Discussion Thoughts on full back

[saintsrfreak]

What do we classify as a "second tall" though? Players around the Jack Darling size would probably be ideal for Simpkin.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

What do we classify as a "second tall" though? Players around the Jack Darling size would probably be ideal for Simpkin.

I think Simpkin would deal pretty well with players like Darling, Dawes, Wilkes, etc

As he developes he'll also get better at the bigger/smarter guys.

 

[mysainters]

Watched the Saints/Ess 2012 clash today, And Simpkin played on Ryder when he was in the forward line and was hardly beaten. Ryder is what 198cm?

I wish Ryder was a good indication of Tom's skill, but that guy is so up and down in form...

 

[Manimal_Dunstan]

I wish Ryder was a good indication of Tom's skill, but that guy is so up and down in form...

Usually kicks 2-3 goals a game (Ryder) He was the main target once Hurley got subbed off. Simpkin kept him goalless.
Paddy Ryder: 11 Disposals, 6 Marks, 1 Tackles, 0 Goals, 0 Behinds.
Tom Simpkin: 19 Disposals, 7 Marks, 1 Tackle.

 

[SamFisher25]

Usually kicks 2-3 goals a game (Ryder) He was the main target once Hurley got subbed off. Simpkin kept him goalless.
Paddy Ryder: 11 Disposals, 6 Marks, 1 Tackles, 0 Goals, 0 Behinds.
Tom Simpkin: 19 Disposals, 7 Marks, 1 Tackle.

stands to reason that it's not always the size of the dog and that it sometimes has more to do with brains and toughness.

 

[Sainttony]

stands to reason that it's not always the size of the dog and that it sometimes has more to do with brains and toughness.

I agree with this. Max wasn't the biggest full back and did very well so I'd start with Simpkin. I can see him having trouble with the very tall forwards as Tippett (202cm) but feel he could handle the rest

 

[SamFisher25]

I agree with this. Max wasn't the biggest full back and did very well so I'd start with Simpkin. I can see him having trouble with the very tall forwards as Tippett (202cm) but feel he could handle the rest

How do you reckon he'd go on Jack if he were given full license?

 

[hayes]

How do you reckon he'd go on Jack if he were given full license?

Jack tore him a new one in the game against Richmond last year. Said he was close to shedding a tear after it.

 

[SamFisher25]

Jack tore him a new one in the game against Richmond last year. Said he was close to shedding a tear after it.

So we had that wrong, or did we? More specifically, did Simpkin apply ANY pressure?
Jimmy was on him a fair bit deep from memory and Jack kicked 8 with some help from Maric.
When Riewoldt went high Simpkin gave him WAY WAY WAY too much headspace.
When Riewoldt has headspace his default setting is that he thinks he dominates.

So take Jack as a test case. Add the fact that he's not one-out any more and that he tends to get a fair bit of support from your Griggs your Marics and your Jacksons etc.

What are we gonna do? Well for start we have a new pole in Roberton. But how do we use him?
Well we start by giving the opposition some respect. In this case Richmond and Jack Riewoldt.

Understand that he's prolly gonna kick a bag regardless. But limit his effectiveness in the first half. Move him to positions where it's hard to convert. Don't just let him do what he wants. If you let him stand around like Simmo did (with absolutely no bloody pressure whatsoever) he gets the idea that he's dominating. Talk to him, nudge him. Get inside his friggin head!! Like I said though, when he goes high you cant just let him stand around thinking. If he gets time to think he thinks he's the greatest thing ever and then he dominates coming back.

So we need to respect him and pressure him at the same time. It's crazy.

He's too good for Gwilt, he has it over Simpkin and he backs himself against everyone in our backline now.
He has got away from us and that's a dangerous position for us to be in against him.

Enter Dylan Roberton. Enter Tom Hickey. Enter some height. Exit Goddard.

What weapons do we have to mitigate the impact of Maric and Riewoldt in the first half?

Is it a case of throwing Roberton to the wolves, no. He will get eaten alive. But we cant simply say "Chips you take him". Why? Because Riewoldt looks around, sees Roberton and goes "Who is he?"

It's a case of double-teaming Jack. Just not letting him mark the ball. If he takes marks he generally kicks goals. You have to triple-team him and triple-team him hard. Fisher, Blake, Gilbert, Roberton.

You take two rucks in in Macca and Hickey to mitigate Maric.

You scrag, you claw you deny.

You deny Riewoldt. And ultimately you win. Why? Because you triple and quadruple-teamed him. And while you were doing that Simpkin was picking up the scraps and getting it going back the other way using Siposs.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

So we had that wrong, or did we? More specifically, did Simpkin apply ANY pressure?
Jimmy was on him a fair bit deep from memory and Jack kicked 8 with some help from Maric.
When Riewoldt went high Simpkin gave him WAY WAY WAY too much headspace.
When Riewoldt has headspace his default setting is that he thinks he dominates.

So take Jack as a test case. Add the fact that he's not one-out any more and that he tends to get a fair bit of support from your Griggs your Marics and your Jacksons etc.

What are we gonna do? Well for start we have a new pole in Roberton. But how do we use him?
Well we start by giving the opposition some respect. In this case Richmond and Jack Riewoldt.

Understand that he's prolly gonna kick a bag regardless. But limit his effectiveness in the first half. Move him to positions where it's hard to convert. Don't just let him do what he wants. If you let him stand around like Simmo did (with absolutely no bloody pressure whatsoever) he gets the idea that he's dominating. Talk to him, nudge him. Get inside his friggin head!! Like I said though, when he goes high you cant just let him stand around thinking. If he gets time to think he thinks he's the greatest thing ever and then he dominates coming back.

So we need to respect him and pressure him at the same time. It's crazy.

He's too good for Gwilt, he has it over Simpkin and he backs himself against everyone in our backline now.
He has got away from us and that's a dangerous position for us to be in against him.

Enter Dylan Roberton. Enter Tom Hickey. Enter some height. Exit Goddard.

What weapons do we have to mitigate the impact of Maric and Riewoldt in the first half?

Is it a case of throwing Roberton to the wolves, no. He will get eaten alive. But we cant simply say "Chips you take him". Why? Because Riewoldt looks around, sees Roberton and goes "Who is he?"

It's a case of double-teaming Jack. Just not letting him mark the ball. If he takes marks he generally kicks goals. You have to triple-team him and triple-team him hard. Fisher, Blake, Gilbert, Roberton.

You take two rucks in in Macca and Hickey to mitigate Maric.

You scrag, you claw you deny.

You deny Riewoldt. And ultimately you win. Why? Because you triple and quadruple-teamed him. And while you were doing that Simpkin was picking up the scraps and getting it going back the other way using Siposs.

This seems a lot like the Ross Lyon gameplan with obvious drawbacks. ( ie the whole team is gathered around Jack ),
Simpkin is young and to me seems the type to learn from experieces. ( Jack is a very clever player and Simpkin needs to learn ).
But do the maths , three defenders on Riewoldt , 2 ruckmen on Maric, and someone like Vickery will act like its playday.

 

[SamFisher25]

This seems a lot like the Ross Lyon gameplan with obvious drawbacks. ( ie the whole team is gathered around Jack ),
Simpkin is young and to me seems the type to learn from experieces. ( Jack is a very clever player and Simpkin needs to learn ).
But do the maths , three defenders on Riewoldt , 2 ruckmen on Maric, and someone like Vickery will act like its playday.

he better learn quick. i really rate him FWIW, but you need to pressure the test case.
jack walking around thinking to himself how bloody good he is just isn't good enough.
someone needs to be body-2-body reminding him the whole time

okay, so we were under-manned most of the season. we're not now.
we have the players. joey has said it himself. and joey knows.

 

[Squizz]

Jack tore him a new one in the game against Richmond last year. Said he was close to shedding a tear after it.

Watched the goals again.
1. Uncontested mark on the lead against Gilbert.
2. Riewoldt was about to fly for the mark, but then stayed down as Maric provided the contest against Simpkin (spilt over the back).
3. Outmarked Gwilt on the lead.
4. Took a hanger over Blake after getting off Simpkin.
5. Tackled Gilbert (holding the ball directly in front of goals).
6. Pushed Simpkin away as they were running towards the drop of the ball (caught Simpkin off balance at pace).
7. Alone in the square after the Saints had the ball in space (but Monty missed Goddard with a pass, catching all defenders off their man).
8. Alone in the square after a player ran off interchange and intercepted (Dempster was his opponent).

Simpkin could've done better in those 3 goals kicked on him, and I'd like to think there would be a different result once he has more experience and strength - rather than him being 191cm.

 

[Axcellence]

Watched the goals again.
1. Uncontested mark on the lead against Gilbert.
2. Riewoldt was about to fly for the mark, but then stayed down as Maric provided the contest against Simpkin (spilt over the back).
3. Outmarked Gwilt on the lead.
4. Took a hanger over Blake after getting off Simpkin.
5. Tackled Gilbert (holding the ball directly in front of goals).
6. Pushed Simpkin away as they were running towards the drop of the ball (caught Simpkin off balance at pace).
7. Alone in the square after the Saints had the ball in space (but Monty missed Goddard with a pass, catching all defenders off their man).
8. Alone in the square after a player ran off interchange and intercepted (Dempster was his opponent).

Simpkin could've done better in those 3 goals kicked on him, and I'd like to think there would be a different result once he has more experience and strength - rather than him being 191cm.

Good research. Riewoldt Jnr is more of a tall goal sneak at times. He will run back instead of contesting. Someone needs to stay with him to keep him in check.

 

[Defacto]

Watched the goals again.
1. Uncontested mark on the lead against Gilbert.
2. Riewoldt was about to fly for the mark, but then stayed down as Maric provided the contest against Simpkin (spilt over the back).
3. Outmarked Gwilt on the lead.
4. Took a hanger over Blake after getting off Simpkin.
5. Tackled Gilbert (holding the ball directly in front of goals).
6. Pushed Simpkin away as they were running towards the drop of the ball (caught Simpkin off balance at pace).
7. Alone in the square after the Saints had the ball in space (but Monty missed Goddard with a pass, catching all defenders off their man).
8. Alone in the square after a player ran off interchange and intercepted (Dempster was his opponent).

Simpkin could've done better in those 3 goals kicked on him, and I'd like to think there would be a different result once he has more experience and strength - rather than him being 191cm.

good observations. my observation from the game against wce at subi was that simpkin was blowing by half time in a big way. dempster was constantly yelling at him to get into position.

he looked better from what i saw on tv by the end of the year. i dont expect to see the same performance at subi against the dockers. each game he gets he will improve. at a minimum he still has 8 years of footy ahead of him.

 

[hayes]

Watched the goals again.
1. Uncontested mark on the lead against Gilbert.
2. Riewoldt was about to fly for the mark, but then stayed down as Maric provided the contest against Simpkin (spilt over the back).
3. Outmarked Gwilt on the lead.
4. Took a hanger over Blake after getting off Simpkin.
5. Tackled Gilbert (holding the ball directly in front of goals).
6. Pushed Simpkin away as they were running towards the drop of the ball (caught Simpkin off balance at pace).
7. Alone in the square after the Saints had the ball in space (but Monty missed Goddard with a pass, catching all defenders off their man).
8. Alone in the square after a player ran off interchange and intercepted (Dempster was his opponent).

Simpkin could've done better in those 3 goals kicked on him, and I'd like to think there would be a different result once he has more experience and strength - rather than him being 191cm.

I was basing that off Simpkin's interview on Saints Hot Seat or whatever they were called where he said he almost shed a tear in that game, probably should've mentioned that.

I have faith that Simpkin will be able to play key position despite his height and I've said that. He's good in the one on ones unless they're ruckmen size where there's nothing he can do.

 

[SamFisher25]

Watched the goals again.
1. Uncontested mark on the lead against Gilbert.
2. Riewoldt was about to fly for the mark, but then stayed down as Maric provided the contest against Simpkin (spilt over the back).
3. Outmarked Gwilt on the lead.
4. Took a hanger over Blake after getting off Simpkin.
5. Tackled Gilbert (holding the ball directly in front of goals).
6. Pushed Simpkin away as they were running towards the drop of the ball (caught Simpkin off balance at pace).
7. Alone in the square after the Saints had the ball in space (but Monty missed Goddard with a pass, catching all defenders off their man).
8. Alone in the square after a player ran off interchange and intercepted (Dempster was his opponent).

Simpkin could've done better in those 3 goals kicked on him, and I'd like to think there would be a different result once he has more experience and strength - rather than him being 191cm.

comments on those goals/things we learned

1. what's gilbo doing on him? and where is the pressure coming from.
2. no pressure on him. hickey will be asked to help mcevoy from here on in against maric.
3. too good for gwilt.
4. no pressure on him, blakey tiring and unfortunate.
5. gilbo asleep at the wheel.
6. too smart for simpkin. had it over him all night because simpkin went a passive role.
7. opportunistic.
8. opportunistic. game could have gone either way. it was riewoldt's night.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

comments on those goals/things we learned

1. what's gilbo doing on him? and where is the pressure coming from.
2. no pressure on him. hickey will be asked to help mcevoy from here on in against maric.
3. too good for gwilt.
4. no pressure on him, blakey tiring and unfortunate.
5. gilbo asleep at the wheel.
6. too smart for simpkin. had it over him all night because simpkin went a passive role.
7. opportunistic.
8. opportunistic. game could have gone either way. it was riewoldt's night.

Riewoldt had a good game, his best for the year. But given that he's also kicked ( slightly lesser ) bags on a lot of other teams. doesn't quite make me think that if we just recruit some tall guy who couldn't get a game from one of them, then Jack R will be neutralised. He's a bloody good player and thats why he gets his name in the paper. ( apart from cralling up the walkway in etihad ).


Personally I hope Simpkin gets another game on him, I think he'll do better.

 

[SamFisher25]

Personally I hope Simpkin gets another game on him, I think he'll do better.

physical contact would be a start.
being a defender and not letting him out of your reach.
not giving him any time and space.
telling him that you think he's shit.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

physical contact would be a start.
being a defender and not letting him out of your reach.
not giving him any time and space.
telling him that you think he's shit.

Up to a point, if you can't win a wrestling contest its stupid to start one.

 

[SamFisher25]

Up to a point, if you can't win a wrestling contest its stupid to start one.

you see my point but i still reckon you go him.

i dont like riewoldt standing at CHF and simpkin standing five yards away.

i'm not a mind reader but i reckon riewoldt is thinking 'how many saints does it take to change a lightbulb?'

 

[Manimal_Dunstan]

Scott Watters still wants Mitch Brown at St Kilda.

"There is still work to do (on our list) but we feel better placed than 12 months ago, and at the end of next year we will be in a pretty aggressive position to potentially make further changes," he told the Herald Sun.

"The reality is Mitch is a contracted player, so we respect the stance West Coast took. So we have no bitterness towards them. We had a player desperate to come to our club and saw him as a good prospect when he was ultimately playing at a club he didn't really want to be at, so that's part of the business.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...gles-mitch-brown/story-e6frecjc-1226536440352

 

[CHBench]

Bit of Collingwood in that sly dig

 

[sammm]

Scott Watters still wants Mitch Brown at St Kilda.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...gles-mitch-brown/story-e6frecjc-1226536440352

the heading is a little strange . If something happens to Mitch Brown during next season i bet the saints will no longer want him.

 

[aussierulesrules]

I posted this on the thread about this on the D&T board, so I'll just paste it here as well, as I think much of it is relevent:

Firstly, I'm pretty sure Watters didn't say that we will be specifically going after Mitch Brown next year. They don't quote him saying that at all, that is likely just the conclusion that the HS have drawn themselves, to create an eye-catching headline and opening paragraph.

They ask him about our attempt to get Brown and he just stated that yes, we wanted him and that at the time he didn't want to be there if he could come here and be assured of playing senior footy.

Watters then goes on to say that we will be in a very strong position to go very hard at free agency/trade period next year and that we will be looking to target someone to play in one or both of the key defensive positions. He doesn't say that we'll be going after Brown specifically.

Logically, he is the most likely one we will be going after, but 12 months is a long time in footy, so I just think this is the club putting it out there that we are going to have a lot of cash to splash around (it's looking like well over $1million at this stage) at the end of next year and that we will be targeting those areas very strongly, so this is like sending out a message to anyone in the league that plays FB or CHB that is coming out of contract in 12 months time (including Brown) that if they are after more money, or opportunities, they may be wise to hold off on re-signing during the year, so that they can see what are willing to offer them in 12 months time.

There is also the chance that someone on our current list will step up to fill that hole next year (there is talk that one or two who usually play key forward will be tried back next year, so they may be successful) and that we won't need to go after someone like Brown after all, but this also puts it out there that we are likely to have a huge amount of salary cap space free, to be able to go after anyone else that plays in other positions, that may be out of contract. Next year's Goddard, Caddy, or Mitch Clark, for instance.

I don't think this comment: "There is no doubt in 12 months' time we will be looking to add to our key defensive posts." sends a great message to our current list though, especially those who play key position down back, or who are going to be tried down back next year.

He's basically suggesting that he doesn't believe that they can be successful there and that he's already looking to replace them, 12 months out, before they've even had a chance to show if they have what it takes to play there next year. Hopefully he's at least had a word to them privately to say that he hopes that they will be able to step up to the plate and play the role, though, so that we won't need to get anyone else in, otherwise I don't think comments like that send a great message to them, or shows a lot of faith in them. At all.

 

[hayes]

I think by saying that he's just pointing out the obvious. We desperately tried to address FB this offseason and we didn't, so obviously we're going to try and do the same thing next offseason. Even if we do have someone in mind for this season we need another key defender eventually anyway.