- Jan 30, 2013
- 16,166
- 16,559
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Just had to make a thread on this because i've felt strongly about this since Hombsch cemented his spot in the 22. so that's 3 years?
We are continually playing 4 talls/statues even when it's not required. On the weekend we played our normal 4 (Trengove, Jonas, Hombsch, Carlile) even when on thursday the AFL website had listed the saints team with Jack Billings at full forward. Yes, that included Riewoldt on the wing where he was played in parts, yet we still went into the game with 4 talls that are shut down defenders. How is this even going to work in the long run when you ask Jonas to stand players like Lonie.
oh, but it worked in '14 you say? yes it did work we were also playing 2 forwards 1 ruck and 4 tall defenders. Trengove was splitting his time defence/ruck and we really played with only 7 talls. Trengove/Westhoff still played midfield and Schulz was always at half back that's a heap of midfield capable players in our squad. since then we are now playing with an extra tall on the ground in Ryder/Dixon. Personally i think football has changed a lot since then, especially with the new rules/style of football this year(making it harder for our setup). Then there is the addition of Impey, who i am a large fan of, however... when you use a small defender in a game and he gets 5 disposals alongside your 4 tall defenders, you are in serious trouble generating run out of defence, something that we've struggled with for all last year yet we still seem persistent in playing these big guys.
As a case study lets look at the bulldogs. a lot of similarities between how we play offensively and they do in my opinion. They have been playing stunning football with no CHB or CHF. another team that did it without a CHB? the eagles. two teams that are right at the pointy end of peoples premiership predictions. but lets have a look at the WBD's back 6 output. 3 of their back 7 had more than 30 touches on the weekend. then Boyd had 26, Suckling 22. Morris the "Jonas" style defender had 10 along with a debutant (thx for SC score bud). they basically played with 2 "dour" defenders last week and for most of last year. This is definitely by force but fact is football is heading towards this. despite predictions of 2m tall forwards a few years ago the CHF of the future has shrunk instead of grown. looks as if it could be the same down back. the bulldogs are capable of both defending the quick breaks due to increased running ability and rebound at ease when they get the ball off their opponents such as dinosaurs like Vickery, Cloke and Dixon. As for those big marks? Pressure on the ball carrier with more running defenders allows those kicks to have slightly more air and easily spoiled in an outnumbered situation. I'm not saying key forwards are useless. Dixon is one of the most important pick ups we've ever had. he's a focal point, beast and point of difference on most of the competition. my point is we just can't keep playing the same back 6/7 every week.
I am happy to admit we have a spoil for taller defenders but is it necessary to play them? judging by the weekend where we got cut to pieces over the back by smaller players i suggest it's necessary we drop one. we had to to rely on Pittard racking up 27in a close to BOG performance and Broadbent 26 to get over st. kilda.
We need more fluidity in our 22. for instance i think we match up fantastically this week however i am scared for our lives when we come up against say the bulldogs who's CHF is 189cm and FF 185cm. who do we drop? i don't know... but i think it's a great place to start picking the best team to win, instead of our best team. look at Hawthorn, they dropped Ceglar for McEvoy 2 years ago in a GF because he suited the opponent more. result? they won a premiership, thats all.
my best defence:
Impey Trengove O'Shea
Broadbent Hombsch Pittard
(Krakeour)
TLDR; our defence is shot and devoid of rebound if we continue to play the same team week in week out.
We are continually playing 4 talls/statues even when it's not required. On the weekend we played our normal 4 (Trengove, Jonas, Hombsch, Carlile) even when on thursday the AFL website had listed the saints team with Jack Billings at full forward. Yes, that included Riewoldt on the wing where he was played in parts, yet we still went into the game with 4 talls that are shut down defenders. How is this even going to work in the long run when you ask Jonas to stand players like Lonie.
oh, but it worked in '14 you say? yes it did work we were also playing 2 forwards 1 ruck and 4 tall defenders. Trengove was splitting his time defence/ruck and we really played with only 7 talls. Trengove/Westhoff still played midfield and Schulz was always at half back that's a heap of midfield capable players in our squad. since then we are now playing with an extra tall on the ground in Ryder/Dixon. Personally i think football has changed a lot since then, especially with the new rules/style of football this year(making it harder for our setup). Then there is the addition of Impey, who i am a large fan of, however... when you use a small defender in a game and he gets 5 disposals alongside your 4 tall defenders, you are in serious trouble generating run out of defence, something that we've struggled with for all last year yet we still seem persistent in playing these big guys.
As a case study lets look at the bulldogs. a lot of similarities between how we play offensively and they do in my opinion. They have been playing stunning football with no CHB or CHF. another team that did it without a CHB? the eagles. two teams that are right at the pointy end of peoples premiership predictions. but lets have a look at the WBD's back 6 output. 3 of their back 7 had more than 30 touches on the weekend. then Boyd had 26, Suckling 22. Morris the "Jonas" style defender had 10 along with a debutant (thx for SC score bud). they basically played with 2 "dour" defenders last week and for most of last year. This is definitely by force but fact is football is heading towards this. despite predictions of 2m tall forwards a few years ago the CHF of the future has shrunk instead of grown. looks as if it could be the same down back. the bulldogs are capable of both defending the quick breaks due to increased running ability and rebound at ease when they get the ball off their opponents such as dinosaurs like Vickery, Cloke and Dixon. As for those big marks? Pressure on the ball carrier with more running defenders allows those kicks to have slightly more air and easily spoiled in an outnumbered situation. I'm not saying key forwards are useless. Dixon is one of the most important pick ups we've ever had. he's a focal point, beast and point of difference on most of the competition. my point is we just can't keep playing the same back 6/7 every week.
I am happy to admit we have a spoil for taller defenders but is it necessary to play them? judging by the weekend where we got cut to pieces over the back by smaller players i suggest it's necessary we drop one. we had to to rely on Pittard racking up 27in a close to BOG performance and Broadbent 26 to get over st. kilda.
We need more fluidity in our 22. for instance i think we match up fantastically this week however i am scared for our lives when we come up against say the bulldogs who's CHF is 189cm and FF 185cm. who do we drop? i don't know... but i think it's a great place to start picking the best team to win, instead of our best team. look at Hawthorn, they dropped Ceglar for McEvoy 2 years ago in a GF because he suited the opponent more. result? they won a premiership, thats all.
my best defence:
Impey Trengove O'Shea
Broadbent Hombsch Pittard
(Krakeour)
TLDR; our defence is shot and devoid of rebound if we continue to play the same team week in week out.
