Team Mgmt. Small forward line. The new trend.

[ant555]

Seriously what a load of horse manure. Two sides who did not have more than 1 decent tall forward win a flag and it is the new way forward ? Rubbish. Both sides wanted to play more tall forwards but simply did not have good ones or they where injured.
The Bulldogs won the flag and since then have traded for a tall forward twice. They have kept a number of average talls including Repath and Campbell in case they can get their injury issues right. If they could they would play 2 tall forwards.
Richmond simply had to come up with something. Vickery gone, McBean not up to it, none of their rucks where any good as forwards and Griffiths just cant get it done. Are you telly me if they had Buddy and Joe they would not play both ????

Now pressure is good but you do not need 5 small forwards to apply it. I liked how our forwards worked last year. 3 small to medium players who where very quick or above average pace. Stewart who is pretty quick and plays like a tall small, Joe who is also quick and can do the miracle stuff and only 1 plodder in Hooker who should be better next year after getting through this season with a very limited pre season. Add Stringer into our small/medium brigade and the ability to swing Hooker to the other end if needed and I think it will work.

There was no grand plan. It played out because both sides had crap tall forwards. The Crows where fine all year but fell at the last hurdle. 1 game. That is all it was. 1 game. In the end it was not that the Crows had too many tall forwards. It was the total inability for any of them to take a mark on the day and Richmond's ability to pressure the Crows to keep bombing the ball long and allowing the forward entries to be predictable.

 

[eth-dog]

I refuse to believe that you can accuse Adelaide of being too tall when their structure allowed them to finish on top by a significant margin and hammer two quality sides in a QF and PF.

 

[Harlequin Dream]

I hate the follow the leader mentality that the AFL world has.

Richmond's forward line was probably their weakest area of the ground. It probably would have struggled to kick scores if Martin didn't rest there.

The important thing about forward line structures is that they make sense for your team and cause headaches for the opposition. Would our forward line without Hooker cause more headaches for the opposition? I don't think so.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Of greater importance IMO is that the gameplan works for the type of players in the side.

You aren't going to do very well with a small forward line if your gameplan involves kicking long into the forward line. A gameplan that makes use of the strengths of small forwards such as agility and tackling pressure will work a lot better.

 

[akiva]

Our three talls forward line is a powerful weapon of ours, no way in hell should we alter it.

This small forward line trend that has hit the compotition can really work to our advantage. Smaller forward lines will cause teams defensive structures to go smaller and they will find it harder to adjust when playing againt us (even harder than they found it this year). Another reason smaller opposition forward lines works in our favor, is that it lessens the need for Hooker to play down back.

 

[Bomberbuzz1]

It was their biggest weakness, Bulldogs were the same. Just because a team wins doesn't mean every facet of their game is the new trend and be all and end all. Looking at the way they played and scores they were able to relentlessly defend showed how important team defence is while still scoring a reasonable score. A team like Carlton play with the same strategy but waste 10 opportunities that may result in victory but are not quite there yet. We need to play more defensively while trusting that our forwards will be able to kick the necessary score. If teams want to go for a shoot out then we defend as hard as we can and trust that we will kick a winning score. We have a superior forward line that if we set up to defend first we will still kick a winning score.
If our objective was to keep the opposition to within 50 points by all means necessary we will score more than 60 points.
As for the small forward line being a reason for the means of recent success. It may help adding pressure and team defence but I think every premiership teams forward line no matter what size for a long time has been more effective than the past two. Richmond definitely didn't win because of a smaller forward line.

 

[Bombermania]

I think we have a good balanced forward half

Daniher - Stewart - Hooker
Fanta - Walla - Green
Stringer - Smith - Lavarde - Langford - Begley

A good mix of talls, mid size and small forwards.

 

[akiva]

I think we have a good balanced forward half

Daniher - Stewart - Hooker
Fanta - Walla - Green
Stringer - Smith - Lavarde - Langford

A good mix of talls, mid size and small forwards.

I'd include Begley as well.

 

[BrunoV]

Agreed.

Adelaide couldn't win the grand final because it had no plan to move the ball forward once Richmond countered plan A. Adelaide could have played 6 bottom feeders but it wouldnt have mattered if they continually bombed the ball down the line chasing a quick transition.

Rigidity and a lack of attention to what opponents are doing in finals is what is costing sides in finals. That's also out biggest challenge based on what we have seen under Worsfold.

All things being equal I don't think that attack can beat defence in finals especially now with the bye and the opportunity that gives sides to reset physically.

We saw how Richmond closed down the GWS transition on the wing in the prelim. That had nothing to do with their small forwards.

The balance of forwards we have and which Adelaide has is fine. These sides need to work out a tactic to counter what Richmond did this year. I suspect that being the geniuses that are stacked in footy departments they are all thinking that they need to play quicker (because on three occasions during the game their sides do sneak through to kick goals) but that plays into the hands of opponents who are able to bring extreme pressure.

When you've got dominant tall forwards moving the ball slowly and through them and maintaining possession is probably a good idea.

 

[owen87]

Adelaide were beaten around the ground; they couldn't get clean clearances and their entire game-plan relies on the rapid slingslot out of defence.

Our structure is slightly different; I'd say Daniher + Hooker is a more traditional pairing than Walker + Jenkins; they lack the strong contested marking forward like Hooker than allows the long kick to the contest in the F50. They also didn't make Rance accountable enough to keep him from running around coming across to kill every contest.

More important is the full-ground pressure Richmond players were working to provide, 1 extra small instead of a tall isn't going to be the difference there if our midfielders continue to not bother to put physical pressure on further down the ground.

 

[Bomberbuzz1]

If you go with a small fwd line you can kick long high bombs from further out and hope 9/10 times the ball hits the deck and score from there. If it's rebounded you have that extra time to setup your defence. As long as you body the contest it's likely to hit the deck as it's much harder to mark with your loose as the ball is coming down more vertically rather than a spearing kick and intercepting from the front.
I'm not really sure the best way to defend it?
My guess to successfully beat it you either need to protect the area it's landing to allow for the mark, keep your defenders behind the drop of the ball and defend the crumbers facing goal or finesse a spoil to an area you can then win the ball.
I really think the trend was creating a functional strategy that goes with a small forward line structure and that is to kick it high and long that reduces the ability to mark. The othe benefit was that the kick into the forward can come from a further distance.

 

[quotemokc]

We should sit Daniher or Hooker in the goal square sometimes like the good old days.

Geelong showed that this can really mess with a teams defensive structures when they did this with Dangerfield.

 

[BrunoV]

Reckon that the sentiments of this thread are even more on point given that Richmond just recruited three key position players including a guy who will probably end up a 202cm key forward/second ruck.

 

[blitzer]

Personally I reckon our forward line is top notch and our balance is just fine as most have said on here.

The real key is going to be finding ways to bolster our midfield. I think most of our smaller/medium forward options will be spending significant time through the midfield as part of rotations.

The small forward line thing is just a 'coping mechanism' that two teams with good midfields have managed to pull off. Its a bit like the Eagles in 2006 won a premiership with a crap forward line. It still wasn't the future of forward lines.

 

[yodellinhank]

Could it be that the need to come up with a work around led to greater focus and execution of a plan?

I 'member a bit was made about our "horse shoe" forwardline in '93.

 

[BrunoV]

Could it be that the need to come up with a work around led to greater focus and execution of a plan?

I 'member a bit was made about our "horse shoe" forwardline in '93.

There is no doubt about it. A year later injuries strike and the sense of urgency is not the same and it's assumed to be the fault of the extra tall forward.

 

[Godzke]

Talls who can run and play like small forwards (if required) are worth their weight in gold.
Stringer and Daniher can do that, and it will give our forward line serious flexibility and power.

 

[Darealrath]

Agree with the OP and most of the following posts.

One thing I'll say is that Richmond's lack of marking forwards, Riewoldt aside, probably helped with their pressure game, but not necessarily because of the extra smalls. I reckon it forced them to realise that they only way they could kick winning scores was by forcing turnovers so they had that mentality all season. If they had someone like Buddy creating goals from nothing, or Daniher marking everything, then they may have been more likely to switch off a bit because they would have cruised in a few more games, but they simply did not have this option.

 

[Yoda_]

Bump



Heading into round 4 and we sit 16th in the league for average I50's per game. We also rank 12th for marks per game which was a huge plus for us in 2017.


With the precedence the Tigers set in 2017, are teams selecting smaller backlines to try and combat that mosquito fleet?

Despite us being taller than most, teams still back in those small defensive set ups and have literally ran us off our legs. Looking forward to seeing the more mobile Jake Stringer (compared to Hooker) playing forward.


Looking forward to seeing the forward group be more mobile and working harder, pressuring the Power defenders.

Hope Joey can get on his bike more this week and actively be involved around the ground this week.

 

[ant555]

Have not changed my overall view. If you have tall forwards playing well then there is no reason not to use them. However if they are not playing up tp what we where doing last year then you have to look at it. We will still be going tall even if we send Hooker back and use Stringer.

Clubs are still chasing tall forwards. Richmond chasing Lynch despite being the masters of the small forward line. Port still going tall. Crows as well but they did go too tall for wet conditions last night. There is likely to be two 200cm players in the top 5 of this years draft.

 

[Mootsy]

It also helps having an elite midfielder like Martin and all your other mids playing well.

Also teams like Richmond have big bodies and can out finesse other teams.

It's not just as simple as having small forwards as a solution.

 

[Santoz]

It also helps having an elite midfielder like Martin and all your other mids playing well.

Also teams like Richmond have big bodies and can out finesse other teams.

It's not just as simple as having small forwards as a solution.

Richmond just have more forwards that can win 1 on 1's.

Size is pretty irrelevant.

 

[Yoda_]

Have not changed my overall view. If you have tall forwards playing well then there is no reason not to use them. However if they are not playing up tp what we where doing last year then you have to look at it. We will still be going tall even if we send Hooker back and use Stringer.

Clubs are still chasing tall forwards. Richmond chasing Lynch despite being the masters of the small forward line. Port still going tall. Crows as well but they did go too tall for wet conditions last night. There is likely to be two 200cm players in the top 5 of this years draft.

The bolded part is what sticks out to me.

We were a team that went I50 the least amount of times last year, but were a high scoring team which suggests the personell were in form. This year the same mixture is not playing well and it is showing.

Do still think our tall forward set up needs a better mix of smaller, natural guys than just resting midfielders. Green has been ok, Walla has shown glimpses but we have really missed Fantasia this year to date imho

 

[eth-dog]

I don't see the correlation of a small forward line equals more inside 50's (a midfield issue)?

 

[owen87]

As Worsfold said in his midweek interview; a small forward line trades off increased pressure for decreased marking power.

At the moment our talls aren’t taking their marks so we’re losing out both ways.