Game Day Around the Grounds - Rounds 1 - 5

[Mr_Plow]

Collingwood rarely lose the contested possession count (only once this year against Hawthorn in R1 by 1 possession).
And they've smashed * and Adelaide the past 2 weeks in that department, which has reflected in the scoreboard.

We actually went pretty close, 155-150.

That's their game; strong ball winners and quick ball movement. They're just frequently let down by poor kicking.

 

[BlueRenaissance]

Imagine if Goddard was playing for us in rounds 1-5 lol.

Absolutely would have lost the plot.

 

[Arr0w]

I already explained in detail that I'm not carried away with Richmond at all in the draft thread.

Pies team is predominantly smalls. Same deal with Tigers.

Didn't say a team with talls can't succeed. Just saying, it hasn't really happened in recent times.

FWIW, Cox only kicked 2 and Reid just the 1. 3 goals total from your 2 tall targets don't equate to them being decent targets.

Treloar, Sidebottom and WHE combined for 7 goals. When the mids are consistently kicking more than the tall targets, it highlights it even further.

Here you go again " with in recent times", 10 years i saw you suggest.

And it all comes down to what goals are kicked when it comes to your analysis

That is why your statements are flawed. It's not all about goals, it's what tall forwards provide, as we saw today. A contest that at the very least, brings the ball to ground and or frees up other forwards, as Reid and especially Cox, drew multiple defenders to a marking contest

Go back again over the flag winners of the last 10 years and have a look at what the tall forwards kicked goal wise during the course of the season to help their sides even make the finals and the big dance.

You are so fixated, that you forget the facts

 

[Benaly28]

Imagine if Goddard was playing for us in rounds 1-5 lol.

Absolutely would have lost the plot.

Biggest flog there is!Cant be good for morale.

 

[mediumsizered]

Pretty sure Smack is Shaun McKernan.

And there I was thinking they were looking to do some more doping.

Seriously though, the Dopers, like the Power, rolled the dice in the trade period on the basis they thought they were ready to challenge. One would suggest they overrated their list significantly. Their midfield is their big weakness so they traded in a couple of flankers (Saad & Stringer) & a maybe midfielder (Smith). They would have been better off going after Matt Kennedy rather than Saad or Stringer. Too bad, so sad, he is ours now.

 

[thylacine60]

I actually think we have all underrated Collingwood

round 5

 

[mediumsizered]

Yeah ! It's titled "sooky sooky lala "

My understanding is it will be called 'Sooky Sooky La La Land" & is the prequel to the other well known movie.

 

[passmark]

They've brought in a lot of players and they're relying on them to have an instant impact.

I honestly think their issues are personality driven at the moment.

Once the hierarchy gets sorted they could improve.

 

[Stig O'Hara]

Got a sled of cashews, ignorance, booze and spite on my quest.

Yep.

 

[BLUEALLTHRU]

Bulldogs review was 4 pages, I was keen on a read.

 

[chuncey]

I hate barracking for Collingwood but if **** were playing the Taliban I'd be torn.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Here you go again " with in recent times", 10 years i saw you suggest.

And it all comes down to what goals are kicked when it comes to your analysis

That is why your statements are flawed. It's not all about goals, it's what tall forwards provide, as we saw today. A contest that at the very least, brings the ball to ground and or frees up other forwards, as Reid and especially Cox, drew multiple defenders to a marking contest

Go back again over the flag winners of the last 10 years and have a look at what the tall forwards kicked goal wise during the course of the season to help their sides even make the finals and the big dance.

You are so fixated, that you forget the facts

The facts are that tall targets primary purpose is to kick goals. If they don't, you have to rely on the mids and/or smaller forwards to do it.

Drawing defenders is only purposeful if you have quality smaller blokes around them to capitalise.

"Decent targets" as you called them is subjective to say the least. Most would say that decent targets need to consistently kick some goals, not just be an option to draw defenders and bring the ball to ground.

Here are the goal totals from the tall targets:

2009 - Geelong: Mooney 46, Hawkins 34
2010 - Collingwood: Cloke 38, Dawes 30
2011 - Geelong: Podsiadley 52, Hawkins 27
2012 - Sydney: Goodes 37, Reid 31
2013 - Hawthorn: Roughead 72, Franklin 60, Gunston 46
2014 - Hawthorn: Roughead 75, Gunston 58
2015 - Hawthorn: Gunston 57, Roughead 50
2016 - Western Bulldogs: Stringer 42, Redpath 20
2017 - Richmond: Riewoldt 54
2018 - Richmond looking like the dominant team, Riewoldt only has 11 so far.

Quite obvious, you don't NEED more than 2 quality tall targets. Apart from the Hawks 13&14, the goal tally was relatively low. Only 1 case where 3 targets have worked.

The evidence suggests that none of those teams would have won their flags without high quality mids, yet in reality, (again with the exception of the Hawks) they still won their flags without high quality tall forwards.

 

[Gethelred]

The facts are that tall targets primary purpose is to kick goals. If they don't, you have to rely on the mids and/or smaller forwards to do it.

Drawing defenders is only purposeful if you have quality smaller blokes around them to capitalise.

"Decent targets" as you called them is subjective to say the least. Most would say that decent targets need to consistently kick some goals, not just be an option to draw defenders and bring the ball to ground.

Here are the goal totals from the tall targets:

2009 - Geelong: Mooney 46, Hawkins 34
2010 - Collingwood: Cloke 38, Dawes 30
2011 - Geelong: Podsiadley 52, Hawkins 27
2012 - Sydney: Goodes 37, Reid 31
2013 - Hawthorn: Roughead 72, Franklin 60, Gunston 46
2014 - Hawthorn: Roughead 75, Gunston 58
2015 - Hawthorn: Gunston 57, Roughead 50
2016 - Western Bulldogs: Stringer 42, Redpath 20
2017 - Richmond: Riewoldt 54
2018 - Richmond looking like the dominant team, Riewoldt only has 11 so far.

Quite obvious, you don't NEED more than 2 quality tall targets. Apart from the Hawks 13&14, the goal tally was relatively low. Only 1 case where 3 targets have worked.

The evidence suggests that none of those teams would have won their flags without high quality mids, yet in reality, (again with the exception of the Hawks) they still won their flags without high quality tall forwards.

Bear in mind, by leaving out 2008, you're leaving out Franklin's 100, Roughhead's 80 odd and Fev's 99.

I will say, though, that year was an anomaly in terms of age demographics in a flag winner and division of goalkickers in a premiership team, and their tactics on grand final day saw a revision of the rules to prohibit the flagrant rushed behinds Hawthorn used to blunt the best offensive team over a 5 year period at their peak.

Otherwise, play on.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Bear in mind, by leaving out 2008, you're leaving out Franklin's 100, Roughhead's 80 odd and Fev's 99.

I will say, though, that year was an anomaly in terms of age demographics in a flag winner and division of goalkickers in a premiership team, and their tactics on grand final day saw a revision of the rules to prohibit the flagrant rushed behinds Hawthorn used to blunt the best offensive team over a 5 year period at their peak.

Otherwise, play on.

That's fine, let's include it and go back a bit further and it still doesn't change the point.

2008 - Hawthorn: Franklin 113, Roughead 75
2007 - Geelong: Mooney 67, N.Ablett 34
2006 - West Coast: Lynch 65, Staker 24
2005 - Sydney: Hall 80
2004 - Port Adelaide: Tredrea 81, Lade 31

That's 15 years. Since 2008, no player from a Premiership team has kicked 80+ goals.

It clearly shows that you don't need 2 gun tall forwards. That thinking dates back further than 15 years and is irrelevant to this day and age.

What it also shows is that if you have a gun midfield, you only have to have one main tall target and a decent support act.

I can confidently say that a lot of these tall targets I've listed only got their totals from having great midfield delivery.

I can't see one team there that had won a premiership due mainly to their tall forwards. Even in 2008, in the grand final Franklin and Roughead only kicked 2 each. When you come up against a team with a strong defence the tall targets no matter how good they are really struggle to have an impact and you end up relying on your mids to generate goals out of stoppages or turn overs.

It's all about the midfield folks. And it will be again this year by the look of things.

 

[HBF]

Robbo in full supporter mode .

Objectivity about today's game out the window.

Same with Timmy on SEN this morning. In full defensive mode.

 

[HBF]

Great thread on the main board about him

Have you seen the one on Fourth Estate? Bloody hilarious stuff.

 

[Arr0w]

The facts are that tall targets primary purpose is to kick goals. If they don't, you have to rely on the mids and/or smaller forwards to do it.

Drawing defenders is only purposeful if you have quality smaller blokes around them to capitalise.

"Decent targets" as you called them is subjective to say the least. Most would say that decent targets need to consistently kick some goals, not just be an option to draw defenders and bring the ball to ground.

Here are the goal totals from the tall targets:

2009 - Geelong: Mooney 46, Hawkins 34
2010 - Collingwood: Cloke 38, Dawes 30
2011 - Geelong: Podsiadley 52, Hawkins 27
2012 - Sydney: Goodes 37, Reid 31
2013 - Hawthorn: Roughead 72, Franklin 60, Gunston 46
2014 - Hawthorn: Roughead 75, Gunston 58
2015 - Hawthorn: Gunston 57, Roughead 50
2016 - Western Bulldogs: Stringer 42, Redpath 20
2017 - Richmond: Riewoldt 54
2018 - Richmond looking like the dominant team, Riewoldt only has 11 so far.

Quite obvious, you don't NEED more than 2 quality tall targets. Apart from the Hawks 13&14, the goal tally was relatively low. Only 1 case where 3 targets have worked.

The evidence suggests that none of those teams would have won their flags without high quality mids, yet in reality, (again with the exception of the Hawks) they still won their flags without high quality tall forwards.

Now we are getting closer to the facts.

It could be said that the "primary" role of a KPF, is to kick goals, but that is way to simplistic. Scoring goals, bring the ball to ground if not being able to mark, some chopping out in the ruck, potentially drawing 3rd tall defenders, stopping an intercept mark.

No one is questioning the value of midfielders or small forwards, they all need to work as a cohesive unit and of course we need to continue to target elite versions of both

So I will expand on your list. I have also added other tall forwards/back up ruckmen and included the dedicated ruckman, so we you can see the difference. As for your initial criteria, there was no mention of the quality of these tall forwards, just a bold statement of " only needing one KPF". Rather than naming 2, I will actually give you 3, all of which played in a winning premiership side. (Note: Pointless going through and naming who kicked goals and who didn't, as I am sure we can both acknowledge all the different aspects that a KPF is required to achieve, as mentioned above)

2007
Mooney
N. Ablett
Ottens
King - Ruck

2008
Franklin
Roughy
Renouf
Campbell - Ruck

2009
Hawkins
Mooney
Ottens
Blake - Ruck

2010
Dawes
Cloke
Brown
Jolly - Ruck

2011
Pods
Hawkins
Ottens
West - Ruck

2012
Goodes
LRT
Reid
Mumford - Ruck

2013
Roughy
Franklin
Hale
Bailey - Ruck

2014
Hale
Roughy
Gunston
McEvoy - Ruck

2015
Roughy
Schoenmakers
Gunston
McEvoy - Ruck

Think the above speaks for itself, 3 KPF's (including a backup ruckman), plus a dedicated ruckman, all in the same premierships side, all contributing different aspects.

In 2016, the conjecture was, that the dogs went in with a small forward line, which is incorrect from what is listed below. I have also added our current 3 tall forwards as a comparison, despite many think we are too tall up forward.

Boyd 201 V McKay 200
Cordy 193 V Charlie 194
Dunkley 190 V Silvagni 191
Roughy V Kreuzer

Now for 2017, which I would agree that the Tiger's forward line is the smallest unit to win a flag in 10 years, but perhaps consider the following, without the benefit of a blessed injury run.

Do you really think that if you removed one of those smalls and added someone like say a Ben or Sam Reid (Non elite KPF's), that the result last year or their current form would be any different? Their game is built on a strong gameplan, that all the players have embraced and execute, not about the makeup of talls and smalls.

So if it is your opinion, that more than one KPF, is not required, that's fine, but it is certainly not factual.

That's why SOS & Bolton will continue to recruit and play, a multi-pronged tall forward setup, rather than ignoring history

 

[Aphrodite]

 

[F_therest]

We've got the resting big bodied mid with Cripps. So that's good news for us.

2 main forwards is what I think we'd be aiming for. With three, it can become a problem. They all need to be able to work together and they need two quick small forwards that apply a lot of tackling pressure otherwise it can come apart on the MCG in particular.

I agree.

We had 4 kpfs and 4 kpds Vs west coast which I think is too many.

Casboult, McKay, Charlie and Jack won't work long term, especially if we plan to rest Cripps forward at times as well.

Teams like Richmond would rebound the ball out of d50 in a flash and kill us.

Though I guess casboult will drop out soon enough, I assume McKay will be chop out ruck long term.

I like Jack but he needs to find the ball more to compensate his lack of speed and small body frame.

 

[Aphrodite]

List Management in here as well FFS!

 

[Love the Drake]

I hate barracking for Collingwood but if **** were playing the Taliban I'd be torn.

Brilliant..

 

[Love the Drake]

I agree.

We had 4 kpfs and 4 kpds Vs west coast which I think is too many.

Casboult, McKay, Charlie and Jack won't work long term, especially if we plan to rest Cripps forward at times as well.

Teams like Richmond would rebound the ball out of d50 in a flash and kill us.

Though I guess casboult will drop out soon enough, I assume McKay will be chop out ruck long term.

I like Jack but he needs to find the ball more to compensate his lack of speed and small body frame.

I don' mind the three big forwards. I thought Casboult, McKay and Charlie really stretched West Coast. Hopefully, we will stretch the Bulldogs tomorrow night. The issue is the 4th tall - I don't think we can have four.

 

[bigdog43]

The Essendon board is absolutely brilliant at the moment.

 

[AceAndy]

The Essendon board is absolutely brilliant at the moment.

The Autopsy thread was great reading last night.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Now we are getting closer to the facts.

The initial post of mine that you quoted listed facts apart from 2 sentences where I gave my opinion.

As for your initial criteria, there was no mention of the quality of these tall forwards, just a bold statement of " only needing one KPF". Rather than naming 2, I will actually give you 3, all of which played in a winning premiership side.

Come on mate, you want to stick to facts, then let's stick to them and not make things up to suit your argument. I never made any bold statement saying we only need one kpf so putting that in quotes is wrong. I said you don't need 2 gun key forwards and that's based on facts.

We have Charlie and McKay. They are 2 quality tall targets. Kreuze will still be around for a while with TDK looking promising. That's more than good enough for tall targets and that's not factoring in Ben Silvagni either who we'll be taking this year as well.

If blokes like Mooney + Hawkins, Cloke + Dawes, Goodes + Reid, Stringer + Redpath and Reiwoldt + no one have been good enough, then I've got no problem backing Charlie + McKay along with the others we will have to back them up.

There's no need to go sacrificing the opportunity to get another gun kpf as the expense of getting a gun mid. We don't need another gun forward as much as we need gun mids. Simple as that.

So if it is your opinion, that more than one KPF, is not required, that's fine, but it is certainly not factual.

What makes you think that's my opinion? I never said more than1 kpf is not required...

One quality main target with decent support act (obviously meaning another tall target or two) is more than good enough with a gun midfield is what I said.

I'll say it again, Charlie + McKay are already 2 quality tall targets. With the others around them, we are already in very good stead with future tall targets in our forward line.

If we keep recruiting more tall forwards we will be making a mistake imo. With 4 draft picks this year and one of them reserved for Ben, the other 3 should be used to fix the biggest glaring weakness in our squad.

That's why SOS & Bolton will continue to recruit and play, a multi-pronged tall forward setup, rather than ignoring history

They only mainly recruited for tall targets 2.5 years ago. One in 2016 draft at the very tail end and I suspect only because of his Carlton connection and TDK last year to be a replacement for Kreuzer.

They know we need gun mids ahead of tall forwards and that's why they'll continue to recruit and play them as part of a dynamic, creative and unpredictable setup rather than ignoring history.