Three talls - will it work?

[Rosso]

Three tall forwards in the 22 will work. Three on the ground at the same time will work while we have a run on but should always be complemented with quick crumbers. Byrnes and SJ were well held against the Blues and with Chappy having more of an impact up the ground, there was no pressure on the Blues once the pill hit the ground.

It was only last week that the media was singing our praises. The 3 small indigenous forwards from Carlton are all the rage this week but I don't expect for one minute to see Djurkurra and the Varcoe brothers lining up in the key posts this week. We will probably go again with the 3 tall caucasion offence and as long as we get Byrnes, Chappy and possibly another crumber at their feet then we'll kick a winning score.

Footy is a fickle game. One minute your on top of the world and the next your on the decline. Don't think we're playing for draft picks just yet!!!

 

[noclashjumpers]

hawkins needs to stay, pods needs to go at 28 he cant kick, no use

Because of course kicking is Hawkins' strong point.

 

[Gladbaqs]

I'd vote for two talls.

And at the moment Podsiadly and Mooney have it.

Hawkins and Brown will hopefully be dominating the forward line in five years time.

Regarding Podsiadly, he was elevated because of Brown's injury. What happens in three week's time when Brown is predicted to be fit enough to resume playing?

I assume Motlop is on the long term injury list too, and Podsiadly will still be available for senior selection?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I'd vote for two talls.

And at the moment Podsiadly and Mooney have it.

Hawkins and Brown will hopefully be dominating the forward line in five years time.

Regarding Podsiadly, he was elevated because of Brown's injury. What happens in three week's time when Brown is predicted to be fit enough to resume playing?

I assume Motlop is on the long term injury list too, and Podsiadly will still be available for senior selection?

Most of the media comentators I've heard echo your opinion.

 

[Gazza Greatness]

Bomber has said all along that he was suspect on 3 talls working but at some stage the club was going to give it a try & I have agreed with him on this. In one sided games such as the Port Adelaide game several different types of game plans can work for you but when it comes does to the heat of battle & particually FINALS games ultimately game plans such a 3 tall forwards will fail or adversley Carlton relying on 3 smalls, it simply won't hold up in finals & Bomber is acutely aware of this but he is certainly doing right thing at moment with experimenting with various possibilties while at same time seeing what roles certain players are capable of playing or not playing.

 

[Gladbaqs]

Bomber has said all along that he was suspect on 3 talls working but at some stage the club was going to give it a try & I have agreed with him on this. In one sided games such as the Port Adelaide game several different types of game plans can work for you but when it comes does to the heat of battle & particually FINALS games ultimately game plans such a 3 tall forwards will fail or adversley Carlton relying on 3 smalls, it simply won't hold up in finals & Bomber is acutely aware of this but he is certainly doing right thing at moment with experimenting with various possibilties while at same time seeing what roles certain players are capable of playing or not playing.

Excuse me Gazza Greatness, your rationality and level headedness are not welcome here...

 

[Ricketts]

Can you clarify your last statement there about being the 2nd tall for us gimps...

Me?

...

 

[Poetic Justice]

Yeah

 

[Ricketts]

Pure_Ownage called Pods the third tall, which is misleading because he's outperformed Hawkins in the last two matches.

Having a third tall implies that the second tall is better, and the number 1 tall is even better again.

So he's assuming that however well Pods (3rd tall) plays, then Hawkins (2nd tall) will play better, and Mooney (#1 tall) will play even better than them both.

It's just not going to work like that, against decent opposition anyway.

It's like saying Ablett is our 4th mid, and then assuming our midfield will destroy every team every week, because we have another 3 midfielders who are all better than Ablett!

 

[vinum coupe]

Who's on 1st?

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Think you'll find that i never thought it would work, and i've always been in the negative of the 2 camps on Pods all preseason and for the first 5 rounds. So it's certainly not an "outlandish statement" based on one poor performance.

As for him being our 3rd tall? Incorrect, he's our 2nd tall. Which is even more reason to not play all 3.

I hope you're not suggesting Hawkins should play ahead of Pods? (given you seem to want only 2 talls it's the relevant question), because that couldn't possibly be an opinion based on performance?

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Pure_Ownage called Pods the third tall, which is misleading because he's outperformed Hawkins in the last two matches.

Correct

Having a third tall implies that the second tall is better, and the number 1 tall is even better again.

No I simply meant 'third' in the sense that he was the third one to enter the side, after the other 2 were there already.

So he's assuming that however well Pods (3rd tall) plays, then Hawkins (2nd tall) will play better, and Mooney (#1 tall) will play even better than them both.

No I didn't. Sorry if the way I put forward my argument implied as such.
In fact in practice clearly it's not happening like that.
[/quote]

 

[longtimecat]

Seems funny why sooooo many so called supporters are hanging it on Tom Hawkins.
Here are some facts. Hawkins is second or third tall option in our forward line, so gets limited supply.
Here are some stats from Geelong web site.

K H D M G

Hawkins 27 32 59 28 6
Mooney 33 14 47 26 10

Don't jump too quickly to conclusions about young Tom. I agree with some others give him a run in the ruck to find some touch. Blakes stats are doughnuts.

 

[vinum coupe]

Seems funny why sooooo many so called supporters are hanging it on Tom Hawkins.
Here are some facts. Hawkins is second or third tall option in our forward line, so gets limited supply.
Here are some stats from Geelong web site.

K H D M G

Hawkins 27 32 59 28 6
Mooney 33 14 47 26 10

Don't jump too quickly to conclusions about young Tom. I agree with some others give him a run in the ruck to find some touch. Blakes stats are doughnuts.

Lovely stats. Care to pull out career averages? Or even better, goal assists over their careers.

The fact is that Tom isn't meeting expectation. Moons is.

 

[longtimecat]

How is moons meeting expectations as our no 1 forward, when he has had a total of 47 disposals so far this year. Compare his stats to all the other teams main tall forward, they're laughable.

 

[Ricketts]

No I didn't. Sorry if the way I put forward my argument implied as such.
In fact in practice clearly it's not happening like that.

It sounded like you were assuming that the other 2 forwards would do well as "Pods was number 3 and he was doing well so then the other 2 should perform at least that well."

But yes it's certainly not happening like that and IMO it won't.

Even when we are winning well and playing well i don't think you'll see all 3 contributing heavily. I just don't think there's enough room/opportunities for 3.

 

[cattas09]

I believe the MCG dosent suit our 3 talls. I understand some of you would think that the bigger ground ( more space) would help the 3 big blokes but i belive that it is the smaller grounds that they are more suited to.

This is because once it hit the ground on monday they were exploited but at a ground like Skilled the oppisition defence dosent have the width to work with. I still believe the 3 talls will look a lot better when you have Varcoe and Shannon running through for the crumbs.

 

[Belisarius]

Lovely stats. Care to pull out career averages? Or even better, goal assists over their careers.

The fact is that Tom isn't meeting expectation. Moons is.

Yes the stats do look better than I would have thought. Stats do not really lie they are just used in ways that distort their worth.

I would like to see those stats you are referring to - but then again you would need to compare the same period of time - their stats when started their careers (so would include Moon's stats at the Kangas) to be fair - compare apples with apples.

Could we see those stats then ?

I think Hawkins has a future but has taken a while to assert himself - and a different position might help him in the short term. A position where he can move a bit more and use his athleticism a bit more. He needs confidence and FF is not the ideal place for that. So the suggestion for him to run around the ground as second ruckman is not that bad of an idea. Fitness maybe an issue when playing on the ball. But still worth a try as if Hawkins starts to play better Geelong will be a more potent side.

 

[longtimecat]

The stats I have referred to are for this season only and were taken from the official club wesite today.

 

[thegerman]

Against Port - Yes
Against Carlton - No

Mental note on that.

 

[meto]

Surely it's not a matter of either/or.
We must have the player rescources to go with both Two or Three talls in our forward set up at any time during a match.

If the Two talls setup isn't working we should have the players in the 22 to go to the 3 Tall setup and visa versa.

After all, we went to 3 Talls cause we just didn't score enough with the 2 setup of late.

The three talls gave us a 159pt and 95pt victory at home from the start, okay the team played poorly last week, but don't throw the baby outwith the bathwater, the best way is to select a versile team that enables change if one setups not working, you go to plan 'B'.

That would make more sense to me.
Geelong supporters are so one dimensional, it amazes me.

 

[Partridge]

Lovely stats. Care to pull out career averages? Or even better, goal assists over their careers.

The fact is that Tom isn't meeting expectation. Moons is.

Agree for this season, but on Monday Mooney was even worse than Hawkins. 4 possessions, and none after half time. The fact is none of our key forwards had a good game. Not one.

For me right now, Hawkins should be dropped and we persist with Mooney and Podsiadly. Hawkins has to regain touch as a full forward - not as a ruckman. If Blake is to be dropped (which I agree with), promote West or Simpson. Another ruckman in other words.

 

[Cattery]

Surely it's not a matter of either/or.
We must have the player rescources to go with both Two or Three talls in our forward set up at any time during a match.

If the Two talls setup isn't working we should have the players in the 22 to go to the 3 Tall setup and visa versa.

So you're saying we should have an extra tall on the bench "just in case" the two tall forwards set up isn't performing?

After all, we went to 3 Talls cause we just didn't score enough with the 2 setup of late.

Could be wrong but I think it was a case of wanting to see what Pods had to offer more then being concerned about our ability to score heavily.
125 and 100 points in our first two matches would suggest we were hardly struggling to score.

The three talls gave us a 159pt and 95pt victory at home from the start, okay the team played poorly last week, but don't throw the baby outwith the bathwater, the best way is to select a versile team that enables change if one setups not working, you go to plan 'B'.

Kicking a big score against a bunch of witches hats doesn't really mean it's going to be a success long term, or even short term if you consider Mondays game.

That would make more sense to me.
Geelong supporters are so one dimensional, it amazes me.

Three Grand Finals and two Premierships with the two talls, plus a two zip start to this season, nothing one dimensional about wanting to stick with a winning formula IMO.
Nothing wrong I guess in giving it a try, but I've said previously I don't think it will work and I've seen nothing as yet to make we change my mind.

For me right now, Hawkins should be dropped and we persist with Mooney and Podsiadly. Hawkins has to regain touch as a full forward - not as a ruckman. If Blake is to be dropped (which I agree with), promote West or Simpson. Another ruckman in other words.

Agree about not playing him in the ruck, any merit though in giving him a trial at CHB, thought for a while now he may do okay there.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

It sounded like you were assuming that the other 2 forwards would do well as "Pods was number 3 and he was doing well so then the other 2 should perform at least that well."

But yes it's certainly not happening like that and IMO it won't.

Even when we are winning well and playing well i don't think you'll see all 3 contributing heavily. I just don't think there's enough room/opportunities for 3.

Depends on what you define as "contributing heavily". I think that with 3 talls they can't all kick 5 in the same match, but they can all contribute by taking marks and dishing off, shepherding for others, allowing isolated defenders, defensive pressure etc etc. It's not all about goals kicked.

 

[meto]

And how do you think we achieved the percentage boost we sorely needed, it was that 95pt, 3 talls fwd line game.
Before that we were just getting over the line.
Times change, you got to be prepared in all situations.

Cattery
Remember those witches hats you candidly spoke of, well they beat St Kilda the following week in case you've forgotten.
And don't think Varcoe will dramatically start kicking goals a la Stephen Milne, he just doesn't do it.
What we need is an even input from SJ, Shannon, and Chappy, it's not just the talls who let the side down last week, there's more to it than just 3 talls or 2 talls, the small fwds were just as pathetic.