Strategy The case for a third tall forward

[edgie]

I think we all want you to be right. I just keep thinking of Butcher round 3 though. That shouldn't condemn either Butcher or Shaw to SANFL for all of 2014 but it does provide some counter weight to consider.

Either way it's too late for 2014. We're on a set path and only have a limited number of talls that we must pray will stay fit all September.

Was butch round 3 any worse than Schulz last 2 rounds, or vs Geelong, Hawks, Freo?





Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk

 

[Macca19]

Shaw doesnt have the defensive side to his game yet which is clear watching his game at SANFL level. If he doesnt mark, he doesnt get involved. It was his main criticism in the under 18s and its his main criticism now. He sits back and watches the play unfold metres in front of him. He averages 1 tackle a game at SANFL level. Its not enough. You can get away with it a bit at SANFL level, you cant at AFL level. Thats when you get Scarlett getting 30 touches in a grand final type thing. So when you bring him in against Essendon and he plays on probable AA in Hooker who loves to zone off and get the ball as we saw last year then there is equal chance we could have lost by more than playing Mitchell.

Butchers defensive side is very good, but he cant lead, cant mark and cant kick, so again, you're back at square one. As we saw with Daniel Stewart, you need to do more than just be tall. You do actually have to contribute.

 

[Macca19]

Was butch round 3 any worse than Schulz last 2 rounds, or vs Geelong, Hawks, Freo?

Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk

Yes. His opponent had 13 marks and will probably get brownlow votes.

 

[Jim Dixon]

Shaw and Harvey and Butch are all very well but we need to get a forward for 2015 round 1. I'd love for us to trade to Richmond for Tyrone Vickery who can do KPF & ruck duties. He's erratic and not everyone's a fan of his after he snouted Dean Cox (but as an old Dave Granger fan I didn't mind it to be honest! )

I just don't know if he'd come and I doubt Richmond would trade again with us given what we do with their players. But it wouldn't hurt to ask.

 

[Janus]

This categorically wasn't the case in the Essendon, Melbourne and Richmond games

Why is it 'categorically' not the case? Because YOU say so? You criticized me earlier for saying that 'Ken knows a bit more than we do'...but now you're implying with this statement that you know more than he does. Do you know how ridiculous you sound? It's like you believe that because you've said it so much and because we've lost games, what you believe MUST be true. "Oh we lost because we were dominated in the air..." Fair enough. No one disputes that we need another key forward. But saying that we should play Butcher/Shaw irrespective of their defensive capability, which could have easily been turned into a negative for us instead of the positive you think it will be by an astute coach, is ludicrous. Selection is all about weighing up the positives against the negatives...and it's clear that at the moment, both Butcher and Shaw are seen as being negative to team performance.

This concept that Shaw and Butcher are too stupid to follow basic instructions is wearing a little thin. I'd love to hear an explanation of what Sam Gray and Kane Mitchell were contributing to the side that Shaw and Butcher weren't "ready" to contribute, and how their selection in those games over Shaw and Butcher made us a better team.

Gray and Mitchell have an easier job because they don't hurt the team as badly when they make a positional mistake. Our other midfielders/small forwards can rotate and cover for them. But when you play a third tall, like YOU want to, the entire gameplan changes! Yes, it can be complementary, but if your key forward isn't getting involved at the right times...or maybe getting involved at the wrong time...suddenly there is a big gaping hole left in the forward line that no-one on the team can fill because it's setup for a completely different tactic.

You can play American Football without a quarterback if you setup correctly. You can play soccer without a striker if you setup correctly. But you CAN'T play either game, or Australian Rules Football, with players who don't do their job in the system we are playing.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love for Thursday to roll around and for Butcher or Shaw to be named. And I'd genuinely hope they do well, because I'd know that the coaches had the belief in them that they were ready. Which is more important in a team environment than some rabid bunch of fans jumping up and down because they think they've got the answer to the question when they don't have the intellectual property of how Ken wants to play football in it's ultimate form.

 

[Byrons Firen]

Shaw and Harvey and Butch are all very well but we need to get a forward for 2015 round 1. I'd love for us to trade to Richmond for Tyrone Vickery who can do KPF & ruck duties. He's erratic and not everyone's a fan of his after he snouted Dean Cox (but as an old Dave Granger fan I didn't mind it to be honest! )

I just don't know if he'd come and I doubt Richmond would trade again with us given what we do with their players. But it wouldn't hurt to ask.

TV's not a bad fit for us
clumbsy with a bit of mongrel 'bout im
Zany X factor too
dual role ie: forward/ruck
How tall is he?

 

[Jim Dixon]

TV's not a bad fit for us
clumbsy with a bit of mongrel 'bout im
Zany X factor too
dual role ie: forward/ruck
How tall is he?

200 cm & 98 kg. Not Redden huge but big enuff.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Why is it 'categorically' not the case? Because YOU say so? You criticized me earlier for saying that 'Ken knows a bit more than we do'...but now you're implying with this statement that you know more than he does. Do you know how ridiculous you sound? It's like you believe that because you've said it so much and because we've lost games, what you believe MUST be true. "Oh we lost because we were dominated in the air..." Fair enough. No one disputes that we need another key forward. But saying that we should play Butcher/Shaw irrespective of their defensive capability, which could have easily been turned into a negative for us instead of the positive you think it will be by an astute coach, is ludicrous. Selection is all about weighing up the positives against the negatives...and it's clear that at the moment, both Butcher and Shaw are seen as being negative to team performance.

lolle.

We categorically lost the Essendon game because of structure in the same way that we categorically lost the Sydney game because we couldn't execute. The writing was on the wall on selection night where we chose to simply ignore the fact that we'd lost two KPPs and picked what I imagine was one of the shortest football sides picked in years. We were then reminded on almost every play of that game how short we were. If you couldn't see it, i'm not sure that I can explain it to you.

I know that we lost to Essendon because of structure, and so does Ken. If he doesn't, then yes, I do know more than Ken does about why we lost to Essendon because going in too short was the reason we lost. Maybe the coaching staff can't see the forest for the trees, I don't know. All I know was that we went in 2 or 3 KPPs to short, won the midfield but were totally non competitive in the air and even in the wet, the flow on effects of that cost us the game.

We can play the whole "well how could you possibly know if structure cost us the game, maybe picking extra talls would have made us worse, it's all hypothetical" if you want, but that's a very boring way to have a discussion on a football forum and i've consistently backed up what i've said about picking extra talls with reasoned arguments. I'm still waiting on an argument about what Kane Mitchell or Sam Gray have brought to the side over the past 6 or 7 weeks that makes them a better selection than Butcher. I'd love to hear that argument. What are they doing that we'd miss so much that it's worth going in so short?

We were desperately short in the weeks where both Carlile and Trengove were out, and we were still very short against Collingwood.

Butcher, in any case, is a solid defensive forward. People can have a crack at his goalkicking or his involvement on offence all they like, but he's always been a reasonable defensive forward at AFL level.

Gray and Mitchell have an easier job because they don't hurt the team as badly when they make a positional mistake. Our other midfielders/small forwards can rotate and cover for them. But when you play a third tall, like YOU want to, the entire gameplan changes! Yes, it can be complementary, but if your key forward isn't getting involved at the right times...or maybe getting involved at the wrong time...suddenly there is a big gaping hole left in the forward line that no-one on the team can fill because it's setup for a completely different tactic.

Gee imagine if we had a big gaping hole in our forward line, how bad would that be? Oh wait, we've had exactly that in every game since we were figured out. Again, I know you're arguing that the likes of Gray and Mitchell can be more easily covered, but they can be covered so easily because they are limited players.

Guess what, the gameplan doesn't need to change. Play Butcher in the exact role you played Neade in on the weekend, and move Neade into the Mitchell role, and we are suddenly a much more dangerous side. Nobody is asking us to change the way we play at all. We just need to have a plan B for when teams sit back and wait for our slingshot. A tall forward gives us the flexibility to change the way we move the ball if plan A isn't working, and it hasn't been working for weeks.

You can play American Football without a quarterback if you setup correctly. You can play soccer without a striker if you setup correctly. But you CAN'T play either game, or Australian Rules Football, with players who don't do their job in the system we are playing.

What about the last 6 weeks has you convinced that the guys who are getting picked are doing their job in the system they are playing?

If we're going to use an American Football metaphor, i'll say that just because your 350lbs offensive linesman is prone to mistakes doesn't mean you should play the kicker at left tackle.

The obvious example is that Renouf came in when Lobbe was injured. All he did was held his own for 3 quarters, but picking a below average, out of form player purely because he's tall and can play a role didn't seem to be a problem that week.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love for Thursday to roll around and for Butcher or Shaw to be named. And I'd genuinely hope they do well, because I'd know that the coaches had the belief in them that they were ready. Which is more important in a team environment than some rabid bunch of fans jumping up and down because they think they've got the answer to the question when they don't have the intellectual property of how Ken wants to play football in it's ultimate form.

Mate, i'm a huge Ken fan and I think he'll be the best coach we've had at AFL level quite comfortably. But harping on about how Ken wants to play and intellectual property and coaches belief is simply refusing to acknowledge that Ken is still learning. His gameplan was fantastic. It was figured out after about 10 weeks, and Ken hasn't been able to adjust. He will learn to adjust, but at this stage he hasn't. He's not perfect and he's not a genius coach just yet.

It is absolutely undeniable that we've been figured out. Teams know that simply keeping a couple of loose defenders back prevents us from playing our slingshot ball movement style, and every team is beating us with that same basic premise. You've talked about "total football", but despite our freewheeling approach, we're nowhere near total football because we can't adapt to teams that do that to us, and a big part of that is that we play too short almost every week. Play taller and we have more marking targets to draw those loose defenders away and give them something to worry about.

If Hinkley decides that we'll just keep doing what we're doing and hope it works more often that it doesn't, we'll never win a flag under him. If he is able to make us more flexible in terms of gameplan he'll make us more robust, and when we're more robust teams will find it really hard to stop us.

 

[Janus]

You've got blinkers on, el_scorcho. I said that playing Shaw/Butcher could have made us worse as a team, either defensively in the case of Shaw or offensively in the case of Butcher. Could have. You stated that this was categorically not the case. I've already said that playing a third tall against Essendon and Sydney would have been better. Don't try to change it to suit your argument.

No one thinks we shouldn't play a third tall. I've said numerous times it actually makes it better because you have that option which makes defenders accountable. But that's the problem we have - neither Butcher nor Shaw are going to make the opposition accountable BOTH ways...and that's what you need to make the system work. Are the players getting picked doing a good job? Nope. But the selection committee believes that their inclusion isn't going to hurt us as much as a Butcher or a Shaw. Now, unless you know WHY that is, harping on about how Ken is stubborn etc is just dumb, because you only have your reasoning for playing them instead of looking at why we aren't.

The days of the full forward who just kicks goals are over. No matter how much better they make the structure, if the AFL drops the interchange cap lower some time in the future, they need to be able to contribute in other ways. And if you can't see that is what is keeping Shaw and Butcher out of the team, then you're just being willfully ignorant for the sake of your argument.

 

[Macca19]

I dont agree that we lost the Essendon game because of structure.

 

[tribey]

I think we all want you to be right. I just keep thinking of Butcher round 3 though.

Half the side sucked in Round 3. And in trying circumstances.

Most unfairly judged performance in Pear history.

 

[RossFC]

I reckon we lost to Essendon because they kept it contested. We barely had any space to move.

 

[klem22]

Shaw doesnt have the defensive side to his game yet which is clear watching his game at SANFL level. If he doesnt mark, he doesnt get involved. It was his main criticism in the under 18s and its his main criticism now. He sits back and watches the play unfold metres in front of him. He averages 1 tackle a game at SANFL level. Its not enough. You can get away with it a bit at SANFL level, you cant at AFL level. Thats when you get Scarlett getting 30 touches in a grand final type thing. So when you bring him in against Essendon and he plays on probable AA in Hooker who loves to zone off and get the ball as we saw last year then there is equal chance we could have lost by more than playing Mitchell.

Butchers defensive side is very good, but he cant lead, cant mark and cant kick, so again, you're back at square one. As we saw with Daniel Stewart, you need to do more than just be tall. You do actually have to contribute.

Does that mean we have got lazy footballers coming on???
Kenuhaveproblems!

 

[Zakk Wylde]

Kontinue the kull ??

 

[Macca19]

Does that mean we have got lazy footballers coming on???
Kenuhaveproblems!

No, it means he's got something to work on.

 

[2powers]

Yes. His opponent had 13 marks and will probably get brownlow votes.

Who did he play on Just looked at Norths best that night all mids can u pls post the stats for all the kpf that game ours and north didn't think any forward did much Schulz 3?

 

[Lefti93]

i don't think our main problem necessarily was not bringing in butcher/shaw when jacko & bob went down. i think it was not bringing in clurey along with oshea. our defense was not the issue in those few weeks with those players out & we covered them quiet well. hoff was forced back more often and left a greater hole upfront. clurey could have done oshea's role fine, whilst cam could have played the roaming hoff role for a couple weeks and given us perhaps more run than we were generating. in saying that, the team out there in all of those losses were good enough to win had they been cleaner.

 

[Macca19]

Who did he play on Just looked at Norths best that night all mids can u pls post the stats for all the kpf that game ours and north didn't think any forward did much Schulz 3?

Schulz - 9 disp, 2 marks, 3 goals
S Thompson - 14 disp, 4 marks, 1 goal

Westhoff - 17 disp, 10 marks, 1 goal
Grima - 21 disp, 6 marks

Butcher - 10 disp, 6 marks
Hansen - 19 disp, 13 marks

Carlile - 10 disp, 2 marks
Petrie - 4 disp, 2 marks

Hombsch - 15 disp, 4 marks
Black - 7 disp, 4 marks, 1 goal

Trengove - 16 disp, 4 marks
Currie - 5 disp, 2 marks

 

[2powers]

Schulz - 9 disp, 2 marks, 3 goals
S Thompson - 14 disp, 4 marks, 1 goal

Westhoff - 17 disp, 10 marks, 1 goal
Grima - 21 disp, 6 marks

Butcher - 10 disp, 6 marks
Hansen - 19 disp, 13 marks

Carlile - 10 disp, 2 marks
Petrie - 4 disp, 2 marks

Hombsch - 15 disp, 4 marks
Black - 7 disp, 4 marks, 1 goal

Trengove - 16 disp, 4 marks
Currie - 5 disp, 2 marks

Thanks Macca good reading

 

[yepits2020]

I dont agree that we lost the Essendon game because of structure.

You are far more knowledgeable about the game than I, but loss of structure in the forward line does appear to be hurting us. Don't know if it is the personnel, the way they are trained, the forwards defending too much and being caught out when we extract the ball, the opposition manning up, the opposition playing two players behind so that we don't get behind them.... I dunno.... but it is breaking down. When we were winning, our movement forward seemed to be good when the linking player had two options, usually one short and one deep (most often taking the shorter option) and not so much to the pockets as of late.

I do believe breakdown in structure is a major contributing factor. What;s causing it is problematic to me.

 

[King_Tredrea]

Butcher isn't up to it and Shaw is not ready. Jacko at CHF for the now makes a lot of sense. He is surplus to requirements down back the way we are structured up ATM.

 

[Macca19]

I still beleive it comes down to the midfield. Whilst yes many were bemoaning the fact we needed a 3rd tall up forward all year (me included at times) the facts are:

- We won a heap of games with a 2 tall forward line inc. against Geelong, Freo & Hawthorn. What has changed?
- We have cleared out the F50 for much of the year. What has changed?
- We were leading the comp in Marks I50 by a big margin and are now 2nd. Whats changed?

The only thing that has changed is we've gone from having the most dominant midfield in the competition to one that has convincingly lost 5 of the last 7 games. The benefits of having a winning midfield are that you can play a more traditional forward structure or as we like to do a 5 man forward line where Schulz, Wingard and one other small play through the forward 50 with Gray and Monfries around the 50m arc and Westhoff going from CHF to the wings. This is where we became dominant. We dont have that benefit at the moment. So we are having to pull our flankers into the midfield battle to add numbers around the ball to ensure we win enough of it, we then throw our deeper forwards outside 50 so that the midfield then have something to kick to. Its a win-win for the opposition. We put more players around the stoppage then they can drop 2 players back knowing we have little to kick to. We drop players in more traditional positions and they know they will simply win the ball at the stoppages.

So what do you do if your Ken? Watch us lose the midfield and lose the game comfortably and dont change it up. Or do you throw more players around the ball, win it, and hope we can create something from it giving us a chance? We were thrashed in the middle against Adelaide, Richmond, Melbourne & Collingwood. Thats where we predominantly lost those games. We lost the Essendon game because we couldnt kick for goal. Yes we lacked a tall target, yes we were forced wide, but not every shot we had was from the boundary. Mitchell, Hartlett, Wines, Westhoff, Lobbe, Gray all missed regulation 25-30m dead in front shots on goal. I think Wines and Hartlett missed everything completely. Same story as the Sydney game. Will a 3rd tall help those players slot goals they should kick 99% of the time? No.

 

[Pedro59]

I dont agree that we lost the Essendon game because of structure.

Not structure as a third tall as such
It would have to have been Plugger Lockett himself or Wayne Carey to have been able to mark those long high bombs in that flooded back line

In that game... clean movement, spreading ,run and linking up through the middle was more the downfall

Or...all of em just taking on and beating their man..

 

[Pedro59]

I still beleive it comes down to the midfield. Whilst yes many were bemoaning the fact we needed a 3rd tall up forward all year (me included at times) the facts are:

- We won a heap of games with a 2 tall forward line inc. against Geelong, Freo & Hawthorn. What has changed?
- We have cleared out the F50 for much of the year. What has changed?
- We were leading the comp in Marks I50 by a big margin and are now 2nd. Whats changed?

The only thing that has changed is we've gone from having the most dominant midfield in the competition to one that has convincingly lost 5 of the last 7 games. The benefits of having a winning midfield are that you can play a more traditional forward structure or as we like to do a 5 man forward line where Schulz, Wingard and one other small play through the forward 50 with Gray and Monfries around the 50m arc and Westhoff going from CHF to the wings. This is where we became dominant. We dont have that benefit at the moment. So we are having to pull our flankers into the midfield battle to add numbers around the ball to ensure we win enough of it, we then throw our deeper forwards outside 50 so that the midfield then have something to kick to. Its a win-win for the opposition. We put more players around the stoppage then they can drop 2 players back knowing we have little to kick to. We drop players in more traditional positions and they know they will simply win the ball at the stoppages.

So what do you do if your Ken? Watch us lose the midfield and lose the game comfortably and dont change it up. Or do you throw more players around the ball, win it, and hope we can create something from it giving us a chance? We were thrashed in the middle against Adelaide, Richmond, Melbourne & Collingwood. Thats where we predominantly lost those games. We lost the Essendon game because we couldnt kick for goal. Yes we lacked a tall target, yes we were forced wide, but not every shot we had was from the boundary. Mitchell, Hartlett, Wines, Westhoff, Lobbe, Gray all missed regulation 25-30m dead in front shots on goal. I think Wines and Hartlett missed everything completely. Same story as the Sydney game. Will a 3rd tall help those players slot goals they should kick 99% of the time? No.

This post is good

But what has changed?

So this post gives lie to the theory that we have been worked out and that all they have to do is leave a couple more players waiting at home in their backlines..because surely that would make it even easier to win the midfield battle

Yes the problem lies more in the middle and how we are letting loose players get out like last week against the swans...clean possession ..playing on fast (gee up til this last week didn't we start looking hesitant) and and bloopers like the 2 kanes passes /turnovers

Actually wrapped to have Jakey back in for the spark and maybe he hasn't been infected by the hesitation loopy kick disease of previous weeks

 

[Janus]

This post is good

But what has changed?

So this post gives lie to the theory that we have been worked out and that all they have to do is leave a couple more players waiting at home in their backlines..because surely that would make it even easier to win the midfield battle

Yes the problem lies more in the middle and how we are letting loose players get out like last week against the swans...clean possession ..playing on fast (gee up til this last week didn't we start looking hesitant) and and bloopers like the 2 kanes passes /turnovers

Actually wrapped to have Jakey back in for the spark and maybe he hasn't been infected by the hesitation loopy kick disease of previous weeks

It all is dependent on how we structure up for clearances.

The way Ken has us setup is to defend first - we are always standing opposition goal side during a stoppage to prevent a quick clearance and goal. The problem is that in the first 12 weeks, we were able to not only fire out quick, crisp handballs to the midfielders circling the contest, but those midfielders had the space to operate in and pinpoint a target. Now, teams are wise to this tactic and basically sagging off our best player (Boak) and instead concentrating on clamping down on Wines, Ebert, Polec etc in one on one battles. Because Boak is more of an extractor in clearances and not an explosive Dangerfield type, this means that he can pick up stats all day but never really bring his other teammates into the game (no fault of his, just how it is). Add to that the defenders sitting back instead of being sucked into the contest, and our midfield dominance is now a weakness.

If I was recruiting, I'd be looking for a midfielder who can actively move through stoppages and burst away after receiving the tap to go along with whatever KPP we can get. Gray does this, but it's not enough, because he needs someone to be the Robin to his Batman. It's that 'will he/won't he' dynamic that would force the opposition midfield to watch for a quick release and goal, IMO. Lade said before the Richmond game that we were one dimensional. And he's probably right, because if he wasn't our midfield wouldn't be shut down so easily.