardiner. What about King as the big marking FF in the square? Forgetting the ruck as he is just too injury prone. He could do it. Have all offer targets. Have the midfielders rove. These are fit men. Let them run and crumb these targets.

Footscray's unconventional leading forwards generally are successful because they often actually hit a leading target. Blokes like Gilbee actually damage the opposition when they use the ball.


Anyway, apologies for the long post, but i think it is very easy to blame forwards. If the rest of the team are doing their jobs, it is possible to make even very ordinary forwards look good.

u.

 

[catempire]

I totally agree with you unwoken. Most won't. It's much easier to pin the blame on Kingsley or Playfair or whoever is playing there (as will be the case this week) than to recognise that the problem is far more entrenched and widespread. Our skills, particularly when it comes to delivering the ball into our forward line, simply aren't up to scratch.

It's funny how when we win, it's never said to be because of our forwards but as soon as we we lose all the blame is heaped on our forwards. Yet the greatest difference between our wins and our losses is how hard we run, how quickly we move the ball and how well we create space and deliver to our forwards.

 

[GeeCat]

Whilst I agree that the delivery to our forwards holds some merit in the argument, it's hard to shift the entire blame (or at least, the majority of it) on the midfield.

Our onballers and such definitely play their part in dictating the type of delivery our forwards get on the end of (and subsequently, one could argue, just how good or bad the forward line will function in parts), but that certainly doesn't make our forwards, be it Kingsley or Playfair, excempt from criticism.

That being said of course, I don't think anyone's blaming Kingsley or H per se, but certainly they share a big load of the blame in any case. His delivery will have its say for the most part, but you could hardly argue that Kingsley's been on the end of quality delivery for the past few seasons now; in which time he's still managed to generate his handy contribution of 1-2 goals a game on the back of his ability to conjure up a sufficient amount of shots over the course of the game.

As for H, I'd argue that, while on form alone he probably doesn't deserve a senior spot right now, the neverending 'structure' argument probably dictates otherwise (especially when we're not willing to play either Lonergan or Gardiner [who is injured as I understand] in his place - both of whom would go some ways to replacing the 'target' H provides in the game).

 

[Partridge]

That being said of course, I don't think anyone's blaming Kingsley or H per se, but certainly they share a big load of the blame in any case. His delivery will have its say for the most part, but you could hardly argue that Kingsley's been on the end of quality delivery for the past few seasons now; in which time he's still managed to generate his handy contribution of 1-2 goals a game on the back of his ability to conjure up a sufficient amount of shots over the course of the game.

You're kidding right? So 1-2 goals a game is acceptable from a full-forward. He's not a winger or onballer, he is THE key forward we have. That means 60 goals a year minimum - like Richardson, Gehrig, Hall, Lloyd. He hasn't done it once. Even Stephen Milne kicked 60 goals last year.

True that the delivery from the midfield hasn't always been great, but watch Kingsley when he does have the ball. What does he do? Look for any opportunity to avoid having a shot. He must shoulder a large share of the blame.

 

[catempire]

Whilst I agree that the delivery to our forwards holds some merit in the argument, it's hard to shift the entire blame (or at least, the majority of it) on the midfield.

Our onballers and such definitely play their part in dictating the type of delivery our forwards get on the end of (and subsequently, one could argue, just how good or bad the forward line will function in parts), but that certainly doesn't make our forwards, be it Kingsley or Playfair, excempt from criticism.

That being said of course, I don't think anyone's blaming Kingsley or H per se, but certainly they share a big load of the blame in any case. His delivery will have its say for the most part, but you could hardly argue that Kingsley's been on the end of quality delivery for the past few seasons now; in which time he's still managed to generate his handy contribution of 1-2 goals a game on the back of his ability to conjure up a sufficient amount of shots over the course of the game.
As for H, I'd argue that, while on form alone he probably doesn't deserve a senior spot right now, the neverending 'structure' argument probably dictates otherwise (especially when we're not willing to play either Lonergan or Gardiner [who is injured as I understand] in his place - both of whom would go some ways to replacing the 'target' H provides in the game).

Well I just don't buy this GeeCat. Most posters on this board have called for their heads and now they have got their way. It'll be interesting to see how they react from here on in.

I certainly don't believe that they should shoulder any more blame than the likes of Kelly, Ling and Hunt. There is far more pressure on the likes of Kingsley and Playfair yet these three have underperformed every bit as much this year.

And as for the delivery of the past few seasons in comparison to this season - this year has been infinitely worse! Over the past 7 weeks, we've played the most stagnant, unimaginative, slow football I have ever seen this team play! At least over the past couple of seasons Kingsley has been able to enjoy an open forward line, fast delivery from in-form, confident midfielders. That hasn't been the case lately. I'm not saying he is without blame, but he isn't the cause of our problems.

 

[captain dewy]

Everyone has basically the same thoughts, i refer to my post earlier, it's business this sport stuff they pay more per year for these guys than almost any other profession so they need to be accountable, just comes with the JOB. Agree the mid field have been woefull and need some new blood there as well.
What i really don't get is why our forwards (bar 2) look to offload, if i was instructing them it would be as simple as- if you can kick from 50 then kick regardless of angle and only pass if success rate is 98%+, if you can only kick 40 then within 40 you SHOOT! I could have wagered anything that KK would miss last week as soon as i saw him looking to offload, easy bet, shoot,shoot,shoot, no other thoughts (it get's confusing).
Second delivery in is crap agree, BUT it hits the deck and the forward defensive pressure is non existent, BIG PROBLEM here.
easy fix have ball shoot.
don't have ball pressure and chase.
whish i was remunerated for underperformance as these guys are, i get paid on effort in, these guys should be subject to same individual key performance indicators in regards their income as well.
I am not just talking about winning, i am talking about effort and skill as per employment conditions, if you puty in and loose, this discussion board would not be so full.

 

[GeeCat]

You're kidding right? So 1-2 goals a game is acceptable from a full-forward. He's not a winger or onballer, he is THE key forward we have. That means 60 goals a year minimum - like Richardson, Gehrig, Hall, Lloyd. He hasn't done it once. Even Stephen Milne kicked 60 goals last year.

This is where the line is drawn though.

There's people like you who believe that Kent is both the problem and the answer up forward. You somehow place him on the same pedestal as the Lloyd's and the Gehrig's of this league and criticise him by those very standards. There are only a handful of blokes who can do what they do, and Kent, believe it or not, is not one of them.

No, he's not a winger, nor an onballer. But I could argue that he certainly isn't the "key" forward many here make him out to be either. Perhaps he is the best thing we've got as far as a tall, constant goal-kicking threat goes, but I don't know why people are oblivious to the reality of the situation and choose to set expectations of Kingsley so high he's destined to always fall short.

Perhaps if we all look beyond Kent's teases of hauls of 3-4 goals, his promise of so much more if only he did such and such, and face the reality that is Kent Kingsley. I'm not defending his form, but I am defending the increasingly ridiculous standards by which many measure him by. You know as well as I do that the likelihood of him slotting through 60-70 goals a year is slim, if the criticism in recent weeks on these boards is anything to go by. So why the hell do you continue to judge him by those absurd standards?

He is, generally speaking, a player of very few tricks. But those 'tricks' he can perform, he does it well; at least, well enough to warrant a spot in the side. Forget the bigger picture of the season for a second. If he can contribute to the team in a positive manner (if that means 1-2 goals a game, then so be it), then he'll earn his spot. But he's not doing that right now, regardless of whatever spin you want to put on it. For that reason above all, his value to the team is significantly reduced.

 

[GeeCat]

Well I just don't buy this GeeCat. Most posters on this board have called for their heads and now they have got their way. It'll be interesting to see how they react from here on in.

I certainly don't believe that they should shoulder any more blame than the likes of Kelly, Ling and Hunt. There is far more pressure on the likes of Kingsley and Playfair yet these three have underperformed every bit as much this year.

And as for the delivery of the past few seasons in comparison to this season - this year has been infinitely worse! Over the past 7 weeks, we've played the most stagnant, unimaginative, slow football I have ever seen this team play! At least over the past couple of seasons Kingsley has been able to enjoy an open forward line, fast delivery from in-form, confident midfielders. That hasn't been the case lately. I'm not saying he is without blame, but he isn't the cause of our problems.

I don't believe he is the 'cause' of our problems either CE, and I certainly don't think a handful of the said players are excempt from the criticism our forwards have incurred for the most part, but I am interested in this: How long do we pull deadweight?

Whatever spin you want to put on it, Kent isn't doing what he's in the team to do - kick goals. Perhaps if he was contributing in another matter (I still wouldn't mind seeing him further up the ground) we'd be seeing a different debate take place, but the fact is he isn't. So how long do we play a guy who can't contribute unless the other 21 guys figure things out? That is, perhaps, another flaw of his. I'd argue that in the past, Kent was more than capable of 'getting his own' within the context of the game, something he's failing to do now.

This debate is tired and old though; nothing conclusive ever is drawn.

 

[catempire]

I don't believe he is the 'cause' of our problems either CE, and I certainly don't think a handful of the said players are excempt from the criticism our forwards have incurred for the most part, but I am interested in this: How long do we pull deadweight?

Whatever spin you want to put on it, Kent isn't doing what he's in the team to do - kick goals. Perhaps if he was contributing in another matter (I still wouldn't mind seeing him further up the ground) we'd be seeing a different debate take place, but the fact is he isn't. So how long do we play a guy who can't contribute unless the other 21 guys figure things out? That is, perhaps, another flaw of his. I'd argue that in the past, Kent was more than capable of 'getting his own' within the context of the game, something he's failing to do now.

This debate is tired and old though; nothing conclusive ever is drawn.

Agree totally. I'm not saying he is without blame. I'm not saying he shouldn't be dropped. However, I long for the day when all players are assessed objectively and held to account for their poor performances or otherwise. At the moment, I don't believe that happens and I feel that the bulk of the blame rests on the shoulders of a few when it should be on many. There are plenty of passengers in our team at the moment who have performed every bit as poorly as those who have been axed. It's not right.