Strategy The Future - Our Forward Set Up

WhiskySaint

Team Captain
Joined
Nov 23, 2016
Posts
427
Likes
1,308
AFL Club
St Kilda
Thread starter #1
Probably the most debated thing since we bailed on both Hickey and Longer. 2 talls, 3 talls, 6 talls, pressure smalls, lots of mids resting forward, or a Gresh cloning program.

What should our future set up look like?

Speculate heavily as who really knows who will develop into what, but I’m keen to know some thoughts.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

WhiskySaint

Team Captain
Joined
Nov 23, 2016
Posts
427
Likes
1,308
AFL Club
St Kilda
Thread starter #2
Sooooooo...... my whisky soaked opinion.

Given most scores now are generated through forward half turnover and marshals ability to mark across the center. I’m in for two talls and 4 pressure forwards, but here’s the controversy, I’m dropping arguably our best forward Membery.

If we only have two talls I want them to be tall. King and Bruce are the ones for me. The other players need to be elite pressure players which Membery isn’t.

At the end of the day, systems and ability to execute roles before players pure ability.
 

gringo2011

Premium Gold
Joined
Nov 12, 2011
Posts
21,767
Likes
45,520
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
#3
The reason teams like a very tall forward (Hawks used a ruck sized player like Mc Evoy or Ceglar) is to bring the ball to the feet on the crumbing smalls like Poppy and in the past Cyril. We used Kosi to crash a pack and drop the ball out to Milne etc. Those guys don't need to be great marks but do need to be physically competitive.

We probably won't get King to that point for 3 to 5 years. By that time Bruce will be in his twilight any way. Can't see us playing with out Membrey to be honest. He's not a pressure forward like Parker but he's a far ranging get out clause up the field. He's often the lead up option for the kick out of defensive 50. Same with Bruce, he's a hard working work ute rather than a Ferrari but he's effective. To me we need to get our best small pressure forward set up going. Lonie is playing further from goal these days and Parker is a pressure forward on one side and Kent on the other. The forward flanks are playing like wing men these days so it's really a 3 man forward structure.
 

St Muir

Team Captain
Joined
Oct 18, 2018
Posts
319
Likes
1,084
AFL Club
St Kilda
#4
Sooooooo...... my whisky soaked opinion.

Given most scores now are generated through forward half turnover and marshals ability to mark across the center. I’m in for two talls and 4 pressure forwards, but here’s the controversy, I’m dropping arguably our best forward Membery.

If we only have two talls I want them to be tall. King and Bruce are the ones for me. The other players need to be elite pressure players which Membery isn’t.

At the end of the day, systems and ability to execute roles before players pure ability.
I like the idea of two talls rather than three. It makes the team more mobile and really seems to be the way the game is going. One of our problems seems to be that the smaller players we have there don't seem to lead and provide a marking option. Milne was very good at this.

I had the same thought on Membery the other day. It's almost counter intuitive to suggest he be replaced but it does make sense in a brutal sort of way. I may be wrong on this but I can't recall too many occasions where he has crumbed goals, he seems to play exclusively as a 'tall'.

King does have the advantage of being very good when the ball hits the deck. That's a rare commodity for a man that tall.
 

gringo2011

Premium Gold
Joined
Nov 12, 2011
Posts
21,767
Likes
45,520
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
#5
I like the idea of two talls rather than three. It makes the team more mobile and really seems to be the way the game is going. One of our problems seems to be that the smaller players we have there don't seem to lead and provide a marking option. Milne was very good at this.

I had the same thought on Membery the other day. It's almost counter intuitive to suggest he be replaced but it does make sense in a brutal sort of way. I may be wrong on this but I can't recall too many occasions where he has crumbed goals, he seems to play exclusively as a 'tall'.

King does have the advantage of being very good when the ball hits the deck. That's a rare commodity for a man that tall.

It depends on wether one can part time ruck and still be an effective forward. King is probably the obvious one, two calls and a resting ruck rotation with Marshall sounds quite balanced.
 

WhiskySaint

Team Captain
Joined
Nov 23, 2016
Posts
427
Likes
1,308
AFL Club
St Kilda
Thread starter #6
The reason teams like a very tall forward (Hawks used a ruck sized player like Mc Evoy or Ceglar) is to bring the ball to the feet on the crumbing smalls like Poppy and in the past Cyril. We used Kosi to crash a pack and drop the ball out to Milne etc. Those guys don't need to be great marks but do need to be physically competitive.

We probably won't get King to that point for 3 to 5 years. By that time Bruce will be in his twilight any way. Can't see us playing with out Membrey to be honest. He's not a pressure forward like Parker but he's a far ranging get out clause up the field. He's often the lead up option for the kick out of defensive 50. Same with Bruce, he's a hard working work ute rather than a Ferrari but he's effective. To me we need to get our best small pressure forward set up going. Lonie is playing further from goal these days and Parker is a pressure forward on one side and Kent on the other. The forward flanks are playing like wing men these days so it's really a 3 man forward structure.
I like the idea of two talls rather than three. It makes the team more mobile and really seems to be the way the game is going. One of our problems seems to be that the smaller players we have there don't seem to lead and provide a marking option. Milne was very good at this.

I had the same thought on Membery the other day. It's almost counter intuitive to suggest he be replaced but it does make sense in a brutal sort of way. I may be wrong on this but I can't recall too many occasions where he has crumbed goals, he seems to play exclusively as a 'tall'.

King does have the advantage of being very good when the ball hits the deck. That's a rare commodity for a man that tall.
Bit of cross over with what you are both saying so I quoted you both for the one post. I agree that the half forwards play more like wingers of old, but once the ball has gone into the forward 50 they need to follow the ball in and apply pressure, which I don't think Membrey does as well as some others (in the future).

I also agree that Bruce might be gone by the time King is up and going, but he will be there while Kings playing ones and developing.

St Muir, I share the same frustration with the leading. Lonie will sometimes but is usually to small and slow so gets spoilt. Long is the one who does lead, but usually up the centre on tradition. It's probably as much to do with our setup and desire for deep entry as much our midfield and transition being unable to move the ball through the corridor with enough freedom and speed to give the forwards space to lead into.
 

Persevering Saint

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Posts
16,881
Likes
27,454
Location
MAdelaide
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
I'm a lover, not a fighter
#7
I've always liked the idea of a 2-1-2 set up: 2 Talls, a Medium-Tall, and 2 smalls. The last spot in the forward line would then be used flexibly throughout the game, to include an extra tall like a resting ruck or flexible tall-back (ie Carlisle or Battle) for a while to stretch the defence, or a resting midfielder, etc.

We've virtually never had that structure since Kosi finished up. We're probably at the closest we've been since, right now - It WAS going to be:

HF: flexible, Bruce, Parker/Young
FF: Membrey, McCartin, Kent/Lonie/Long

But now, everybody's just waiting for Winx to get fit, and he'll slot into McCartin's spot.
 

WhiskySaint

Team Captain
Joined
Nov 23, 2016
Posts
427
Likes
1,308
AFL Club
St Kilda
Thread starter #8
It depends on wether one can part time ruck and still be an effective forward. King is probably the obvious one, two calls and a resting ruck rotation with Marshall sounds quite balanced.
If you have two players that are both quality forwards and rucks it would be great to have them spend 50% of their time forward and 50% in the ruck, it just won't happen in reality.

King will be a better forward then Marshal and Marshal (hopefully) will be a better ruck then King.

If we look at talls across the whole ground, I would have 2 tall forwards, one ruck (who can take a mark) and 3 tall backs (one has to be a third tall interceptor). If you can then swing one of your backs forward and have 3 talls forwards for short periods then even better.
 

Strahany

Premiership Player
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Posts
4,258
Likes
5,320
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
#9
In terms of the split between KPF-Medium-Smalls, we’re currently 1-1-4. As soon as Bruce goes into the ruck, we’re 0-1-5 unless Marshall rests forward, but he mostly rests on the pine from what I have seen.

1 KPF and 1 medium forward isn’t enough, let alone 0 and 1, respectively, for durations of time.

We got away with 2 KPF’s, but still having marking power, when Riewoldt was around because he could take a mark on the wing, deliver it to just outside 50, and then create a contest in the forward 50 with his hard running. Currently, we’re left with only a sub-190cm Membrey in the forwardline when Bruce pushes up the ground, and 0 talks or even mediums in the forwardline when Bruce is rucking and Membrey pushes up.
If we had midfielders with elite kicking who could deliver it to the remaining, and undersized, forwards in these scenarios, then it wouldn’t be a problem. But we don’t have those players, and are often kicking to contests which will never work when we’re undersized.

The reality is that most teams go from well matched, to undersized, in the forwardline, whenever their secondary ruck goes to the middle. Our current set up, however, has us going from undersized to drastically undersized. This can be fine so long as you reap the benefits of forward 50 pressure and pace to hurt the opposition on the rebound, but we don’t.

The worst of both worlds, as it stands. Whilst it hasn’t hurt us too much, on paper, sitting 2 and 1, but long periods of dominance in all 3 rounds were not capitalised on, as we kept turning it over entering the 50, and continually being incapable of taking an inside 50 mark to steady the game.
 

plugger66

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Posts
14,502
Likes
21,318
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Ormond AFC
#10
In terms of the split between KPF-Medium-Smalls, we’re currently 1-1-4. As soon as Bruce goes into the ruck, we’re 0-1-5 unless Marshall rests forward, but he mostly rests on the pine from what I have seen.

1 KPF and 1 medium forward isn’t enough, let alone 0 and 1, respectively, for durations of time.

We got away with 2 KPF’s, but still having marking power, when Riewoldt was around because he could take a mark on the wing, deliver it to just outside 50, and then create a contest in the forward 50 with his hard running. Currently, we’re left with only a sub-190cm Membrey in the forwardline when Bruce pushes up the ground, and 0 talks or even mediums in the forwardline when Bruce is rucking and Membrey pushes up.
If we had midfielders with elite kicking who could deliver it to the remaining, and undersized, forwards in these scenarios, then it wouldn’t be a problem. But we don’t have those players, and are often kicking to contests which will never work when we’re undersized.

The reality is that most teams go from well matched, to undersized, in the forwardline, whenever their secondary ruck goes to the middle. Our current set up, however, has us going from undersized to drastically undersized. This can be fine so long as you reap the benefits of forward 50 pressure and pace to hurt the opposition on the rebound, but we don’t.

The worst of both worlds, as it stands. Whilst it hasn’t hurt us too much, on paper, sitting 2 and 1, but long periods of dominance in all 3 rounds were not capitalised on, as we kept turning it over entering the 50, and continually being incapable of taking an inside 50 mark to steady the game.


Its not about height. Membrey plays the same way as a tall where as Degoey who is taller players like a small and tall. Its a myth about marking power. You mention Roo but he got most of his because he worked so hard. Any player who is reasonable above his head could do that if they were good enough.

As for turning it over in our forward line well how does height help. Might actually hurt. It get turned over because we arent smart enough with the ball to wait or go sideways until a tall or small gets back. If we had one tall or 3 talls they would still be up the ground. I really think people believe a tall will take 5 contested marks a game. Well the best get about 2 and the best teams average 12 and that's all around the ground. The set up forward is simple. If a tall will get more goals and give the same pressure as a small you play the tall. If the small will get the same goals as a tall and give more pressure you play a small. We have recruited many smaller forwards this year so we need to go with them. And Battle is doing well back as the rest of them are so silly to move forward. Leaves one other option which may be the silliest option of all and that's Marshall forward. Marshall has a real chance to become a very good ruckman pretty soon. I reckon 20 minutes a game in the ruck would be madness for him and our side.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Persevering Saint

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Posts
16,881
Likes
27,454
Location
MAdelaide
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
I'm a lover, not a fighter
#12
In terms of the split between KPF-Medium-Smalls, we’re currently 1-1-4. As soon as Bruce goes into the ruck, we’re 0-1-5 unless Marshall rests forward, but he mostly rests on the pine from what I have seen.

1 KPF and 1 medium forward isn’t enough, let alone 0 and 1, respectively, for durations of time.

We got away with 2 KPF’s, but still having marking power, when Riewoldt was around because he could take a mark on the wing, deliver it to just outside 50, and then create a contest in the forward 50 with his hard running. Currently, we’re left with only a sub-190cm Membrey in the forwardline when Bruce pushes up the ground, and 0 talks or even mediums in the forwardline when Bruce is rucking and Membrey pushes up.
If we had midfielders with elite kicking who could deliver it to the remaining, and undersized, forwards in these scenarios, then it wouldn’t be a problem. But we don’t have those players, and are often kicking to contests which will never work when we’re undersized.

The reality is that most teams go from well matched, to undersized, in the forwardline, whenever their secondary ruck goes to the middle. Our current set up, however, has us going from undersized to drastically undersized. This can be fine so long as you reap the benefits of forward 50 pressure and pace to hurt the opposition on the rebound, but we don’t.

The worst of both worlds, as it stands. Whilst it hasn’t hurt us too much, on paper, sitting 2 and 1, but long periods of dominance in all 3 rounds were not capitalised on, as we kept turning it over entering the 50, and continually being incapable of taking an inside 50 mark to steady the game.
This is the problem with the bomb-it-in approach we saw again against Freo. I have no problem with that approach, where you have two very tall forwards who can take contested marks, and plenty of smalls who can catch the crumb when those talls miss the mark but create a contest. But to do that when there's virtually no tall forwards at all is just plain lunacy - it just gets picked off by the tall (or even medium-tall defenders).

Again, I think they've designed a forward-entry strategy designed for McCartin (and later King) to create those contests, and haven't figured out what to do now that Paddy's gone and King isn't ready.
 

plugger66

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Posts
14,502
Likes
21,318
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Ormond AFC
#13
This is the problem with the bomb-it-in approach we saw again against Freo. I have no problem with that approach, where you have two very tall forwards who can take contested marks, and plenty of smalls who can catch the crumb when those talls miss the mark but create a contest. But to do that when there's virtually no tall forwards at all is just plain lunacy - it just gets picked off by the tall (or even medium-tall defenders).

Again, I think they've designed a forward-entry strategy designed for McCartin (and later King) to create those contests, and haven't figured out what to do now that Paddy's gone and King isn't ready.
It’s not the height that is the issue. It’s that the marks are uncontested either by talls or smalls. If we had 3 talls they still would uncontested because no forwards hangs back. They all push up and that goes for every side
 

Persevering Saint

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Posts
16,881
Likes
27,454
Location
MAdelaide
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
I'm a lover, not a fighter
#14
3 tall mobile forwards Bruce - Battle - Membrey with Long - Parker and Lonie would be what i would like to see
The tricky thing with Battle is that, well, even with Paddy now out of the picture, King is waiting. If Bruce takes that first tall spot, Battle will have been competing with two top-4 picks for the second one. Where they were taken shouldn't matter, but nobody likes seeing a #1 or #4 playing in the VFL while a #39 pick takes their spot. He COULD take the spot from Membrey, but while I respect Whiskey's point, I still think it's hard to let go of a guy kicking that many goals. That leaves the backline for Josh.

Now, there is a very, VERY legitimate case to be made that, from a structural perspective, we need SOMEBODY to play that second tall role NOW, while we're waiting for Winx to be ready - the forward-entry strategy we trained for over the off-season seems to have depended on that. Putting Battle in there fixes that structural problem immediately, and frees up a spot in the backline for Joyce or Marsh to come straight in.

It's a question, then, of short-term versus long-term. If long-term we're expecting there won't be room for Battle in the forward-line, but we see value in him in the backline, then keeping him there makes sense to help him develop into that role - he can't do that playing forward for the next 2-3 months. But if we think short-term, we have to sacrifice that development to get our forward structure healthy - not least because Battle would be GOOD at playing that second tall role.

It's a tricky conundrum. I can respect the coaches going either way, to be honest.
 

pebblesofsand

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Posts
4,107
Likes
9,454
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Ocean Grove Collendina Cobras
#15
I think we do OK with marks inside 50 however I'm more concerned about opposition marks inside 50.

We seem to have a problem with players unable (unwilling) to get back to the longer kick inside 50. Some people will say the kicker should lower their eyes but more often than not the kicker is under extreme pressure so that's not a realistic option.

It seems like the instruction is that when under pressure the preferred option is long kick to a contest which therefore also means there must be an expectation that there will be a forward there to contest. I hated seeing a 186 cm defender (Luke Ryan) take uncontested marks last week.

So perhaps the problem is that we have forwards (small, medium or tall) who get caught out ball watching instead figuring out where to impact the next contest when we win the ball.

The intriguing thing will be next weeks selections if Longer has a reasonable outing on Friday night. Will the selectors go back to their "preferred" set up of two talls. Parker is intriguing given his speed for his height so maybe he's a better placed as a winger.

All we'd then need is for Robbie Young to snag a few goals and we might end up with something like this for Round 5 v the Dee's.

Current back 6 plus

C Parker Steele Billings

HF Membrey Bruce Gresh

F Lonie Marshall Young

R Longer Ross Steven
 

gringo2011

Premium Gold
Joined
Nov 12, 2011
Posts
21,767
Likes
45,520
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
#16
The tricky thing with Battle is that, well, even with Paddy now out of the picture, King is waiting. If Bruce takes that first tall spot, Battle will have been competing with two top-4 picks for the second one. Where they were taken shouldn't matter, but nobody likes seeing a #1 or #4 playing in the VFL while a #39 pick takes their spot. He COULD take the spot from Membrey, but while I respect Whiskey's point, I still think it's hard to let go of a guy kicking that many goals. That leaves the backline for Josh.

Now, there is a very, VERY legitimate case to be made that, from a structural perspective, we need SOMEBODY to play that second tall role NOW, while we're waiting for Winx to be ready - the forward-entry strategy we trained for over the off-season seems to have depended on that. Putting Battle in there fixes that structural problem immediately, and frees up a spot in the backline for Joyce or Marsh to come straight in.

It's a question, then, of short-term versus long-term. If long-term we're expecting there won't be room for Battle in the forward-line, but we see value in him in the backline, then keeping him there makes sense to help him develop into that role - he can't do that playing forward for the next 2-3 months. But if we think short-term, we have to sacrifice that development to get our forward structure healthy - not least because Battle would be GOOD at playing that second tall role.

It's a tricky conundrum. I can respect the coaches going either way, to be honest.

Battle is probably best suited to the Membrey role as well if played forward.
 

Mowman

Premium Gold
Joined
May 19, 2013
Posts
8,005
Likes
18,383
AFL Club
St Kilda
#17
The tricky thing with Battle is that, well, even with Paddy now out of the picture, King is waiting. If Bruce takes that first tall spot, Battle will have been competing with two top-4 picks for the second one. Where they were taken shouldn't matter, but nobody likes seeing a #1 or #4 playing in the VFL while a #39 pick takes their spot. He COULD take the spot from Membrey, but while I respect Whiskey's point, I still think it's hard to let go of a guy kicking that many goals. That leaves the backline for Josh.

Now, there is a very, VERY legitimate case to be made that, from a structural perspective, we need SOMEBODY to play that second tall role NOW, while we're waiting for Winx to be ready - the forward-entry strategy we trained for over the off-season seems to have depended on that. Putting Battle in there fixes that structural problem immediately, and frees up a spot in the backline for Joyce or Marsh to come straight in.

It's a question, then, of short-term versus long-term. If long-term we're expecting there won't be room for Battle in the forward-line but we see value in him in the backline, then keeping him there makes sense to help him develop into that role - he can't do that playing forward for the next 2-3 months. But if we think short-term, we have to sacrifice that development to get our forward structure healthy - not least because Battle would be GOOD at playing that second tall role.

It's a tricky conundrum. I can respect the coaches going either way, to be honest.
If Battle is the best option he should be there and we have know idea how long before King is ready to even be considered for a senior game.
Dont understand why Paddy was 1 st choice this year before Battle apart from his draft pick number
For all we know Battle could be the best forward on our list
 

gringo2011

Premium Gold
Joined
Nov 12, 2011
Posts
21,767
Likes
45,520
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
#18
I think we do OK with marks inside 50 however I'm more concerned about opposition marks inside 50.

We seem to have a problem with players unable (unwilling) to get back to the longer kick inside 50. Some people will say the kicker should lower their eyes but more often than not the kicker is under extreme pressure so that's not a realistic option.

It seems like the instruction is that when under pressure the preferred option is long kick to a contest which therefore also means there must be an expectation that there will be a forward there to contest. I hated seeing a 186 cm defender (Luke Ryan) take uncontested marks last week.

So perhaps the problem is that we have forwards (small, medium or tall) who get caught out ball watching instead figuring out where to impact the next contest when we win the ball.

The intriguing thing will be next weeks selections if Longer has a reasonable outing on Friday night. Will the selectors go back to their "preferred" set up of two talls. Parker is intriguing given his speed for his height so maybe he's a better placed as a winger.

All we'd then need is for Robbie Young to snag a few goals and we might end up with something like this for Round 5 v the Dee's.

Current back 6 plus

C Parker Steele Billings

HF Membrey Bruce Gresh

F Lonie Marshall Young

R Longer Ross Steven

Late in the GC game when we were tired we started it bombing forward again. It's because every player apart from one forward is back flooding into defence, then players like Bruce and Membrey are sprinting flat out up to help out. The guy with the ball is being pressured and is really keen to off load the ball. The options are to go for the boundary and hope we don't get a deliberate OOB free or to go as long and deep as we can and try to pressure their defence to win the ball back in a not very dangerous spot for the opposition to have it.

Every team in the land does it to some degree, really experienced sides can trust their defensive structures more so can have a couple of forward options sit back though.
 

WhiskySaint

Team Captain
Joined
Nov 23, 2016
Posts
427
Likes
1,308
AFL Club
St Kilda
Thread starter #19
Its not about height. Membrey plays the same way as a tall where as Degoey who is taller players like a small and tall. Its a myth about marking power. You mention Roo but he got most of his because he worked so hard. Any player who is reasonable above his head could do that if they were good enough.

As for turning it over in our forward line well how does height help. Might actually hurt. It get turned over because we arent smart enough with the ball to wait or go sideways until a tall or small gets back. If we had one tall or 3 talls they would still be up the ground. I really think people believe a tall will take 5 contested marks a game. Well the best get about 2 and the best teams average 12 and that's all around the ground. The set up forward is simple. If a tall will get more goals and give the same pressure as a small you play the tall. If the small will get the same goals as a tall and give more pressure you play a small. We have recruited many smaller forwards this year so we need to go with them. And Battle is doing well back as the rest of them are so silly to move forward. Leaves one other option which may be the silliest option of all and that's Marshall forward. Marshall has a real chance to become a very good ruckman pretty soon. I reckon 20 minutes a game in the ruck would be madness for him and our side.
P66, in theory if Membrey, Bruce and King are all available and in form (for this, let’s pretend King has developed ok) who plays? Which one or two gets the nod?
 

plugger66

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Posts
14,502
Likes
21,318
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Ormond AFC
#20
P66, in theory if Membrey, Bruce and King are all available and in form (for this, let’s pretend King has developed ok) who plays? Which one or two gets the nod?
Well obviously king and then maybe both if the smalls or mediums are struggling but if they aren’t well maybe Bruce because he seems to work harder up and down the ground.
 

WhiskySaint

Team Captain
Joined
Nov 23, 2016
Posts
427
Likes
1,308
AFL Club
St Kilda
Thread starter #21
Well obviously king and then maybe both if the smalls or mediums are struggling but if they aren’t well maybe Bruce because he seems to work harder up and down the ground.
Yeah, I think you need to prioritise the ability to bring the ball to ground, so to me Bruce and King would get the nod.

Membry did start in the center square once a few years back. If they could develop him to go through the middle and wing a bit then maybe I’d feel better about 3 marking players....? Doubt it would happen though
 

WhiskySaint

Team Captain
Joined
Nov 23, 2016
Posts
427
Likes
1,308
AFL Club
St Kilda
Thread starter #22
To me ideally Parker gets developed to play a bit like stinger but with a better pressure game.

Can play as a third tall and create a contest in the air, but play small as well, then have bursts through the middle. Would be massive for team balance
 

hayes

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Posts
13,123
Likes
12,164
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
New Orleans Saints, Chicago Bulls
#23
I wouldn’t deviate much from what we’re doing now. What we’ve got now is almost perfect for mine. Only change I’d make would be maybe less mids in there and more genuine forwards similar to what WC and Hawthorn do.

IMO you have to look at what wins flags. Scores from turnovers and in particular forward half turnovers stacks up in finals and grand finals, it’s by far the biggest scoring source. You don’t create those from having marking players who are a liability once the ball hits the deck.

Bruce, Membrey and Parker with any three of Lonie, Kent, Long, Young (or anyone else we draft in the future) and I’m happy. King to eventually replace Bruce. I think by the time King will be ready Bruce might start dropping off.

HF: Parker Membrey Long
FF: Lonie Bruce Kent
 

Diehard Saint

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 17, 2016
Posts
6,338
Likes
19,367
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
#25
Sooooooo...... my whisky soaked opinion.
Given most scores now are generated through forward half turnover and marshals ability to mark across the center. I’m in for two talls and 4 pressure forwards, but here’s the controversy, I’m dropping arguably our best forward Membery.
If we only have two talls I want them to be tall. King and Bruce are the ones for me. The other players need to be elite pressure players which Membery isn’t.
At the end of the day, systems and ability to execute roles before players pure ability.
Whisky soaked...you’re not kidding! :oops:
 
Top Bottom