Tarrant's role

[Expat Pie]

when Chis Tarrant first returned last year, there was alot of conjecture as to the role he would play, given we had Reid and Brown filling the key back positions. Then Browny did his knee and it became a non issue.
Now with the three of them set to be all available together for the first time, how do we fit them all in? Does Tarrantt play a role going back and forward at various times, giving Cloke, Dawes, Reid, and Brown a chance to rest? I think the three of them playing as permanent backs would make us too big in defence.

 

[rustyg70]

Horses for courses.
He is capable of playing on the smaller type forwards when needed,although that is not the prefered match up, he can play the role if required.
I wouldn't mind seeing him go forward when Dawes goes into the ruck.
We could then send one of our rotating mids down back for a bit of a rest.

 

[Nicco_jj]

Bucks said we couldn't have all four (tarrant, brown, Reid, Keeffe) together in one team.

I think we won't play all 3 of them.... Hmmmm.... Not sure. On the last performance you'd say Taz would be dropped for Reid.

We NEED Reid. He gives us so much drive off the backline. He's turned in to a great player.

I think Taz and brown are very similar players, except brown is 5 years younger and is playing the role just as good as taz.

 

[esc0bar]

At the start of the season we did play all three and i would imagine this would remain the same, although Taz could be tried as CHF. This would make perfect sense as it would take the pressure off Cloke. I would imagine that Taz is too valuable to be taken away from defence though. Could goldsack be pushed back?

 

[SnakePlisskin]

With Gsack he adds valuable versatility , he can plug nearly any hole on the day .

 

[Bay Pie]

Have a look at our opponents who we'd be likely to meet in the finals as that is where it matters and what we'd be geared towards. I think he'll play in the 3rd tall/medium tall/resting ruck with Reid & Nate to take the KF.

WCE: Brown/Reid on Lynch/Kennedy - Taz and Madwell gets Cox/Niknat and Darling
Crows: Brown/Reid on Tippett/walker - Taz on porpoise. Maxy on Jacobs/Mckernan
Essendon: Brown/Reid on Hurley/Crameri - Taz on Ryder/Bellchambers or Taz on Monfries with Maxy on resting ruck.
Swans: Brown/Reid on Goodes/Reid - Taz on Pyke/Mummy or on ROK with Maxwell on resting ruck
Hawthorn: Brown/Reid on Roughead/Frankle - Taz and Maxwell on Hale/Bailey and Gunstone
Geelong: Brown/Reid on Hawkins/Podsiadly - Taz on S.Johnson. Maxwell takes West/Stephenson
Cheats: Brown/Reid on Waite/Kruezer - Taz on Warnock/Hampson or Henderson with Maxwell on resting ruck
St.Kilda if they sneak in: Brown/Reid on Reiwoldt/Kozshitske - Taz any hack they have up forward.

 

[rustyg70]

Have a look at our opponents who we'd be likely to meet in the finals as that is where it matters and what we'd be geared towards. I think he'll play in the 3rd tall/medium tall/resting ruck with Reid & Nate to take the KF.

WCE: Brown/Reid on Lynch/Kennedy - Taz and Madwell gets Cox/Niknat and Darling
Crows: Brown/Reid on Tippett/walker - Taz on porpoise. Maxy on Jacobs/Mckernan
Essendon: Brown/Reid on Hurley/Crameri - Taz on Ryder/Bellchambers or Taz on Monfries with Maxy on resting ruck.
Swans: Brown/Reid on Goodes/Reid - Taz on Pyke/Mummy or on ROK with Maxwell on resting ruck
Hawthorn: Brown/Reid on Roughead/Frankle - Taz and Maxwell on Hale/Bailey and Gunstone
Geelong: Brown/Reid on Hawkins/Podsiadly - Taz on S.Johnson. Maxwell takes West/Stephenson
Cheats: Brown/Reid on Waite/Kruezer - Taz on Warnock/Hampson or Henderson with Maxwell on resting ruck
St.Kilda if they sneak in: Brown/Reid on Reiwoldt/Kozshitske - Taz any hack they have up forward.

Good work Mr BP.
Id still love to see Taz given the job on Franklin though.
Provided he is fit, I see Taz as our best match up for the freak.
I'd nearly go Brown on Roughy, Taz to Buddy and let Reid play and create as a spare tall.

 

[Bay Pie]

Good work Mr BP.
Id still love to see Taz given the job on Franklin though.
Provided he is fit, I see Taz as our best match up for the freak.
I'd nearly go Brown on Roughy, Taz to Buddy and let Reid play and create as a spare tall.

Certainly.

That would make Reid very damaging if he got Hale. Like.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Personally, I see Nathan spending the next few years, being the coach that truly pioneers the soccer style approach to team and sub selection.

Using guys like Pendles or Swan as the sub. REALLY using the whole list in a very specific and diverse way. I think this could start with giving Taz very sporadic game time.

Even keep him on ice until a game or two before we play Hawthorn this year and next. We need him for Franklin. That way he is always in peak condition for Franklin.

 

[Hagla]

Personally, I see Nathan spending the next few years, being the coach that truly pioneers the soccer style approach to team and sub selection.

Using guys like Pendles or Swan as the sub. REALLY using the whole list in a very specific and diverse way. I think this could start with giving Taz very sporadic game time.

Even keep him on ice until a game or two before we play Hawthorn this year and next. We need him for Franklin. That way he is always in peak condition for Franklin.

You are Shpeshal aren't you Ed?...

 

[PieNSauce]

I don't think there's be too much trouble finding a spot for Taz in the side as long as he plays a bit better than he did against Melbourne which you would expect once he gets back into the rhythm. The worry I have is about Reid's durability. He seems to be spending a fair amount of time injured these days and if he continues that trend there will be no problem for Taz at all but Taz is pretty versatile and it's hard to see him not getting a game IMO.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Tarrant needs to find form again first.

He was way off in the Melbourne game. And yes of course it was his first game back after a long injury layoff. If he was in his early 20's you'd reasonably assume he'd quickly find touch again (as Brown has done). Given Tarrant is in his early 30's, it's less certain.

 

[Lockyer24]

Id play him as a swingman type role the next few weeks but to be honest my gut feel is he won't be in the best 22 when Reid returns unless he can get a kick up forward

 

[HFF]

All three of Reid, Tarrant and Brown will be in the best selected 22.

Tarrant can play a variety of roles i.e. small or tall and has the ability to go forward if need be too.

 

[SuperSub17]

All three of Reid, Tarrant and Brown will be in the best selected 22.

Tarrant can play a variety of roles i.e. small or tall and has the ability to go forward if need be too.

I agree. All three have their strengths and they all have a spot imo.

Btw Monday was the first time Taz and Brown have played in the same side.

 

[HFF]

C

I agree. All three have their strengths and they all have a spot imo.

Btw Monday was the first time Taz and Brown have played in the same side.

Cannot wait to see Reid, Brown and Taz play in the same side together for the first time.

Will bring a tear to the eye.

 

[rose jam]

Taz and Reid are the first 2 picked in my book, but given the injuries floating around our tall defenders it's basically whichever 2 are fit.

Reid could play higher up the ground but the lessens we're getting from this year is that the smaller we play in defense the better we've run out games.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

You are Shpeshal aren't you Ed?...

Yeah? Just watch.

It's where the sport is heading. If I told you 20 years ago, the sport was heading towards using the bench as a resting tool that would be used up to 160 times a game, you would have said the same thing to me back then.

Try and be a litte more open instead of just throwing childish insults around.

Football WILL head in the soccer direction where entire lists are being cultivated, developed and used to the point where superstar players are used as subs (assuming subs are still around) in order to ensure the win.

I think it will start sooner rather than later in games against lower teams, where the game isn't in danger.

Imagine it. Imagine playing a side like say, Hawthorn or Carlton, and it's a tough tight contest, only a goal or two in it. Halfway through the third, a fresh legged Dane Swan comes onto the ground as the acitvated sub and tears the SHIT out of the game, while Carltons sub, Aaron Joseph, does...what exactly?

It'll happen.

 

[SuperSub17]

Imagine it. Imagine playing a side like say, Hawthorn or Carlton, and it's a tough tight contest, only a goal or two in it. Halfway through the third, a fresh legged Dane Swan comes onto the ground as the acitvated sub and tears the SHIT out of the game, while Carltons sub, Aaron Joseph, does...what exactly?

It'll happen.

But if we start Swan on the ground we would most likely be 5-6 goals up instead of 1-2. Why not play him for the whole game instead of a quarter of it?

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

But if we start Swan on the ground we would most likely be 5-6 goals up instead of 1-2. Why not play him for the whole game instead of a quarter of it?

As I said, i think in the future, lists will be developed in a far more advanced way to the point where instead of a best 22-25, you almost have a best 30-35. Which means you can afford to play your best 2 or 3 players as a sub on rotation which achieves a couple of things:

1) Extends their career. They're not being battered and bruised as often, especially as the game gets harder and faster.

2) Until the rest of the comp catches up, I'd wager you'd win a lot more games.

This is all a theory of course, and it's under the assumption that the sub rule hands around. If it doesn't then, obviously it won't happen. But I don't see why it's such an outlandish idea. I mean, look at our list as it is right this second.

If we didn't have injuries. L:ets' just say we had all 40-44 players fit and healthy.

Couldn't it be argued that we almost have a best 30-35? Given the way some of the kids have trakced this yeah?

Look at the Adelaide game. No Swan and we won by 4 goals. So why then, couldn't Swan have been used as the sub? Imagine if Swan had come on instead of Elliott in that game? How much could we have won by?

 

[jonbe54]

Taz was recruited as insurance first and foremost. His ability to play both ends is a bonus but let us not forget his final years at the Pies as a forward, quite frankly he was poor. The few times he has been tried in this role since returning have not seen him set the world on fire as he is primarily a defender now and has a different mindset.

Not against him going forward if one of Cloke or Dawes go down with injury during a game but realistically his days of holding down a forward role full time are over.

 

[Koki Freelander]

I can't help but feel that we have lost a big something with L.Brown retiring. I watched with interest as Tarrant played two VFL games up forward, then Keefe went down, and he went back again. I have felt fairly certain for a few weeks that Bucks sees Tarrant as the Full Forward (apply defensive pressure, snag a couple if possible, take attention off Cloke). Dawes stepped aside and I personally think he is developing in the Leigh Brown role OK. Of course what we lost was the "Dawes" guy. Tarrant will move into that role IMHO. But time makes liars of us all

 

[Hagla]

As I said, i think in the future, lists will be developed in a far more advanced way to the point where instead of a best 22-25, you almost have a best 30-35. Which means you can afford to play your best 2 or 3 players as a sub on rotation which achieves a couple of things:

1) Extends their career. They're not being battered and bruised as often, especially as the game gets harder and faster.

2) Until the rest of the comp catches up, I'd wager you'd win a lot more games.

This is all a theory of course, and it's under the assumption that the sub rule hands around. If it doesn't then, obviously it won't happen. But I don't see why it's such an outlandish idea. I mean, look at our list as it is right this second.

If we didn't have injuries. L:ets' just say we had all 40-44 players fit and healthy.

Couldn't it be argued that we almost have a best 30-35? Given the way some of the kids have trakced this yeah?

Look at the Adelaide game. No Swan and we won by 4 goals. So why then, couldn't Swan have been used as the sub? Imagine if Swan had come on instead of Elliott in that game? How much could we have won by?

I could imagine having Swanny as a sub once he is sort of past it but I wouldn't use him as a sub until that point. I'd love to see Swanny move into the forward line permanently in a few years once his fitness starts to fail him. Just a shame he has already said he'll finish at the end of his current contract.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

I could imagine having Swanny as a sub once he is sort of past it but I wouldn't use him as a sub until that point. I'd love to see Swanny move into the forward line permanently in a few years once his fitness starts to fail him. Just a shame he has already said he'll finish at the end of his current contract.

My thoery wasn't something I assumed would happen NOW, which it now seems you may have thought I was suggesting?

I'm just saying I think football is heading in that direction. Where the best clubs will have far deeper lists and can afford to use their superstars as subs, much like in soccer.

I actually like the idea of doing that way.

The Adelaide game is a perfect example of how Swan as the sub could have been amazing. We were in that game the whole way without Swan playing. Imagine if we could have brought him on instead of Elliott?

 

[Jelly Bean]

B

My thoery wasn't something I assumed would happen NOW, which it now seems you may have thought I was suggesting?

I'm just saying I think football is heading in that direction. Where the best clubs will have far deeper lists and can afford to use their superstars as subs, much like in soccer.

I actually like the idea of doing that way.

The Adelaide game is a perfect example of how Swan as the sub could have been amazing. We were in that game the whole way without Swan playing. Imagine if we could have brought him on instead of Elliott?

But as has been mentioned, if we had Swan available, he would have played from the start and we would have been more in front.

Why would we give Swan 30 minutes to use his ability, rather than 100 minutes to use his ability? If his ability is better than almost all others, then we are getting better value if he plays the whole game.