Preview AFL Rd 3 - Collingwood v Hawthorn - MCG - Sun 14/4 - 3.20 pm - Changes and Prematch Discussion

[SuperSub17]

Like it

I just want to see us actually give the hawks a good game our recent record (2011 PF aside) is terrible.

We smashed them in H&A 2011 and first time 2010, and narrowly lost the second time when Beams missed that set shot in round 22 when we had already locked up top spot. They had a night out against us in 2009 in a year when they were very up and down, but apart from that they were a better side than us in 2008 and 2012, hence the losses. I don't really subscribe to this 'bad record' mentality; from 2010 to now the ledger is 4-3 in their favour.

 

[DWil6]

I'd think we will struggle. The benefit might be that we won't be coming back from a trip to the west. But i'd suggest their contested ball winning and use will find us wanting. They definitely have an edge on us recently.

 

[Scodog10]

I would prefer to save Tooves for that medium tall type like a Gunston or Lewis. I am sure they will try and exploit Maxwell again and make sure he is not loose, so Tooves can take this type of player that destroyed us last year. Tooves is the best fit for Rioli and happy for Russell to take someone like Breust. However, I think we should just throw the challenge out there to Russell though as we have no one to play on good small forwards. I would rather know now that he can't do it than at the end of the year. If he can't play on small forwards is he best 22?

I don't get the bolded because you said your happy for him to go to Bruest who is a small forward!

Teams field more than one small in their forward 50 he just isn't suited to the really agile ones i.e. Rioli, L Thomas, Saad, Motlop, Walters, Betts and Nahas.

Players like Chapman, Bewick, Callinan, Adams, McGlynn and Monfries are his go. Every player has strengths and weaknesses and setting him a task that he's not suited to just to give him a challenge is not the right move.

 

[mattys123]

Do we bring Josh Thomas back in for this game seeing as Mitchell and co always smash us at the contested ball, or do we back our current mids and maybe go with a MaCaffer or Dale Thomas (his ball winning ability is under rated) along with Pendles, Swan, Sidey and Blair?

I hope Sewell doesn't play because that will off set the absence of Beams a fair bit too.

 

[Old Spice]

I'd think we will struggle. The benefit might be that we won't be coming back from a trip to the west. But i'd suggest their contested ball winning and use will find us wanting. They definitely have an edge on us recently.

FairandBalanced suggested something a little left field recently which I didn't mind, which was to send Goldsack with Buddy up the ground and keep Reid in defence for fwd 50 contests. It might almost be worth trying a Frost on him in the defensive 50 and see how that goes, and keep Reid loose. You can always switch if it doesn't work. Brown can go to Roughead/Hale, Toovey to Rioli and Russell/Shaw to Breust.

If Thomas is back, I'm confident in the middle.

I'm also more confident up forward now with Lynch in the forward line and Sidebottom, Blair and Thomas able to move forward.

 

[SpongePie]

I'd assume Reid would go to Buddy. That should be interesting.
Hopefully Toov goes to Rioli... he is a big worry in my mind.

 

[DaVe86]

I actually think Toovey might go to Breust...and Johnson to Rioli. Toovey played on Walker last week despite the fact that Garlett and Yarran were running us ragged.

Preferably, I think Toovey should take Rioli, with Russell on Bruest and Johnson on Puopolo. But seems to me that Buckley is opting to use Toovey on the mid-sized forwards like Darling or Walker.

My worry with Russell is that he was beaten in the air last week against Yarran who is not known for his marking.

 

[dubber]

My worry with Russell is that he was beaten in the air last week against Yarran who is not known for his marking.

One was a complete 'out of his ass' mark though. I forgive him after he put in a good effort in the second half, it must have been daunting playing your old side in front of 80K crowd, and his old team mates were really giving it to him. Took a while to clam the nerves, he will be fine.

 

[blaze036]

One was a complete 'out of his arse' mark though. I forgive him after he put in a good effort in the second half, it must have been daunting playing your old side in front of 80K crowd, and his old team mates were really giving it to him. Took a while to clam the nerves, he will be fine.

He was running with the flight then turned and took it, wasn't that spectacular.

Russell just stood there with this thumb up somewhere instead of attacking the footy and taking it at its highest point

 

[dubber]

He was running with the flight then turned and took it, wasn't that spectacular.

Russell just stood there with this thumb up somewhere instead of attacking the footy and taking it at its highest point

Was freakin awesome to watch, rusty should have been going for the fist not trying to take the mark.

 

[DaVe86]

yeah there were 2 really clear incidents where Russell mucked up in the first half. Then he really settled and played a really solid 2nd half. He was aggressive and held him man as well.

The one I was most dissapointed about was when he went up as 3rd man to help out Brown...who had his man covered anyway...and let the ball fall to ground where Yarran picked it up and ran all the way to goal.

Then obviously the Yarran mark was inexcusable as he waited for the ball to come to him.

 

[blaze036]

Was freakin awesome to watch, rusty should have been going for the fist not trying to take the mark.

I think he should of gone for the mark as he was in the best position to take it, against 1 opponent who has to run back with the flight. The problem is he just stood there and waited for the ball to come to him instead of attacking it.

 

[Bloben]

He was running with the flight then turned and took it, wasn't that spectacular.

Russell just stood there with this thumb up somewhere instead of attacking the footy and taking it at its highest point

Agree.

All Russell needed to do in that instance was attempt to mark and he would have received a free kick for front on contact. Instead he waited down assuming Yarran would drop it to pick up the crumbs

 

[10571z]

Must be a tough week for Ben Reid knowing he has to take buddy!

 

[Old Spice]

Agree.

All Russell needed to do in that instance was attempt to mark and he would have received a free kick for front on contact. Instead he waited down assuming Yarran would drop it to pick up the crumbs

Yep. He could have moved 2 feet closer and also put his knee up. Think he'll learn from that and also to stay down with his opponent when they are speedy smalls.

 

[SuperSub17]

yeah there were 2 really clear incidents where Russell mucked up in the first half. Then he really settled and played a really solid 2nd half. He was aggressive and held him man as well.

The one I was most dissapointed about was when he went up as 3rd man to help out Brown...who had his man covered anyway...and let the ball fall to ground where Yarran picked it up and ran all the way to goal.

Then obviously the Yarran mark was inexcusable as he waited for the ball to come to him.

Yep, 100% agree, let himself down with a couple of those efforts in the second quarter which let them get on top in the game, but I thought he played pretty well in the second half. He will probably go to Breust I think.

 

[raff23]

FairandBalanced suggested something a little left field recently which I didn't mind, which was to send Goldsack with Buddy up the ground and keep Reid in defence for fwd 50 contests. It might almost be worth trying a Frost on him in the defensive 50 and see how that goes, and keep Reid loose. You can always switch if it doesn't work. Brown can go to Roughead/Hale, Toovey to Rioli and Russell/Shaw to Breust.

If Thomas is back, I'm confident in the middle.

I'm also more confident up forward now with Lynch in the forward line and Sidebottom, Blair and Thomas able to move forward.

no way clarko will allow that to happen, reid will be made accountable at all times, cant have a key defender taking marks at will especially one of reid's ability. From a hawks perspective id be inclined to take hale out this weekend and bring back lake, happy with the bailey/roughead setup, i think we will need more runners this weekend you guys have a lot of pacey classy ball winners which we need to counter with some of our own. Anderson and hill will stay as they give us pace and carry and we should think about simpkin as well especially if sewell doesnt get up. I think that is where you guys can hurt us, our defence has been great the first 2 weeks, schoey has come on in leaps and bounds so far this year and i would give him first crack at cloke. If we play lake he should play on lynch. This would than release gibson which we need to do because you guys will definately put some work into stopping birchall. Should be a cracking game.

 

[4#Didak#4]

I don't get the bolded because you said your happy for him to go to Bruest who is a small forward!

Teams field more than one small in their forward 50 he just isn't suited to the really agile ones i.e. Rioli, L Thomas, Saad, Motlop, Walters, Betts and Nahas.

Players like Chapman, Bewick, Callinan, Adams, McGlynn and Monfries are his go. Every player has strengths and weaknesses and setting him a task that he's not suited to just to give him a challenge is not the right move.

I am happy for him to go to any small forward as long as he does the job! Breust is the easier job, but I want to see him step up.

Once we have a full squad back I am not sure he has a position unless he can make a spot his. When you bring in Beams, Ball, Fasolo, Didak/Krak, Young etc. something has to give. Heath Shaw and possibly even Harry O'Brien will be going further back and taking those types you mentioned Chapman etc. Probably even prefer Benny Johnson for those jobs.

However, if he can take down some small forwards - or do a better job than others, then he becomes valuable and not just a depth Simon Buckley type player.

I think he is capable enough - maybe lacking enough speed - if he plays it smart. On Sunday he did some silly things where Yarran's goals were avoidable, it wasn't because of Yarran's agility.

He will probably get spanked by Rioli along with everyone else who plays on him, however if he does do well its a big boost for the team going forward. If we don't try him then we won't know & its inevitable he will be relegated to the twos.

 

[Chilli Con Incarnate]

Has any team ever tried tagging Buddy with someone fast and speedy instead of the typical tall defender? His set shot kicking isn't that great neither is his contested marking, he does all his damage at ground level or on the run. Maybe we could roll the dice and chuck Toovey or Shaw on him see if it works at all?
Pretty wild suggestion I know but none of our talls would have the same agility as him.

 

[MrFujiMoto]

According to Clarko, he had some tightness in the hamstring so he came off as a precaution. Will be monitored through the week, but will likely play.

Yeah but you know better than that MC_9, you need to apply the Hawks injury translator to that diagnosis. When you run it through the translator it comes out with - "Sewell has had his leg amputated at the hip and will miss the next 5 - 6 games whilst they graft Stewy Dew's left leg on"

We find out the results of the scans this afternoon. My opinion is that Sewell will miss and Simpkin will come in. That could mean any number of structural changes to last weeks team. Maybe Hodge goes into the middle to play Sewells role and Burgoyne goes back. Maybe Simpkin plays Sewells role and the rest remains the same. Who knows, I just think he will miss regardless of what we hear this arvo. If he is named and we say he is fine, expect a late withdrawl from the team on Saturday / Sunday morning.

 

[MrFujiMoto]

Has any team ever tried tagging Buddy with someone fast and speedy instead of the typical tall defender? His set shot kicking isn't that great neither is his contested marking, he does all his damage at ground level or on the run. Maybe we could roll the dice and chuck Toovey or Shaw on him see if it works at all?
Pretty wild suggestion I know but none of our talls would have the same agility as him.

He marks OK when he is against "smaller" defenders. If anyone put a smaller player on him I am sure we would stick them one out in the Goal Square and exploit the mis match in height and weight.

Fast, agile and highly skilled big KPF guys do not grow on trees. Buddy is a rare beast, he is essentially a 100kg, 196cm utility / KPF with the pace to burn off 70% of the quick midfielders in the comp. The reason he gets many of his goals the way he does is because the guys "big" enough to match it with him are not fast enough or agile enough, but they are the ones given the job.
It is a risk vs reward for the opposition. They probably see this as the best match up because goals that Buddy kicks are usually a lower % option because of this match up.
You are suggesting changing this match up to one where Buddy has a guy that is agile enough and fast enough to go with him. 99% of those guys would not be strong enough to go with him though. He would just out muscle his opponent in and around 30 mtrs of Goal, like Cloke does quite often. Increases his chances of kicking BIG bags of goals and I think that is why coaches have stuck with the big guy formula. Snaps and running goals from 50 odd out vs set shots from 30 - 50 mtrs out directly in front.

Hang on, this is Buddy. you might be onto something

 

[Chilli Con Incarnate]

H

He marks OK when he is against "smaller" defenders. If anyone put a smaller player on him I am sure we would stick them one out in the Goal Square and exploit the mis match in height and weight.

Fast, agile and highly skilled big KPF guys do not grow on trees. Buddy is a rare beast, he is essentially a 100kg, 196cm utility / KPF with the pace to burn off 70% of the quick midfielders in the comp. The reason he gets many of his goals the way he does is because the guys "big" enough to match it with him are not fast enough or agile enough, but they are the ones given the job.
It is a risk vs reward for the opposition. They probably see this as the best match up because goals that Buddy kicks are usually a lower % option because of this match up.
You are suggesting changing this match up to one where Buddy has a guy that is agile enough and fast enough to go with him. 99% of those guys would not be strong enough to go with him though. He would just out muscle his opponent in and around 30 mtrs of Goal, like Cloke does quite often. Increases his chances of kicking BIG bags of goals and I think that is why coaches have stuck with the big guy formula. Snaps and running goals from 50 odd out vs set shots from 30 - 50 mtrs out directly in front.

Hang on, this is Buddy. you might be onto something

He always kicks a bag on us anyway! If you did go this way and he tried to play deep you would have to have someone bigger zone off and double team when the ball came in. A big guy to bring it to ground and the tagger at his feet ready to stop him from scooping it up and playing on, I guess it's just too much effort for one player.

 

[MrFujiMoto]

H

He always kicks a bag on us anyway! If you did go this way and he tried to play deep you would have to have someone bigger zone off and double team when the ball came in. A big guy to bring it to ground and the tagger at his feet ready to stop him from scooping it up and playing on, I guess it's just too much effort for one player.

Yeah until we did what the Cats do to us and seperate your defenders. Actually it is one area I have always been relieved about when playing you guys when you had Daws and Cloke firing. Even at that time you guys never seperated our defenders anywhere near as wide as Hawkins and Pods do to us.

 

[Chilli Con Incarnate]

Yeah until we did what the Cats do to us and seperate your defenders. Actually it is one area I have always been relieved about when playing you guys when you had Daws and Cloke firing. Even at that time you guys never seperated our defenders anywhere near as wide as Hawkins and Pods do to us.

Very true! The amount of times you'd see Cloke and Dawes right next to each other was silly. Hopefully this was more a Dawes problem and less a tactical problem.

 

[MrFujiMoto]

Very true! The amount of times you'd see Cloke and Dawes right next to each other was silly. Hopefully this was more a Dawes problem and less a tactical problem.

I am hoping it is tactical