Apples' Training Reports

[Scodog10]

Your arrogance is noted.

Others full well understand your position but not necessaarily agree. Time will tell with Cox. Some are more bullish on him them others. No need for your contempt of others.

Yeah 50+ goals wasn’t it? And AA contention? Bullish indeed...

FWIW, no, people clearly don’t understand if your post is a reflection of their collective view. My issue isn’t Cox it’s the setup which is going to be used to accomodate him. He can/ will work in the best 22, but not with Reid in the forward third and Grundy resting forward. A 5 man forward structure with those guys in it I can guarantee won’t work.

 

[ClaytonM]

Yeah 50+ goals wasn’t it? And AA contention? Bullish indeed...

FWIW, no, people clearly don’t understand if your post is a reflection of their collective view. My issue isn’t Cox it’s the setup which is going to be used to accomodate him. He can/ will work in the best 22, but not with Reid in the forward third and Grundy resting forward. A 5 man forward structure with those guys in it I can guarantee won’t work.

You have assumed a 5 man forward structure. If this is the case then it probably fails. Let’s see what structure they build around Cox before we right it off.

 

[WalterBlaknWhte]

FWIW, no, people clearly don’t understand if your post is a reflection of their collective view. My issue isn’t Cox it’s the setup which is going to be used to accomodate him. He can/ will work in the best 22, but not with Reid in the forward third and Grundy resting forward. A 5 man forward structure with those guys in it I can guarantee won’t work.

Cox is a decoy (like Fasolo, Elliott, Grundy, Darce etc)

They need to get the F.O.O.T.W. and let Reid work his magic

Have 1 crumber in case Ben does not clunk it (choose your own adventure for a crumber but I nominate Sidey)

 

[jackcass]

Yeah 50+ goals wasn’t it? And AA contention? Bullish indeed...

FWIW, no, people clearly don’t understand if your post is a reflection of their collective view. My issue isn’t Cox it’s the setup which is going to be used to accomodate him. He can/ will work in the best 22, but not with Reid in the forward third and Grundy resting forward. A 5 man forward structure with those guys in it I can guarantee won’t work.

If Grundy is resting forward then Cox more than likely to be in the ruck so you've either got Reid and Cox or Reid and Grundy in the F50. It's Reid and Moore in the same F50 when you're playing Cox that it becomes an issue.

 

[Scodog10]

You have assumed a 5 man forward structure. If this is the case then it probably fails. Let’s see what structure they build around Cox before we right it off.

No it’s factual that we will use a 5 man fwd setup in 2018 unless you believe Peter Moore lied?

 

[ClaytonM]

No it’s factual that we will use a 5 man fwd setup in 2018 unless you believe Peter Moore lied?

When did Peter Moore become coach? Must have missed that.

 

[Quicky]

No it’s factual that we will use a 5 man fwd setup in 2018 unless you believe Peter Moore lied?

Is that what was said though? I took it to mean that's how they have played and it would be good if Moore got some time in defence because of it. It indicates that's what might happen this year but it's still just a guess.

If we do go a five man forward line I honestly can't see us making the finals this season. It's just an uncompetitive set-up if we do. Unless we get a heavy score involvement from our mids, who historically get in good positions and blow it (except Wells). That's the only way it works.

 

[loki04]

Funny how broomhead has gone to someone we all had high hopes for to now a player most expect gone by end of year......really hope broomy turns it on this year.....is he lookimg good this pre season?

Might just be me but he seems to have somewhat stalled in his overall development or maybe plateaued is a better term, hopefully e can kick it up a notch in 2018 if not there are a few younger types like Daicos jnr looking to be the next to break into the 22 in that wing HFF role.

 

[Buckley is my hero]

Is that what was said though? I took it to mean that's how they have played and it would be good if Moore got some time in defence because of it. It indicates that's what might happen this year but it's still just a guess.

If we do go a five man forward line I honestly can't see us making the finals this season. It's just an uncompetitive set-up if we do. Unless we get a heavy score involvement from our mids, who historically get in good positions and blow it (except Wells). That's the only way it works.

Every side in the competition will at some point play a five man forward line. Buckley once even played a four man forward line. Six, five, or four, it makes no difference to winning or losing. Here are some of the ways you can lose:
Poor conversion rate in front of goals.
Midfield losing the contested ball.
Defence being outfoxed.
Losing the stoppages.
Lack of leadership on the field.
Having too many players ahead of the ball rather than behind the ball.
Not having a dominant ruckman.

I'm sure there's other ways of losing, but most of them have to do with the players on the field and having nothing to do with the man who sits behind the glass booth.

 

[TradeDraft]

Every side in the competition will at some point play a five man forward line. Buckley once even played a four man forward line. Six, five, or four, it makes no difference to winning or losing. Here are some of the ways you can lose:
Poor conversion rate in front of goals.
Midfield losing the contested ball.
Defence being outfoxed.
Losing the stoppages.
Lack of leadership on the field.
Having too many players ahead of the ball rather than behind the ball.
Not having a dominant ruckman.

I'm sure there's other ways of losing, but most of them have to do with the players on the field and having nothing to do with the man who sits behind the glass booth.

So you need Gun Mids and Defenders and then anyone up Forward?

 

[Bard]

So you need Gun Mids and Defenders and then anyone up Forward?

I mean, that's what Richmond & Bulldogs did, Geelong too to an extent. It's not the only way to win though of course, Hawthorn's forward line and defence outshone its midfield substantially IMO.

 

[Buckley is my hero]

I mean, that's what Richmond & Bulldogs did, Geelong too to an extent. It's not the only way to win though of course, Hawthorn's forward line and defence outshone its midfield substantially IMO.

Let's say the opposition takes possession in the centre of the ground so you're now defending your goals. If you have players ahead of the ball you could find yourself in a man on man situation of being -1, -2, or -3 players defending our goals. If that's the situation then the opposition will clinically dissect your defence for a goal, especially if the team you're against is a Hawthorn or a Sydney and there's nothing you can do about it. That's why Buckley may play a five man forward structure which is basically to keep players behind the ball to defend our goals. Travis Cloke may complain about it from his point of view of the lead to forward, but that's the way modern football is played. It was no different when Cloke went to the Bulldogs so forwards need to adapt to the way modern football is played. Cloke was fantastic at Collingwood but he couldn't adapt to the changing game and that's why he retired. It has nothing to do with the coach.

 

[TradeDraft]

I mean, that's what Richmond & Bulldogs did, Geelong too to an extent. It's not the only way to win though of course, Hawthorn's forward line and defence outshone its midfield substantially IMO.

So we are Chasing Mids in Draft/Trade is the Right Idea?

As you could put anyone back or forward?

 

[Bored_Pie]

Teams with Midfielders that impact the score board win games. Games past Tall forwards.

 

[TradeDraft]

Teams with Midfielders that impact the score board win games. Games past Tall forwards.

So Club is Right with only Chasing Mids then? Can have 21 Mids with 1 Ruck?

 

[ClaytonM]

So Club is Right with only Chasing Mids then? Can have 21 Mids with 1 Ruck?

22 mids. Leigh Mathews doesn’t rate ruckman.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

22 mids. Leigh Mathews doesn’t rate ruckman.

Especially if they don't rap to advantage.
If they don't, then they just have to make a contest

 

[Jasper84]

Especially if they don't rap to advantage.
If they don't, then they just have to make a contest

Vanilla Ice used to rap to advantage of ninja turtles.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Vanilla Ice used to rap to advantage of ninja turtles.

Spell auto grrrr

Actually I like it now that I look at the sentence - rap better than ruck

 

[Quicky]

22 mids. Leigh Mathews doesn’t rate ruckman.

For a guy that didn't rate rucks he sure managed Keating carefully through the year to be fit at the business end.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

For a guy that didn't rate rucks he sure managed Keating carefully through the year to be fit at the business end.

Leigh was a genius.
Even with the cheaper stock.

 

[TradeDraft]

For a guy that didn't rate rucks he sure managed Keating carefully through the year to be fit at the business end.

and Monkhurst was huge for us in 1990

 

[Saintly Viewed]

and Monkhurst was huge for us in 1990

Yes he was

 

[Bard]

So we are Chasing Mids in Draft/Trade is the Right Idea?

As you could put anyone back or forward?

I think you just take the best available, and we have sought to do that for a long time now. It's why I'm against taking players who are referred to as 'utility' or 'swingmen' in the first round, because all that means is they're probably not actually in the top echelon in any position, they're just capable of playing multiple. Moore is just about the only exception to that rule I was happy with.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I think you just take the best available, and we have sought to do that for a long time now. It's why I'm against taking players who are referred to as 'utility' or 'swingmen' in the first round, because all that means is they're probably not actually in the top echelon in any position, they're just capable of playing multiple. Moore is just about the only exception to that rule I was happy with.

Good points.

But Moore was actually legit top 10 key position player.