- Sep 15, 2004
- 1,416
- 0
- Other Teams
- WEST COAST
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #26
F-U said:What you fail to see Sydney_Eagle is that if we have 5 tall forwards then the opposition has to muster 5 tall defenders. Now considering the fact we barely have 2 tall defenders you can imagine that getting 2 ruckmen when most teams barely have one, and 3 other tall defenders is gonna be a hard task for the best of teams. The opposition infact will probably have to get 6 tall defenders as most of the year Matera has been picked up by a tall defender. Although we will struggle to keep the ball from being rebounded, you imagine that the other teams will struggle to rebound the ball aswell with that many tall defenders down there. It aint like Western Bulldogs are gonna play Lindsay Gilbee on Mark Seaby so they can rebound the ball out of our forward line. If you could come up with any team that could field suitable opponents for those 5 then i would like to see it, because i believe they would be very hard to stop.
And if you dont think Staker is a suitable forward player, how the heck did u come to imagine he would be any better in defence, a position he has never played before in his life??
Staker actually debuted for us playing in the backline.
The reality is that someone is going to have to bite the bullet next year and play CHB, with Hunter/Waters and Stenglein in support on the flanks.
I agree with you that a taller forward line is the way to go - within reason.
Three players of 197cm+ along with Embley at 190cm is enough. If you want to rotate Embley through the midfield and use one of Lynch and Staker up forward from time to time that's OK.
But Sampi and Matera are two of the competition's best small forwards. 4 talls is the maximum, and I'd prefer Embley to be the fourth tall at 190cm.
There's no point stacking our forward line with talls, if we have an undersized backline. One of Lynch and Staker will spend 2005 at CHB, maybe they'll rotate - but one of them will be down back throughout next year.