Tall stories

[Old Spice]

The Cloke saga has made us all ponder the future, but it has also led me to consider the value of a power forward in the chase for the premiership stakes.

My obvious and initial thought was to consider how the most successful team of the modern era, Geelong, managed to win without any KPF of any note. When you look at it, the Cats never had a dominant, top 10 key position forward in their premiership years. Nathan Ablett, Mooney, Podsiadly and Hawkins were never great players.

In fact none would be considered top 10 in the league (Hawkins was not top 10 before this year).

But that factor is not unique to Geelong when you look at the most recent premiers. In 2010, Cloke was not a dominant forward in terms of goals, in 2008 Franklin was not central to the GF win, in 2006 West Coast won with Ashley Hansen and Lynch as the tall forwards. In 2005, Sydney had Hall, Davis and O'Loughlin with a GF return of 3 goals. In 2004 Port won with Thurstans and Tredrea.

What is to my mind more important in those teams is their midfields and defence. They represent a type of defacto press by dent of their skill.

I'm coming quickly to the view that we wouldn't be harmed by bolstering our defence and midfield rather than obsessing over our forward line.

It's a hoary cliche that a big forward straightens the team up. It might well straighten the team up, but it also gives the opposition a telegraph of what we are doing. That's not to say we don't want or need aerial contests, but more to say it can be advantageous to have multiple targets that are not predictable.

For me, I'd be much happier to have a more solid midfield and back-line who can win the ball and press forward more often than tall forwards. The forward line is 1/3 of the field of play and if we have harassing forwards and an even number of targets there we are well placed to kick winnng scores through our unpredictability.

I'm not arguing for a fleet of short people but for an even forward line of talls and smalls that make us harder to match up on. I'm coming round to the idea of strengthening our midfield and defensive brigade rather than plumbing for the fetish of the marquee tall forward. If you can land an athletic freak like Franklin, that's great, but he's a rare bird.

 

[forwardflanker]

It's not so much about kicking goals (though they are still important) as it is about having an avenue for your forwards to kick long too. Finals pressure and congestion forces sides to kick long and if you don't have quality targets to kick too then the opposition gets to dictate the match by taking uncontested marks or smashing the ball out of play. A good example are the two GF's in 2010, St Kilda's defence dominated Cloke and Dawes rushing through a load of behinds and Fisher took a load of uncontested marks. However in GF 2 Cloke and Dawes + our delivery to them didnt allow the defenders to do this and as a result we scored a lot more effectively.

In terms of Geelong, I think a lot of people underrate Mooney because of the champions that he played. He was a top AFL player in right. Also they had Ottens playing up forward a fair bit who was an absolute beast during finals. When Sydney won their flag I thought Hall's presence in the forward line was really important and O'Loughlan would of won the norm smith if he had of kicked straight. WC are really the only recent side to have won without quality key forwards and that largely came down to the fact that they had one of the GOAT midfields.

 

[thecig]

I'm coming around to this way of thinking also. Is it better to have a dominant forward? Sure, but I don't think it's the be-all and end-all, the midfield needs to deliver the ball to the forwards sufficiently.

I think this year (at least lately) our clearances haven't been very good. We might be gathering decent numbers in the clearances, but I can't remember the last time he had a clean clearance with a midfielder streaming towards the forward line. We seem to just get the ball and boot it high and long into the forward line without any thought. Maybe we should lower our eyes and give the handball to a runner who can pinpoint a pass once in a while... Agree or am I just seeing things?

 

[morgoth]

Its about balance. Your bigs don't need to be outright stars but they need to be able to play their role ie force a contest, bring the ball to ground, help lock it in etc. As long as you have a star forward or two they will create the pressure that allows the others to play a role.

Quite often in finals the gun players nullify each other and it is the lowly pawns where the game is won or lost. Our problem at the moment is system, entry to the forward line and when it gets there we don't lock it in.

 

[jathanas]

Football today is a game of percentages, and hence the need for an outstanding KPF is reduced. Buddy's absence hasn't hurt Hawthorn because they play their roles and execute their structures well.

Saying that we're so much better with a firing Cloke but yep, we could live without him as long as our ball movement shines.

 

[Travis bloke]

Yep i agree to a point.Cloke or a CHF is a vital to starighten up a side ,but say 2 didaks and 3 jack darlings in the forward line would be harder to match up on.

 

[jmac70]

A very good point. I would say that the Bulldogs were a more difficult team to match up on before Hall joined.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Geelong, West Coast and Collingwood all showed that you don't have to have the best forward in the game to win a flag.

You just need ot have someone big and tall that can at worst, provide a decoy for the real goalkickers. As long as they're doing the other team things. Tacking, blocking, and making sure their man isn't doing anythign either.

This is why Cloke leaving wouldn't do the damage people think. Dawes, Keefe and Paine can still be decoys if we need them to be. The difference this year, is that Cloke's off the ball efforts haven't been what they were in the past.

Not only THAT, now his man is running off him and creating play, which just highlights his lack of effort even more. I know people still want to defend 2012 Cloke, but people don't realise the damage he's doing to our season.

If we, by some miracle can snag a flag with Cloke's current from, it would be an amazing feat.

 

[3066]

Rule of thumb .... if you have a big presence of a CHF or FF it goes a looooong way in winning games and will always have a higher percentage chance of doing so whether they're directly kicking the goals or not.

You can analyse it all you want, go through recent trends, past winning formula etc .... but at the end of the day it's a simple game and ALL teams want and are on the hunt of a big KP players in the forward line. Ones that don't get injured are a blessing.

If Cloke went would that make our forward less potent? At the moment no coz it's doing jack shit ... but jokes aside if Cloke went we'd simply work with what we've got and we might discover something brilliant. But as a basic template for a simple game, Cloke as a huge man with a large workout and is someone that just about all teams would love.

I want him at Collingwood.

 

[Travis bloke]

Hey lads the other day i blogged a rumour that Fev may become a magpie next year,and thought nothingt of it,just a friend of my told me and i thought no way what a laugh.
But apparently the rumour has legs.Check extreme black and white,ther is a blog saying that Fev has been secretly signed by the pies and we will take him in the rookie draft as a mature aged rookie.

Smart move by the pies,they have got a full tiime fitness instructor working with him for him to get fit between now and November,he will drop his weight.Collingwood have agreed to pay him40k per year and use him as a backup if Cloke and Dawes don;t perform or get injured purely a 1 year deal and if he stuffs up we have the a clause in the contract to drop him.

Good back up i reckon.If Fev can stay cool and just play footy ,he will be better than Cloke.Much more of abn accurate kick than Cloke if Cloke goes we have Fev.

 

[Swooop]

Very interesting thread Spiceman - and increasingly this might be the way of the future.

The dedicated second ruck is now dead in today's running game. More talls will eventually follow IMO.

As you say, sides are less predictable without the key forward target. Hawks been getting their best results with no Buddy - and he's the very best forward in the game.

Take our man Cloke - he kicks 2 and a bit goals per game.
If we played Blair as a fulltime designated forward, he'd kick 1.5 goals a game.
Plus there'd be more turnovers that produced goals for the others via the added pressure and spillages
There'd be more harried clearances from our forward line, resulting in less well orchestrated raids into our forwardline, further adding to the value of the smaller forward vs the gorilla.

Plus, you could argue, forward entries without the big target, would necessitate the mids etc to lower their eyes more to spot up targets, rather than the mindless bombing hoping the power forward will catch the ball.

As someone said, I think the "It straightens us up" argument is a little lame and overrated.

Bring on one dominant ruckman, a Roughhead type second ruck /forward, four medium sized running defenders and 16 mids/mobile forwards!!

Love to see a preseason game - side A with the usual structure vs side B with the smaller running brigade.

 

[Stripes B and W]

Yes, great thread.
In my view, it all depends on the quality of who you have. A Carey and Lockett up front, then we all say how huge the FPF are. We have Cloke and Dawes, we say they are a dangerous combo and so on..

A forward line with a Brad Johnson, a Medhurst and a Daicos for example would be equally as dangerous, with them playing the Fey forward role. To me , its almost as outdated as 6 backs, 6 forwards, 2 wings etc etc..

I also think you MUST adjust the way you enter your forward area depending on the type of player you have in there ( balanced by the ability to defend as forwards must today ). You kick to the ADVANTAGE of your forward which can be anything from a bomb to a dribble kick.

Last point, the straightening up bit is hugely overrated. With a Carey and Lockett you want to be straighted up, with lesser talls you may not want it at all. The other thing it does is ' straighten up' a defence. Much easier to depend against ( unless your FW's are tall superstars).

 

[vjknight]

Rule of thumb .... if you have a big presence of a CHF or FF it goes a looooong way in winning games and will always have a higher percentage chance of doing so whether they're directly kicking the goals or not.

thats it. as recent as 08, buddy's influence wasnt necessarily his own output & stats, but also the mental pressure his presence applied. while everyone has a job in defending against hawthorn, all players are also conscious of where buddy is, thereby affecting the defenders ability to have 100% attention for their man.

 

[Yonchi]

I seem to remember a brisbane team with Lynch, Brown and Bradshaw being fairly handy. Even with all the changes in the last decade it is plain to see the value of having quality forwards.
When we played brisbane in 2010 and lost, Fevola and Brown kicked 4 goals each against us. We lost despite being a better team with a better system/structure.
North last week had 3 quality tall forwards and this stood out like a sore thumb compared to the output from our forwards.

My point is that it is always good to have a tall forward option. It beats a small/unconventional forward line any day. Our problem is that our tall forwards (even with Cloke's ability to take contested marks) have not been elite for some time. If they have seemed to be good it was because of the lack of quality in the general competition

 

[ipswichpies]

I seem to remember a brisbane team with Lynch, Brown and Bradshaw being fairly handy. Even with all the changes in the last decade it is plain to see the value of having quality forwards.
When we played brisbane in 2010 and lost, Fevola and Brown kicked 4 goals each against us. We lost despite being a better team with a better system/structure.
North last week had 3 quality tall forwards and this stood out like a sore thumb compared to the output from our forwards.

My point is that it is always good to have a tall forward option. It beats a small/unconventional forward line any day. Our problem is that our tall forwards (even with Cloke's ability to take contested marks) have not been elite for some time. If they have seemed to be good it was because of the lack of quality in the general competition

Brisbane certainly were handy with those 3 in it but even more important than them were the f4 and Power plus usually a very good ruckman either Keating or McDonald plus a good defence,those 3 fellas were the icing on the cake but not the most important part of it.

 

[ipswichpies]

North,s form and their forwards have been better than our ,s has been for a while now.

 

[Soul_Pie]

The way I see it the strength these days in terms of forward lines is unpredictability, spread and speed of attack. Geelong had no genuine power forward from 2007-2011, although 2007 Mooney was actually quite underrated I thought. They moved the ball fast and direct to the forwads, they honoured good leads, they had huge depth of forwards who led out in different directions and broke away from each other who made it extremely difficult for defences. It didn't really matter if it was Johnson, Ablett, Mooney, Hawkins, Chapman kicking the goals, it was about making the right choice going forward and honouring the play makers.

When we are at our best in 2010 we were actually very similar to Geelong:
-not reliant on any one goal kicker or forward target (Didak was our highest goalscorer with less than 50)
-would honour leads and players making moves forward no matter who they were, had a variety of link up players like Macaffer, Didak, Leigh Brown, Dawes who if they weren't kicking goals were at least being a part of the string of forward movement. Cloke was not the centre of attention
-we threw goalkicking midfielders up forward constantly to add to the unpredictability (we still do this to be fair)
-we moved the ball on very quickly even if it was down the boundary most of the time (the boundary line being the only predictable part of our attacks which was unfortunately worked out a year later)

 

[jathanas]

...

I also think you MUST adjust the way you enter your forward area depending on the type of player you have in there ( balanced by the ability to defend as forwards must today ). You kick to the ADVANTAGE of your forward which can be anything from a bomb to a dribble kick.

...

+1

There is no 1 single formula that will always work. It's a combination of creating a gameplan that recognises and takes best advantage of the strengths of your personnel.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Fev to Collingwood is one of the tallest stories I have ever heard

 

[Knightmare]

Geelong in their 2007 premiership year had Mooney who had an All-Australian year.

Lynch in West Coast's premiership year kicked 65 goals.

Every recent club who has won a premership has done it with at least one very good key forward or a key forward who in that year really produced.

Then Lloyd/Lynch(Bris)/Treadrea/Hall/Franklin/Cloke and even Hawkins last year who really broke out in that finals series deserve recognition.


I'm not saying you can't win without a quality key forward or an in form key forward and it is far from the only factor in deciding whether you win/lose. But winning without a quality key forward certainly hasn't happened in recent times and like with quality ruckmen. It's something where if you have it, it makes the job much easier.

 

[Stripes B and W]

Knight, how do rate the forward potential of Brown, Reid and Lachie K?
Looking to 2013, with Lachie returning, one may have to play elsewhere, or at least rotate in another position.
In the case of Brown and Keeffe, maybe even the ruck assist role?
Also the prospect of Clokeless 2013 makes me consider the abilities of our talls.

 

[Knightmare]

Knight, how do rate the forward potential of Brown, Reid and Lachie K?
Looking to 2013, with Lachie returning, one may have to play elsewhere, or at least rotate in another position.
In the case of Brown and Keeffe, maybe even the ruck assist role?
Also the prospect of Clokeless 2013 makes me consider the abilities of our talls.

Reid is very poor as a key forward. He doesn't attack the ball in the air, doesn't crash packs, not a contested marking threat and his footspeed is ordinary so on the lead he isn't super dangerous either. Add to that poor set shot goalkicking (despite being an excellent field kick) and he just isn't an effective forward.
- In short keep him down back where he can best influence games as he did in 2011 because the gap between is play as a forward and defender is very wide.

Keeffe can play some key forward and isn't nearly as terrible as Reid is in this type of role. But I would argue all of Paine/Gault/Ceglar are as good if not slightly better as key forwards already and should go past him next season as forwards.
Additionally with Keeffe his early season play as a key defender was just so good that you can't not play him as a key defender. He just has a knack behind the ball of reading it and then getting the spoil in 1v1s even when the contest looks lost. He just seems to get it as a defender and now that he has found his position I don't like the prospect of moving him - whether it be into the forwardline or into a no.2 ruck role because I don't want him getting into the Leigh Brown trap from Fremantle/North Melbourne where he gets shifted around and just doesn't have a regular position/role because it does no one any favours.

Of these Brown is the only one I wouldn't completely put a cross through as a potential forward - mainly because he hasn't been tried as a key forward at any stage in recent years to really have a feel for what his game is like up forward. It could be a potential consideration if Paine and co don't break through next year but with Keeffe likely not starting the season and Tarrant retired it's hard to see him starting the season up forward.

I can see all of Reid/Keeffe/Brown fitting in the same backline. With Maxwell also it makes it a tall backline group but with injuries it's hard to see this whole group playing 22 games together anyway with Keeffe likely not healthy for the start of the season, Maxwell aging and Brown injury prone.


If Cloke leaves our key forward and rucks become interesting and against other top sides are relative weaknesses.
If we stay as is I see our team as:
FF: Dawes
CHF: Paine
Ruck 1: Jolly
Ruck 2: Gault/Ceglar
CHB: Brown
FB: Keeffe
Def v resting ruck: Reid

Perhaps we can get a high level ruckman (say McIntosh) or a solid key forward but without knowing who we can get we first need to plan for what we have and this is probably the more solid setup at this stage with what we have.

In an ideal world we would have a McIntosh as a second ruck and two high level established key forwards but all teams have holes so sometimes you just have to work with what you have - and Paine and Gault in particular have been very good at VFL level and I wouldn't be afraid to play either at AFL level as regulars from next year.

 

[THATSGOLD]

The medium small forward is usually the more damaging player. In 2010 McCaffer was the man. In 2011 Stevie J did the damage. In 2008 Dew! Aker booting 5 against us in 03. Who can be our man in 2012?

 

[spudmaster]

The medium small forward is usually the more damaging player. In 2010 McCaffer was the man. In 2011 Stevie J did the damage. In 2008 Dew! Aker booting 5 against us in 03. Who can be our man in 2012?

Assuming that's a height description?

 

[collwood]

To me it's about the spread of goal kickers. That's what we had in 2010 and 2011 and are missing this year. Every team can defend a good big man if that's the only guy they have to worry about and that seems to be part of our problem this year.

The only other guy at the moment who seems capable of kicking 2-3 goals on a regular basis is Beams. Need some others to step up to give the opposition something to worry about.