Utility Magpies

[PieLebo87]

We've got a fair share of utility-type players, don't we?

I wander why this isn't used more often when we're down as it seems like the perfect opportunity to turn a match.

Davis - HFF, middle, rebounding HBF
Maxwell - Defensive HF, HBF
Anthony - forward, back
Pendlebury - HBF, midfielder, HF
Daisy - forward, midfielder, defender
Brown - forward, defender
Clarke - midfielder, defender
Wellingham - midfielder, forward
Lockyer - ANYWHERE
Dawes - forward, defender
Cloke - ANYWHERE
Swan - ANYWHERE
Goldsack - ANYWHERE
Shaw - HBF, forward, midfielder
Bryan - FF, CHF, ruck

There are so many more opportunities for changes when we're down by 3-4 goals and against the flow. Why doesn't MM mix it up a bit more when its obvious these players are more than capable of switching and swapping to alter the balance of a game?

 

[beez]

We must differ in opinions on what a Utility is, as 3/4's of those players definitely couldnt be listed as a Utility

 

[skeetz]

We've got a fair share of utility-type players, don't we?

I wander why this isn't used more often when we're down as it seems like the perfect opportunity to turn a match.

Davis - HFF, middle, rebounding HBF
Maxwell - Defensive HF, HBF
Anthony - forward, back
Pendlebury - HBF, midfielder, HF
Daisy - forward, midfielder, defender
Brown - forward, defender
Clarke - midfielder, defender
Wellingham - midfielder, forward
Lockyer - ANYWHERE
Dawes - forward, defender
Cloke - ANYWHERE
Swan - ANYWHERE
Goldsack - ANYWHERE
Shaw - HBF, forward, midfielder
Bryan - FF, CHF, ruck

There are so many more opportunities for changes when we're down by 3-4 goals and against the flow. Why doesn't MM mix it up a bit more when its obvious these players are more than capable of switching and swapping to alter the balance of a game?

Haha the last thing I am thinking when watching the Pies play is "Why doesn't MM mix it up a bit more". IMHO this is the last thing we need. He chops and changes way too much already, and it is hampering the development of our players.
How is a player supposed to master their trade when they are getting switched around all the time?
A player's job is "forward pocket" or "midfielder", not just "footballer". Sure there is room for mixing it up a bit ala Hawthorn sending Buddy upfield to give them a spark, but I am truly sick and tired of the old rotation crap.

FFS we need confidence in our players that they can perform specific tasks, we shouldn't be needing to trick and confuse the f*ck out of the opposition so they never know where our players are actually going to line up.

Here is my humble opinion of where our players should be lining up:

Davis - Delivering the ball inside 50. Roam around the HF line.
Maxwell - 3rd man up in the backline
Anthony - forward for now, but switched down back when (if) our other forward options are ready to go again (russer, rocca, reid)
Pendlebury - MIDFIELD
Daisy - MIDFIELD (with spells up forward to compensate for his lack of stamina)
Brown - Why the **** would we play probably the most exciting young backman down forward?
Clarke - midfield, wing
Wellingham - midfield, wing, rover
Lockyer - Probably our only true utility
Dawes - goalsquare
Cloke - CHF (ffs can we get people to deliver the ball to him, not the other way round)
Swan - rover (please not in front of goal)
Goldsack - backline
Shaw - HBF, midfielder
Bryan - FF, CHF, ruck

 

[Snag Breac]

How do you define "utility" player? Versatile? All-rounder? Handy?

 

[PieLebo87]

How do you define "utility" player? Versatile? All-rounder? Handy?

Tarkyn Lockyer.. Can play any position as well as any other on the ground.

Chad Cornes, Adam Goodes, Pavlich ect.

 

[Somebody]

We've got a fair share of utility-type players, don't we?

I wander why this isn't used more often when we're down as it seems like the perfect opportunity to turn a match.

Davis - HFF, middle, rebounding HBF
Maxwell - Defensive HF, HBF
Anthony - forward, back
Pendlebury - HBF, midfielder, HF
Daisy - forward, midfielder, defender
Brown - forward, defender
Clarke - midfielder, defender
Wellingham - midfielder, forward
Lockyer - ANYWHERE
Dawes - forward, defender
Cloke - ANYWHERE
Swan - ANYWHERE
Goldsack - ANYWHERE
Shaw - HBF, forward, midfielder
Bryan - FF, CHF, ruck

There are so many more opportunities for changes when we're down by 3-4 goals and against the flow. Why doesn't MM mix it up a bit more when its obvious these players are more than capable of switching and swapping to alter the balance of a game?

I've often found myself wishing MM would make some radical moves like a Sheedy or Barassi when a game is slipping away. Rarely does unfortunately and you have to watch the game grind to its predictable conclusion. Definitley seems to lack flair at times.

 

[Soul_Pie]

My personal view is that we should stop mixing and matching and have our players actually hold down a spot. We don't need too many utilities, we need guys who understand their roles. I mean, it's all very well having versatile players but I don't want it our guys to become jack of all trades and masters of none.

Here's where I think each of these players should be playing.

Davis - Forward- floating around CHF delivering it in and also heading into the pockets.
Maxwell - Defense - third man up
Anthony - Forward or back, but nothing in between.
Pendlebury - Midfield - In my view he's most valuable when running along the wings and moving forward with the ball.
Daisy - Midfield - Should be a permanent midfielder, in my view. The match against the Saints cemented this view.
Brown - Defender through and through.
Clarke - Midfielder - suited to the wings or slightly backward of the centre and the occasional tagging role.
Wellingham - Midfielder -can play a variety of midfield roles including tagger.
Lockyer - Utility - probably the only player in the team who should be played wherever he's needed.
Dawes - Forward - as close to goal as possible
Cloke - Forward - leading centre half forward who presents up the ground
Swan - Midfield - predominantly as a roving player who can occasionally get an opportunistic goal. Should not be played as a leading forward because his kicking at goal is terrible at the moment.
Goldsack - Defender - last year showed his best football is played in defense.
Shaw - Defender - Centre Half Back to be precise. Can provide enormous rebound from this situation.
Bryan - Ruck - Goes wherever there is a ruck contest or a strong mark needs to be taken.

 

[shawthing09]

I think it comes down to it doesn't how good you are at everything it's holding a position on the ground, I think sometimes we try and mix it up too much and thats when our balance gets mucked up and we look poor.

I'd much rather have more players excell at the possie the play most then have a side that is totally interchangable and good or average everywhere on the ground.

Some players should be given more freedom, Thomas certainly hasn't been used to the fulliest of his potential stuck in the foward line most of the year.

 

[mdc]

There are so many more opportunities for changes when we're down by 3-4 goals and against the flow. Why doesn't MM mix it up a bit more when its obvious these players are more than capable of switching and swapping to alter the balance of a game?

You want more rotations? Seriously?

Most of the players you listed aren't utilities, but just players often played out of position.

edit: Soul_Pie gave a much more detailed answer. I pretty much agree with his positions, though I'd swap Leon and Thomas around.

 

[skeetz]

My personal view is that we should stop mixing and matching and have our players actually hold down a spot. We don't need too many utilities, we need guys who understand their roles. I mean, it's all very well having versatile players but I don't want it our guys to become jack of all trades and masters of none.

Here's where I think each of these players should be playing.

Davis - Forward- floating around CHF delivering it in and also heading into the pockets.
Maxwell - Defense - third man up
Anthony - Forward or back, but nothing in between.
Pendlebury - Midfield - In my view he's most valuable when running along the wings and moving forward with the ball.
Daisy - Midfield - Should be a permanent midfielder, in my view. The match against the Saints cemented this view.
Brown - Defender through and through.
Clarke - Midfielder - suited to the wings or slightly backward of the centre and the occasional tagging role.
Wellingham - Midfielder -can play a variety of midfield roles including tagger.
Lockyer - Utility - probably the only player in the team who should be played wherever he's needed.
Dawes - Forward - as close to goal as possible
Cloke - Forward - leading centre half forward who presents up the ground
Swan - Midfield - predominantly as a roving player who can occasionally get an opportunistic goal. Should not be played as a leading forward because his kicking at goal is terrible at the moment.
Goldsack - Defender - last year showed his best football is played in defense.
Shaw - Defender - Centre Half Back to be precise. Can provide enormous rebound from this situation.
Bryan - Ruck - Goes wherever there is a ruck contest or a strong mark needs to be taken.

LOL this is almost an exact copy of my post....
Plagiarism!

 

[PieLebo87]

You guys are being very annoying, seriously. Take the time to understand what Im saying instead of posting nonsense!

Im not talking about a rotation system, or playing players out of position! Im talking about the Kangaroo games, the Carlton games, that Essendon game when we're down and out! Instead of keeping particular players that aren't performing in positions, change them up and use them in the opposite side of the ground!

Ie. Brown in the backline against the Blues... Move him to the forward line!
Ie. Shaw in the backline against the Dons when he was getting pumped, move him to the HF line or into the midfield!

 

[The Royal Sampler]

We have quite a few players who could be played in different positions. The only players who would fit the standard definition of a utility though would be Goldsack and maybe Maxwell or Anthony. Reed essentially projects as a utility player. Pendles could be a utility, but he's too valuable as a midfielder.

 

[skeetz]

You guys are being very annoying, seriously. Take the time to understand what Im saying instead of posting nonsense!

Im not talking about a rotation system, or playing players out of position! Im talking about the Kangaroo games, the Carlton games, that Essendon game when we're down and out! Instead of keeping particular players that aren't performing in positions, change them up and use them in the opposite side of the ground!

Ie. Brown in the backline against the Blues... Move him to the forward line!
Ie. Shaw in the backline against the Dons when he was getting pumped, move him to the HF line or into the midfield!

Maybe you should have worded your opening post a little more concisely?

I for one think that a topic about our players being switched around too much and not being allowed time to master specific positions on the ground is much more interesting than a thread about why MM should mix things up when we are getting beaten.

 

[PieLebo87]

I wander why this isn't used more often when we're down as it seems like the perfect opportunity to turn a match.

There are so many more opportunities for changes when we're down by 3-4 goals and against the flow. Why doesn't MM mix it up a bit more when its obvious these players are more than capable of switching and swapping to alter the balance of a game?

Thats the OP.

What? Did people on here forget how to read?

 

[skeetz]

CONCISE

ie. leave out the sh!t.

ie. if you are going to say that players like Cloke and Swan can play anywhere, Daisy can play in defence, Shaw can play forward etc etc etc, then you are going to distract people, and people are going to give you shit about it.
That's just saying that any player can play any where on the ground.
Trying to make your point by stating the above just makes you look foolish.


A concise way of asking your question would have been:
We have a couple of players who can play more than one position, why doesnt MM mix up positions more when we are getting beaten?

 

[mdc]

Thats the OP.

What? Did people on here forget how to read?

Because the simple (and entirely obvious) answer is that switching players into positions where they're not as capable is a crappy strategy, down 4 goals or not.

That, and you made 2 false assertions in that OP, namely;
- MM doesn't switch it up (he does, too much)
- That it's obvious these players are more than capable of switching and swapping to alter the balance of a game (they're not)

 

[PieLebo87]

CONCISE

ie. leave out the sh!t.

ie. if you are going to say that players like Cloke and Swan can play anywhere, Daisy can play in defence, Shaw can play forward etc etc etc, then you are going to distract people, and people are going to give you shit about it.
That's just saying that any player can play any where on the ground.
Trying to make your point by stating the above just makes you look foolish.


A concise way of asking your question would have been:
We have a couple of players who can play more than one position, why doesnt MM mix up positions more when we are getting beaten?

Understood.

Because the simple (and entirely obvious) answer is that switching players into positions where they're not as capable is a crappy strategy, down 4 goals or not.

Well daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, thanks captain obvious, I didn't realise you dont switch players into positions they can't play!

Against Essendon, when Cloke was ineffective at CHF, and Shaw was ineffective at BP, would you not move Cloke further up the field, and Shaw into the midfield to mix it up a bit? Who knows, with their extra 4-5 touches in a quarter could've changed the outcome of the game.

That, and you made 2 false assertions in that OP, namely;
- MM doesn't switch it up (he does, too much)
- That it's obvious these players are more than capable of switching and swapping to alter the balance of a game (they're not)

- He rotates too much, but he doesn't switch it up nearly enough. Don't get the two mixed up mate. He has kept players in particular positions whilst failing for far too long, too many times this season, I don't know what you call that.

- Nathan Brown would've been more then handy in the forward line against Carlton instead of wasted in the backline, in BOTH games, to stretch their defence.
Heath Shaw is a confidence player and when you keep him in a position where he is getting ripped apart, it will obviously affect his confidence, so you MOVE HIM, not try teaching him a 'football lession' at the price of 4 points.
When Davis is fumbling everything and really struggling with the pace of a game rotating through the HF and midfield and we're really struggling in the forward line, you move him to the FP to help crumb instead of allowing easy rebounds by the opposition, those are smart switches that Malthouse doesn't do.

So get your facts straight.

 

[mdc]

Well daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, thanks captain obvious, I didn't realise you dont switch players into positions they can't play!

Against Essendon, when Cloke was ineffective at CHF, and Shaw was ineffective at BP, would you not move Cloke further up the field, and Shaw into the midfield to mix it up a bit? Who knows, with their extra 4-5 touches in a quarter could've changed the outcome of the game.

If the first bolded bit wasn't dripping in sarcasm, it would be a true statement.

Shaw most certainly can't play midfield and how much further than CHF do you want Cloke to go?

So get your facts straight.

I looked very closely, but I wasn't able to find any facts, straight or otherwise. Maybe someone else will.

 

[checker]

Tarkyn Lockyer.. Can play any position as well as any other on the ground.

Chad Cornes, Adam Goodes, Pavlich ect.

thats a bit bland.a utility is someone who can play in multiple postions not ANY postion. imagine lockyer lining up in the ruck this week.
goodes pavlich Jbrown can infact play anywhere IMO.

 

[PieLebo87]

If the first bolded bit wasn't dripping in sarcasm, it would be a true statement.

Shaw most certainly can't play midfield and how much further than CHF do you want Cloke to go?

mdc, don't argue with me for the sake of arguing. Are you telling me that when Shaw was getting negated and kept away from the footy, you would have kept him in the backline whilst his direct opponent was killing us? (Monfries, I believe)

Also, if our midfield wasn't getting it to CHF effectively, which happens often, and frustrates Cloke, wouldn't you change him and make him the link man on the wing to get a bit of the footy and have him deliver into the forward line to a Medhurst and Anthony?

thats a bit bland.a utility is someone who can play in multiple postions not ANY postion. imagine lockyer lining up in the ruck this week.
goodes pavlich Jbrown can infact play anywhere IMO.

Lol you were doing so well until you added J Brown to that list.. I'd love to see him play in the ruck!

 

[shawthing09]

mdc, don't argue with me for the sake of arguing. Are you telling me that when Shaw was getting negated and kept away from the footy, you would have kept him in the backline whilst his direct opponent was killing us? (Monfries, I believe)

Also, if our midfield wasn't getting it to CHF effectively, which happens often, and frustrates Cloke, wouldn't you change him and make him the link man on the wing to get a bit of the footy and have him deliver into the forward line to a Medhurst and Anthony?



Lol you were doing so well until you added J Brown to that list.. I'd love to see him play in the ruck!

I see what your saying sometimes. I.E when our midfield is getting killed Thomas is having a shocker and is left in the foward pocket I often get frustrated but on the Heath Shaw to the midfield when he is being beaten I don't see the value. Heater hasn't got the polish when the ball is on the ground to play midfield. His great one on one and when the ball is on the deck in the backline he can scrap the contests into 50/50's but he doesn't cleanly win a lot of ball when its on the ground. He does most of his good work with the aerial ball. Even in his adventures further up the ground it has been more as a wingman running and marking target. So IMO he can't play midfield and to play him there to get him into the game would be worse for us.

He does rotate a lot and he also plays players out of position a lot. A lot of good players are wasted for periods of time for Mick to try something. A lot of players are given unfair tasks while Mick tries something. I would really prefer to see less mixing it up then more.

 

[checker]

Lol you were doing so well until you added J Brown to that list.. I'd love to see him play in the ruck!

haha cheers , i rekon he would be half decent in the ruck. he would just use he's body.

 

[mdc]

mdc, don't argue with me for the sake of arguing. Are you telling me that when Shaw was getting negated and kept away from the footy, you would have kept him in the backline whilst his direct opponent was killing us? (Monfries, I believe)

Also, if our midfield wasn't getting it to CHF effectively, which happens often, and frustrates Cloke, wouldn't you change him and make him the link man on the wing to get a bit of the footy and have him deliver into the forward line to a Medhurst and Anthony?

Mate, when you start a thread you won't always get favourable responses. Perhaps I might have been a tad dismissive, so I guess I'll elaborate.

My philosophy with regards to any sport really, is that all "adjustments" must be thought about before the game. The game itself teaches us nothing new, in most cases. I think our coaching staff generally follows the same sort of philosophy.

So, for example, let's take Heath Shaw.

I believe that Heath Shaw is capable of playing as a loose HBFer or a shut-down defender on a small-medium forward. I do not believe he is good enough to play in the midfield in the AFL.

So if he's struggling on Monfries, I'd see if there was another opponent he could take, or if maybe we could re-arrange the backline to get him loose. If none of that worked, I would either leave him to play through it, or bench him. Those are my only options, and they would have been discussed thoroughly before the match (as all scenarios must, for each player).

I would not put him in the midfield, because that would decrease our chance of winning (regardless of the current score or how badly he's playing). Likewise, I wouldn't want to see Cloke anywhere near the wing, because I feel that the only 2 positions he can or should play are FF or CHF. Playing him elsewhere, no matter what his current form is like, is detrimental to the team.

This is what I mean when I say "playing players out of position". Trying something just to "mix it up" is usually a worse idea than doing nothing and hoping the players (left in their ideal positions) improve. That's why I get frustrated when I see commentators jumping on MM's back for leaving a Harry O'Brien on Fevola, even after 6 goals. The idea in football, as in anything else, is to take the best available option. To make a switch because "it's not working" despite not having a better option is generally a bad idea.

As far as thinking unconventionally, I think MM is ahead of most coaches. Consider the following:
- O'Brien tagging Goodes.
- Toovey brought in especially to tag Deledio.
- Anthony straight to the forward line.

And so on and so forth. The reason you won't see too many good coaches in any sport "switching it up" in the middle of a game, is because the game itself doesn't really supply any new information. Sometimes good players will have shitty games, even shitty months. It happens. But as long as you're giving them the best chance of succeeding by playing them in their best positions, they'll come good.


NB - I am no MM fanboy. I disagree with a lot of stuff he does (particularly the heavy positional rotations and not developing players in their true positions). But letting players play through bad patches and not moving them, (even when they seem utterly frustrated), is something I agree with wholeheartedly.

 

[PieLebo87]

I completely understand what you're saying and your last post explained the way you believe things would work. We'll agree to disagree as I see it completely differently on that matter.

I believe if we're getting sh*tted on, eg. Essendon game, and Heath Shaw is having a shocker, there is no loss in playing him in the middle, or even at HFF, because you need to try these sorts of things to test a player when they're down. We know he is a very good 1-on-1 player, and whilst playing at HF, he wouldn't be the hunted, so he could've beaten his man one-out in the forward line. Anything could've happened had Malthouse tried it but we lost when he kept him in the backline.

Another example is Travis Cloke, when we're having one of those days where the midfield is being VERY ineffective, and Cloke is frustrated with the delivery and getting absolutely nothing. It would only seem logical, to me anyway, to move him further up the ground as a link man for the defenders to aim at, and HE can deliver to the forward line for players like Medhurst and Anthony where it would've opened up for them to be one-out because Cloke has taken his opponent to the wing.

Finally, the Harry O on Fev issue. I would've have a clue how to go about that, as its a question of showing faith, or damaging a youngsters confidence by moving him. But in that situation, I don't understand why MM didn't move Brown to the forward line when it was obvious we had no real options up forward and Brown had no opponent in the backline.

Its just little obvious things like this that frustrate me about Malthouse, because they could be the difference in a game when we're down. Also, I agree with you that MM rotates way too much in games, and sometimes it is rather ridiculous, but this thread isn't about rotations, its just about making switches when we're down, because nothing shits me more than when we're getting torn apart all over the ground, and he just sits there and keeps everything the way it is.

 

[RRRooocccaaa]

Finally, the Harry O on Fev issue. I would've have a clue how to go about that, as its a question of showing faith, or damaging a youngsters confidence by moving him. But in that situation, I don't understand why MM didn't move Brown to the forward line when it was obvious we had no real options up forward and Brown had no opponent in the backline.

It's not as damaging to a defender if the coaches are giving him the why (he's getting beaten) and focussing on the one-on-one targets to reach rather than the match as a whole. If - hypothetically - Fev kicked 7 in the first half then was held to only 3 possessions in the second half then you would have said Harry would have come out on top. Yeah, Harry will feel crap about the first bit but will have looked at his match-up more analytically and worked on the finer points of his game (where to stand, when to hold, when to mess with Fev's head, etc...)

I can (just) live with the two losses this year if it means Harry and Brownie got a lot out of those two matches. They may still 'lose' against Fev next year. But they'll be a damn sight closer and he'll have to work twice as hard.