Strategy The Demise of the Key Defender?

[shewho]

Us shopping Dougal when our recruiters told us at the Member's Convention that there are few key position players coming through the system can mean one of two things-

1. We have another key defender/swingman we are likely to get; or

2. We think Clurey, Jonas, Watts, Burton, Westhoff, Lienert and McKenzie is sufficient cover for the likes of Lynch/Riewoldt, Kennedy/Darling/Allen, etc

Are 195cm key defenders overrated? Was our undersized key defence in the SANFL (mostly McKenzie, Lienert, Grundy and Garner) by accident or by design? Have we settled on a radical theory that an undersized key defence gains more at ground level than it loses in the air? Is the rise of the small forward, championed by Richmond in 2017, killing the need for tall backs?

I think it's true that contested marks inside 50 are at the lowest level ever and some of these would be by smaller players. It would be interesting to know how many contested marks by tall forwards happen in modern footy? Teams rely on "team defence" and closing space inside 50.

Ben Brown's 10 goals will be trotted out as evidence we needed Dougal. But how did Brown get his goals? And even if the lack of a tall back cost us this game, how many games in the modern era (say last 3 years) have we been beaten by dominant tall forward?

The theory is, you only need 1.5 tall defenders (Clurey 195 cm, Jonas 188 cm) to play the modern game.

 

[Alyx]

3. We don't know how to football.

 

[RossFC]

Was our undersized key defence in the SANFL (mostly McKenzie, Grundy and Garner) by accident or by design?

Lienert and Corcoran were there too.

 

[Port85]

I get what you're saying but the craziest thing is that Doogs would be our most athletic and effective spoiler - thus the best at bringing the ball to ground inside defensive 50 to be scooped up, plus can move up forward against teams with s**t talls.

So with the rationale mentioned...trade Jonas not Howard.

 

[manureid]

3. We don't know how to football.

4. We know more than youse guys

 

[shewho]

Lienert and Corcoran were there too.

True, I overlooked Lienert. I'll edit him in. Corcoran is sub 190cm.

 

[RossFC]

True, I overlooked Lienert. I'll edit him in. Corcoran is sub 190cm.

Corcoran is more of a key back than Lienert is, despite being 189cm. Garner is 184.

 

[TeeKray]

I think the stats speak for themselves.

We lost multiple games this year that could be directly attributed to an opposition key forward destroying us - Hipwood kicked 6 in a close win and Lynch kicked 6 in a close win.

We were also destroyed by Gunston and Brown who kicked 6 and 10 respectively.

In all cases, these were season bests not matched or in most cases even close to matched in any other game this season.

 

[1954]

If Tom Clurey is 195 cm his measurement must have been taken while he was standing on volume 12 of Encyclopedia Britanica.

 

[Butters Made Me Do It]

already answered this in the other thread but here we go

top teams have legit tall forwards.

by relying on short guys to scramble we can beat teams without tall fowards, with no system, with no quality. We will be blown out by teams where we have no spare facility because we’re multimanning their tall forwards in defence, either letting smalls loose or by overmanning our defence and killing out forward momentum as we have seen so many ******* times under Ken

This strategy beats s**t teams and is exposed against the best. Its not a premiership strategy, its mid table grind

 

[ploppy]

We don’t need Howard to play on Tom Lynch..we need him to be Tom Lynch. I don’t see why he can’t either he is as big and strong and fast as Tom Lynch... we just need him to lead, mark and kick like Tom lynch...so the difference is all in his head..we basically have Tom Lynch if doog chooses to become him.

 

[1954]

already answered this in the other thread but here we go

top teams have legit tall forwards.

by relying on short guys to scramble we can beat teams without tall fowards, with no system, with no quality. We will be blown out by teams where we have no spare facility because we’re multimanning their tall forwards in defence, either letting smalls loose or by overmanning our defence and killing out forward momentum as we have seen so many ******* times under Ken

This strategy beats s**t teams and is exposed against the best. Its not a premiership strategy, its mid table grind

This by the length of the Flemington straight!

 

[Rexie J]

If Tom Clurey is 195 cm his measurement must have been taken while he was standing on volume 12 of Encyclopedia Britanica.

Perhaps re-visiting the era of Collingwood's 6 footers.


For the younger folk, way back when, no Collingwood player was ever listed under 6 feet despite having players sub 6 feet.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

already answered this in the other thread but here we go

top teams have legit tall forwards.

by relying on short guys to scramble we can beat teams without tall fowards, with no system, with no quality. We will be blown out by teams where we have no spare facility because we’re multimanning their tall forwards in defence, either letting smalls loose or by overmanning our defence and killing out forward momentum as we have seen so many ******* times under Ken

This strategy beats s**t teams and is exposed against the best. Its not a premiership strategy, its mid table grind

And falls apart in big finals when the pressure is highest and the game becomes more about contested ball, long kicking and territory.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[RossFC]

If Tom Clurey is 195 cm his measurement must have been taken while he was standing on volume 12 of Encyclopedia Britanica.

Apparently he's 193.

 

[thundercloud]

When the ball is on the ground for dougal to get he at times can be vunerable/ look vunerable. maybe his run and carry is ok but no more than that. So good closing speed, puncher and ok kick. Intent/aggression ok. So as a defensive unit the assessment is how his attributes complement the mix.

 

[shewho]

And falls apart in big finals when the pressure is highest and the game becomes more about contested ball, long kicking and territory.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

already answered this in the other thread but here we go

top teams have legit tall forwards.

by relying on short guys to scramble we can beat teams without tall fowards, with no system, with no quality. We will be blown out by teams where we have no spare facility because we’re multimanning their tall forwards in defence, either letting smalls loose or by overmanning our defence and killing out forward momentum as we have seen so many ******* times under Ken

This strategy beats s**t teams and is exposed against the best. Its not a premiership strategy, its mid table grind

Add to the equation that finals are played against the best teams in the best weather of the season which strengthens the potency of tall, marking forwards and the argument for playing at least 2 tall backs and a third option who can, say, be switched from attack, if needed. If this wisdom was shared by our list management, Howard would be untouchable. Clearly, this philosophy is not shared by our coaches.

When big forwards win games, it sticks out like sore thumbs- Brown v Port 2019, Cox v Richmond 2018 Prelim. So if there is any method in the current PAFC madness, it is that this happens rarely and when it does, it won't be stopped by an additional tall back. Last year's prelim for example- having Rance, Astbury and Grimes didn't help Richmond.

I'm not in favour of the Smaller Backline idea we seem to be happy with- I am trying to rationalise why we seem prepared to give up a rare commodity (199cm Swingman) for a more common one (small forward). Bigfooty wisdom is that those in charge here are idiots. I don't buy that. I'm just trying to understand our counter-intuitive behaviour.

 

[Rising Power]

Howard's been told he'll be used as a key forward. I'd leave too.

 

[El_Scorcho]

The coaches absolutely think that Jonas and Clurey with a tweener like McKenzie or Burton is sufficient to hold opposition forward lines. The idea seems to be that mobility will lead to more intercepts and halved contests than height. In my view, that's a concept works until it doesn't, ie when we play a team that can create a bit of space for it's high quality tall forwards.

I just think it's a very 2005 attitude. Howard isn't only tall, he's quick and athletic. Tall players aren't bollards like they used to be. Height and size matters in a properly 3 dimensional sport like AFL football. The old adage that tall players don't get any shorter over the course of a game is still relevant.

Sure, that size and athleticism is a great asset in the forward line as well, but we don't value height in the forward line either. I'm pretty sure it's just that our coaches have gone too far down an ineffective road and can't complete the required U-turn.

 

[klem22]

With Dougal walking Port will be a lesser side without him.
Stuff you hinkley you are destroying this club bit by bit with your shambolic levels of complete incompetence.
Prepare for a gut busting year of bastardization as clubs like Carlton St Kilda and possibly other sh*t on the shell of a club under these bogans at the top.

 

[Power Raid]

I'm torn over howard

He's tall and can get to a contest but he doesn't mark as well as he should. The modern defender can intercept mark and go...........howard doesn't do this.

However, he's better than lienart, watts and jonas.


I'm guessing we either have faith in watts, westhoff or marshall playing down back.

fingers crossed, it is the right decision.

 

[Pafcsince86]

Howard way better option anywhere on the field than Jonas! I still can’t believe we have 2 captains and he is one of them

 

[FishingRick04]

I’m so happy to be watching Westhoff running around for his 20th year, you go Westie

 

[Robbie4PM]

If only Dougal was a key defender and was actually a strong 1 on 1 defender.

Can't defend against anyone with any sort of strength. Not good enough with the ball to play him as the loose. Port have this right, he's only got a chance in the forward line or depth for defence.

 

[raptalia]

Us shopping Dougal when our recruiters told us at the Member's Convention that there are few key position players coming through the system can mean one of two things-

1. We have another key defender/swingman we are likely to get; or

2. We think Clurey, Jonas, Watts, Burton, Westhoff, Lienert and McKenzie is sufficient cover for the likes of Lynch/Riewoldt, Kennedy/Darling/Allen, etc

Are 195cm key defenders overrated? Was our undersized key defence in the SANFL (mostly McKenzie, Lienert, Grundy and Garner) by accident or by design? Have we settled on a radical theory that an undersized key defence gains more at ground level than it loses in the air? Is the rise of the small forward, championed by Richmond in 2017, killing the need for tall backs?

I think it's true that contested marks inside 50 are at the lowest level ever and some of these would be by smaller players. It would be interesting to know how many contested marks by tall forwards happen in modern footy? Teams rely on "team defence" and closing space inside 50.

Ben Brown's 10 goals will be trotted out as evidence we needed Dougal. But how did Brown get his goals? And even if the lack of a tall back cost us this game, how many games in the modern era (say last 3 years) have we been beaten by dominant tall forward?

The theory is, you only need 1.5 tall defenders (Clurey 195 cm, Jonas 188 cm) to play the modern game.

According to Dougal's manager Dougal said he didn't want to go anywhere and was prepared to play up forward if needed. Jason Cripps came back later and suggested, 'look we think it is in Dougal's best interests if he wants to go and look elsewhere'. That suggests it was more, we don't want you than we don't want you as a defender and there is a personal element rather than footy science in the Dougal Howard situation.

There is probably plenty in the theory you espouse though as Alex Rance and Harry Taylor are 195cm and Darren Glass and Tom Harley were only 192 cm so you can be a pretty effective key defender without being ultra tall. I would not say it was the demise of the key defender as you will always need a match up on tall forwards but key defenders do not have to be 199cm to succeed.

Tom Clurey is 193 cm so Jack Watts, if played in defence looms as our tallest defender.