The POOP thread: Players Out Of Position

[Pweter]

Wasn't Carlisle a KPF as a junior? Despite his dominance at CHB, can't blame us for trying him forward.

 

[AcuteWhistle]

Duckworth...oh wait

 

[eDPS]

 

[eth-dog]

A team can’t have more than one key forward? Of course we’d play him alongside Daniher.

A third tall? Boyd and Redpath were bit-part players in 2015 and played about half a season each. Stringer spent most of the season deep forward, isolated with his opponent as a marking, one-out target. If you don’t want to label that a key forward then that’s for you.

No, he was playing further up the ground and generally getting mid sized players defending him. The next 2 years is when what you were saying happened, and he struggled as a result of it.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Langford played his best football last season and the season before as a midfielder. Is it any surprise that when he was out of form and got dropped early, he was playing as a forward? That's what got me confused about the "Langford must only play as a forward" brigade. He's played better playing as a midfielder than as a forward, not the reverse that you seem to think.

Ambrose can't take the Hawkins of the world, however Hartley can and Brown is good depth. Ambrose is best used against the likes of Tom Lynch, Jack Riewoldt et al.

His AA year was when he was playing as a 3rd tall, either Redpath or Boyd were playing the role you seem to want Stringer to take and in the past 2 years that's what the Bulldogs have wanted him to do, and lo and behold he struggled in it. To say he is a key forward is ridiculous.

Rubbish. His best games in the seniors have been as a forward. His two best games in the VFL were in mid against two of the worst teams in the league. Did play a decent VFLgame against Dogs I think.

He’s as natural a forward as we’ve got, next to a couple of others.

Now that Gleeson is injured like to see him tried back.

 

[NAB777]

Does this happen at all clubs? I dunno, it just seems to me like we have an inordinate number of players who we’re trying to screw into unnatural positions.

Hooker - AA back moved because we had key forward issues

Langford - seems to play his best as a mobile marking forward, yet we persist with him as a midfielder

Stringer - AA forward who for some reason we’re trying to play in the midfield.

And it’s something that seems to have happened a fair bit in our recent history.

Hurley - was persisted as a forward for some time despite looking best down back for limited periods

Carlisle - looked uttery dominant at CHB at times, so we moved him forward (and even into the ruck ffs). Left.

Ryder - spent a few years at CHB and as a key forward before finally being played where he should have been, in the ruck.

Cummings - a gun young forward, who could forget Sheedy playing him at CHB. Left to become a Coleman Medallist.

Salmon - a very, very good forward but Sheedy flatly refused to give him time in the ruck. Left to become a very good ruckman.

The only player I can really think of who was thrown around with success was Scott Lucas, who was very good both back and forward.

I know there is a fair element of trusting the coaches, but shit it’s frustrating as a fan. I’d love to just see all our players put into their best positions and we could just see what happens - if it doesn’t work... ok, we tried it.

Any other examples? Is this a uniquely Essendon thing?

All clubs do it.

It's pretty straight forward. The club is trying to put the players in the positions which will win as many games as possible, with the premiership the end goal.

A simplistic example:
Just say there are two players.
Player A is an excellent CHF & nearly as good at CHB.
Player B is a very good CHF, but a shocking CHB.
Where do you play the two?

 

[Andrewy]

All clubs do it.

It's pretty straight forward. The club is trying to put the players in the positions which will win as many games as possible, with the premiership the end goal.

A simplistic example:
Just say there are two players.
Player A is an excellent CHF & nearly as good at CHB.
Player B is a very good CHF, but a shocking CHB.
Where do you play the two?

In a park?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

No, he was playing further up the ground and generally getting mid sized players defending him. The next 2 years is when what you were saying happened, and he struggled as a result of it.

He kicked 60 goals playing up the ground?

Ok.

 

[faible]

Wasn't Carlisle a KPF as a junior? Despite his dominance at CHB, can't blame us for trying him forward.

He actually had some good games as a forward too, had all the attributes necessary except actually wanting to be a forward.

To answer the question; most teams do it at times, to fit developing players in at senior level where they may not otherwise.

Collingwood with Grundy and Cox; Grundy is a brilliant solo ruckman, but they have been trying to shoehorn Cox in to the side and not getting the best out of him. They have too many midfielders so they keep trying to play their best one - Pendlebury - places that isn’t the midfield.

Goldstein and Preuss. Lobb and Mumford.

Harry Taylor went forward because he was the most capable of doing a role that the team needed, same as Hooker is for us.

Toby Greene is really a midfielder, so was Devon Smith (GWS) but both were shoehorned in as small forwards to fit in to the side.

Darcy Moore the CHB, Ben Reid the CHF.

Jesse Hogan the Midfielder. Tom McDonald the FF.

Liam Jones the defender.

Heaps of examples; we just don’t really think of them because we don’t follow the young kids of other sides with as much interest as we do our own.

Sometimes you can also see young kids flourish in new roles where their junior attributes have changed; or otherwise someone like McKernan who would have been a good ruckman as a kid I’d imagine, just never gained the extra 2 inches to do so at AFL level, and has never really quite adapted.

 

[calyam]

Stringer did most of his best work playing as a half-forward flanker. It just so happened that the Dogs had no key forwards so he effectively became the number one option. But he was never a strong marking threat so I don't think you could ever consider him a key forward type. He's just a really effective flanker.

 

[Kakkle]

Stringer did most of his best work playing as a half-forward flanker. It just so happened that the Dogs had no key forwards so he effectively became the number one option. But he was never a strong marking threat so I don't think you could ever consider him a key forward type. He's just a really effective flanker.

Basically this. Key forward by default. Kind of like Crameri was for us.

 

[SydneyBomber]

In another universe, NLM was an AA ruck...

 

[Howard Moon]

Ridiculous to say Langford has played his best footy as a mid - maybe in the VFL because that the only place he has played there but in the big time the best games have been in the Gunston style