Taylor up forward... Why?

[catempire]

but how would he gave gone down back?

Not as well as Graham did!

 

[Cataholic]

Not as well as Graham did!

No.

A futile comparison I think.

BG was great down back, as was CM up forward, but a bit sketchy when roles were reversed.

Both great servants of the GFC. Loved the way both played for the club.

 

[Goggin Our Best]

I reckon Mooney ( and ive posted it several times - when Dean Laidley did the special comments on Channel 10 - hed say - Mooney might not be one of Geelongs best players - but he is one of their most important - structually) where he does Graham - and id also pick Cam ahead of Stoneham ( who was a very good player ) is that Mooney over the 1st 5-10 metres was very quick - and that is a huge asset , The other 2 wernt quick over the 1st 5-10 metres - Stoneham might have been a good athlete over a middle distance - but he wasnt quick over the 1st 10 metres

In that Pt Adelaide final in Adelaide where Geelong got easily beaten - Malthouse said youve love to have 18 Cam Mooneys in your team - thats a pretty good rap - appreciated the effort he put in

 

[Cataholic]

I reckon Mooney ( and ive posted it several times - when Dean Laidley did the special comments on Channel 10 - hed say - Mooney might not be one of Geelongs best players - but he is one of their most important - structually) where he does Graham - and id also pick Cam ahead of Stoneham ( who was a very good player ) is that Mooney over the 1st 5-10 metres was very quick - and that is a huge asset , The other 2 wernt quick over the 1st 5-10 metres - Stoneham might have been a good athlete over a middle distance - but he wasnt quick over the 1st 10 metres

In that Pt Adelaide final in Adelaide where Geelong got easily beaten - Malthouse said youve love to have 18 Cam Mooneys in your team - thats a pretty good rap - appreciated the effort he put in

A disservice to Stoneham I reckon.......not saying he was better, but an amazing player before his injury

 

[Mr Blicavs]

Harry is a swing man. Let's leave it that way please...

 

[Bobby_]

Average. Do you dispute that?

View attachment 334797

Compare him with CHF's only, that would be fairer.
Even though KK scored more than BG that year, BG has also been our leading GK (33), and KK was not a better player than BG.

I have never thought of Ben Graham as an average footballer, maybe goal tallies like those are average, but he was never an average player, even as a KF, imho, incorrect as that may be.

Keep in mind, Graham was not a permanent forward either.
He was constantly shuffled between two positions on the ground during a season.

Had he remained fixed inside the forward fifty, he would have easily booted 50 goals or more per year.
It was only when Scarlett rally came into his own as a footballer did the reliance on Graham down back become alleviated.

Unfortunately, just when Scarlett was at the very peak of his powers, Graham left to go play in the NFL.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

The fact is lonergan taylor and hendo are all best 22 and kolo probably is, we dont need 4 kpds we desperately need a CHF as hawkins is a FF and stanley is a good ruck who is an ordinary forward. House isnt ready yet and black may or may not make it and neither of them are best 22 yet. The taylor thing may fail but its obvious why they are trying it and this is the time of year to trial it. I am yet to see an obvious better option for CHF.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

As a forward what is Taylor capable of that Stanley isn't?

He actually knows where to run to get involved in the contest and not bypassed whereas stanley struggles with the leading patterns and looks much better in the ruck when he is led to the ball and can just use his athleticism.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Average, as I said.

If he kicks 39 and Hawkins kicks 60 and Menzel kicks 30, yeah, maybe we will.

Hawkins will kick 50-60 and menzel will kick 30 like last year if he plays 3/4 of the games. Whether we can find a reliable third goalkicking player in there will determine a lot of whether we win the flag.

 

[Mr Blicavs]

He actually knows where to run to get involved in the contest and not bypassed whereas stanley struggles with the leading patterns and looks much better in the ruck when he is led to the ball and can just use his athleticism.

Ultiimately, where Harry plays will be whe he's most effective for the team. With Enright and Bartel retiring, and Mackie out of the side (don't see him in our best 22 ) old reliable heads will be needed down back, and until Thurlow and Kolo can develop further, that's where he will stay.
At times he'll come foward....so will Hendo, but I don't see their roles being any different than last year.
I think the 3 rucks will be rotated through CHF and the bench this year, providing solid contests rather than winning a lot f the ball.........and further emphasis will be put on small fowards like Cocky, McCarthy, Lang, Cowan and Motlop getting under the contest for the loose ball.
That only requires two things to bereasonably successful........endeavour and effort

 

[Vdubs]

Harry is a swing man. Let's leave it that way please...

And we have 2 of them. Hendo equally a swinger!

 

[Vdubs]

2002/3 he and Riccardi would have been the only ones shaving.

Ricco was shaving at 12!

 

[Mr Blicavs]

And we have 2 of them. Hendo equally a swinger!

Yep. I stated that a few times earlier somewhere else

 

[Vdubs]

Yep. I stated that a few times earlier somewhere else

Sorry, missed that

 

[you pick one]

Ricco was shaving at 12!

So was Effie

 

[ATSAM]

The notion that Taylor might play forward is the most creative piece of thinking that Scott and Co have managed in many seasons. It may work.

 

[catempire]

And before this experiment actually begins I want to be on record to say that Taylor's kicking for goal will be disappointing generally. Like Graham, for some reason those born and raised down back, even if they are lovely kicks, struggle to kick it through two white sticks. Particularly the lefties.

#7ironHarry

 

[bulletproof]

Stanley kicked 5 goals up forward V the Premiers. This year. He also played well in other games but kicked badly and even going back to his St Kilda days he had some seriously good games.

My focus would be putting more pressure on him to improve his occasionally lamentable efforts in contested marking situation and let him settle in the role.

I know he is inconsistent but I think Taylor will be too. What we have seen from both Stanley and Taylor is that on their day and if the ball is coming in quickly they can be very effective marking forwards. They are both quick on the lead and can stretch any defence.

There are two points to make here, key is getting that ball coming in quickly to give the forwards a chance. And the second point is, Taylor is already required at the other end of the ground, whereas I think Stanley is a little in-between roles (particularly if Blicavs returns to his best and fairest position of second ruck).

Happy for Taylor to be an option, so I have no issue with them trialing it. But my first option would be Stanley.

 

[Partridge]

Better than O'Reilly ever was.

Perhaps, but O'Reilly's 1993 and 1994 seasons were very good. He never came close to that form again once he left.

 

[Partridge]

A disservice to Stoneham I reckon.......not saying he was better, but an amazing player before his injury

It's another subject, but to be honest Stoneham is a little overrated around here. The broken leg is always brought up like he had just gotten started - he'd already had 8 full seasons before that.

Very good servant for us, but as a forward I'd take Mooney.

 

[Seeds]

There is no robbing Peter to pay Paul by removing Taylor from defence. Our defence tended work better when we went down to 3 tall defenders last year. Even if Taylor is still one of our best defenders we may still be improving the defence by removing him anyway just for structural balance reasons. This move looks very much like a win win situation.

 

[thegerman]

To be honest, I love the idea of Harry up forward. Straightens us up I think. He's very capable of taking a mark and at least providing a contest.

We've missed that at CHF for a long while

 

[bulletproof]

There is no robbing Peter to pay Paul by removing Taylor from defence. Our defence tended work better when we went down to 3 tall defenders last year. Even if Taylor is still one of our best defenders we may still be improving the defence by removing him anyway just for structural balance reasons. This move looks very much like a win win situation.

I think Lonergan will be pushed out, not unlike Mooney in his final year. Even allowing for his brilliant game against Hawthorn in the first final, I think his days are numbered. His contract has been a sticking point a few times now, I think they are keen to move on from the Lonergan era.

Scott himself said last year, they probably got Henderson 1 year before they needed him. I think Henderson will be settled as number 1 key defender next year and Lonergan is an emergency option.

 

[Seeds]

Watched the 89 semi against Melbourne last weekend. There is no way I'm taking Mooney over a fit Stoneham. Stonehams ability to cluck contested marks in the pouring rain and then play on from the mark and side step midfielders with ease has never been repeated by a big man in 30 years. Stoneham had consistency issues, often associated to numerous injuries he carried even before the broken leg, but when he was fit he was unstoppable.

 

[Seeds]

Perhaps, but O'Reilly's 1993 and 1994 seasons were very good. He never came close to that form again once he left.

Orielly was an exceptional fullback at Geelong. Only Scarlett was better in the past 30 years at Geelong.