Strategy Changes & Pre-match Discussion - GRAND FINAL vs. Brisbane MCG, 2:30pm Sat 30/09

[whiskeytown]

1. Billy Frankston in for mcstay

Offers the ultimate flexibility

Is an extra defender should we need to replace someone

And can rotate with Cox and Cameron… with the one player resting inside 50.
Allows us to keep forward and two ruck structure

Only has to play 60% game time to offer value on the day

2. If he looks remotely likely then I’d name Adams… as sub

Will play his heart out on the day

Fresh midfield legs later in the game when the likes of Pendles, Sidebottom and Mitchell slowing

I’m not sure who goes out…

After a great previous game … WHE returned to being a ghost

Lipinski’s form hasn’t been great

But I sense they are embedded into the team

Ginnivan could be the unlucky one to miss out. Hasn’t had a great impact as sub the last couple of weeks… granted from very limited game time

Noble probably doesn’t get a look in. Will remain 1st emergency

 

[No SPIN]

That flexibility is fools gold.

a) I'm hoping we don't go with a ruck as a full time forward - it's a possible option, but it's not a good one.

b) we don't need Frampton in the team to shift Howe forward. Brissy only play two tall forwards with one of them rucking for a chunk of the game. Frampton into the defence means we play either him or Murphy on one of their super slick smalls. I don't see why you'd add him to our defence. It's not like having Howe there to zone off a small to intercept and then use the footy with penetration. Frampton is really unlikely to exploit the mismatch to our advantage. It's just a dumb mismatch with Brissy being more likely to benefit from it

From your own post #888
“The other reason that you might bring in Frampton is as a ruck and relive the glory days of Coxy as our full forward”

Which is just ONE of many flexibility options I pointed out, and you did not address above.
I think you’re trying to have a bit each way on Frampton.
Which is fine.

 

[sam_e]

The more I think about it the more I think it's just WHE or Howe forward. Then it gets interesting as we may need an extra defender, so does Noble come in or do our mids chop out in defence and what happens regarding Adams, Ginni and Lippa.

Noble doesn't have a decent match-up down back ..all Brisbane small forwards are too big /strong for him

He has to be able to defend before his run becomes a factor.

TBH (it won't happen, however), if Adams doesn't get up, I'd consider Noble as an option to replace Lippa with the explicit instruction to chase, harras & tackle like a man possessed I50 and also apply his unique pressure & run at stoppage (in high HFF role).

The other reason Kreuger is no chance whatsoever is bc of the potential risk of taking Adams into the game.

 

[Milux]

Left of field. Would it be worth putting Bobby Hill on Cameron? Think he’s the best to match his speed

Robbing Peter to pay Paul there surely.

 

[sr36]

From your own post #888
“The other reason that you might bring in Frampton is as a ruck and relive the glory days of Coxy as our full forward”

Which is just ONE of many flexibility options I pointed out, and you did not address above.
I think you’re trying to have a bit each way on Frampton.
Which is fine.

I did say "the glory days of Coxy as our full forward." I wasn't trying to suggest it was a good option. It is an option, nonetheless.

Having thought about it, I don't think we'll bring in a tall

 

[devize]

Adams in for McStay will be the only change.

 

[windchimes]

Upon a lot of thought I'm now expecting we'll just go in small and just bring in one of Adams or Noble, one change only.

We'll need to play smart and lower our eyes - I'd suspect WHE may play as a quasi KPP up forward. My gut feeling is that the german-named lunatic may sneak in as a sub, like he did in last year's final series, as tall insurance. If we're getting killed in the air - sub him on and tell him to go to war with Andrews in the air and bring the ball to deck. I know he's been a contentious subject but there's much less risk in using someone like Kreuger from the sub role and we've used talls as the sub a fair bit under fly.

I'd like to keep Howe in the backline if we can.

 

[LuckyLee]

My big concern about going small by not replacing McStay with either Krueger or Howe is that under pressure we will predictably bomb it in to our only visible marking targets in Checkers and Cox, who will be double-teamed and have no chance of taking a mark. Andrews and Co will rebound it out with ease.

I think we need a genuine third tall marking target if for no other reason than to split the Lions defence and give Checkers, Cox and Elliott a decent chance of creating some space and separation to take a few marks.

So I would play Howe forward or bring in Krueger, who has done well as a forward in VFL this season and kicked 2.2 against Brisbane at AFL level last season.

Frampton is not a forward. It’s defence or nothing for him, IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[windchimes]

Also it's already been said by a few, but a big, big no to Cox playing at FF, at any cost. He is absolutely deadset useless there and always has been. (a few here will smash that thumbs down button, I know I know, sorry)

 

[sam_e]

Upon a lot of thought I'm now expecting we'll just go in small and just bring in one of Adams or Noble, one change only.

We'll need to play smart and lower our eyes - I'd suspect WHE may play as a quasi KPP up forward. My gut feeling is that the german-named lunatic may sneak in as a sub, like he did in last year's final series, as tall insurance. If we're getting killed in the air - sub him on and tell him to go to war with Andrews in the air and bring the ball to deck. I know he's been a contentious subject but there's much less risk in using him from the sub role and we've used talls as the sub a fair bit under fly.

I'd like to keep Howe in the backline if we can.

It's a toss up but i'm not convinced going in small on a dry fast-track is the way to go.

The issue of being too small is:
a) if we can't quickly transition the ball from our back-half bc of the strong defensive structure of the oppo (Giants were so disciplined at getting high numbers behind the ball defensively and not allowing us to transition apart from early 1Q and 3Q burst). The good news is that Brisbane aren't as disciplined / selfless on defensive transition so we 'should' be able to move the ball back-to-front more efficiently
b) if we can't quickly transition the ball from our back-half bc of the manic pressure that typifies how grand finals play out

If either of these play-out then it's likely we see plenty of long release kicks and/or hack kicks forward. With the ball in the air you need to be able to compete and bring the ball to ground otherwise Hill, McCreery, Ginni/Lippa et el won't get a look in.

 

[3 Characters Long]

It's a toss up but i'm not convinced going in small on a dry fast-track is the way to go.

The issue of being too small is:
a) if we can't quickly transition the ball from our back-half bc of the strong defensive structure of the oppo (Giants were so disciplined at getting high numbers behind the ball defensively and not allowing us to transition apart from early 1Q and 3Q burst). The good news is that Brisbane aren't as disciplined / selfless on defensive transition so we 'should' be able to move the ball back-to-front more efficiently
b) if we can't quickly transition the ball from our back-half bc of the manic pressure that typifies how grand finals play out

If either of these play-out then it's likely we see plenty of long release kicks and/or hack kicks forward. With the ball in the air you need to be able to compete and bring the ball to ground otherwise Hill, McCreery, Ginni/Lippa et el won't get a look in.

I'm going to go insane mulling over all the possible scenarios in the next six days

 

[windchimes]

It's a toss up but i'm not convinced going in small on a dry fast-track is the way to go.

The issue of being too small is:
a) if we can't quickly transition the ball from our back-half bc of the strong defensive structure of the oppo (Giants were so disciplined at getting high numbers behind the ball defensively and not allowing us to transition apart from early 1Q and 3Q burst). The good news is that Brisbane aren't as disciplined / selfless on defensive transition so we 'should' be able to move the ball back-to-front more efficiently
b) if we can't quickly transition the ball from our back-half bc of the manic pressure that typifies how grand finals play out

If either of these play-out then it's likely we see plenty of long release kicks and/or hack kicks forward. With the ball in the air you need to be able to compete and bring the ball to ground otherwise Hill, McCreery, Ginni/Lippa et el won't get a look in.

I fully agree Sammy, those concerns are the reason for the suggestion/compromise option that follows in the second paragraph of my post.

 

[sr36]

It's a toss up but i'm not convinced going in small on a dry fast-track is the way to go.

The issue of being too small is:
a) if we can't WHE quickly transition the ball from our back-half bc of the strong defensive structure of the oppo (Giants were so disciplined at getting high numbers behind the ball defensively and not allowing us to transition apart from early 1Q and 3Q burst). The good news is that Brisbane aren't as disciplined / selfless on defensive transition so we 'should' be able to move the ball back-to-front more efficiently
b) if we can't quickly transition the ball from our back-half bc of the manic pressure that typifies how grand finals play out

If either of these play-out then it's likely we see plenty of long release kicks and/or hack kicks forward. With the ball in the air you need to be able to compete and bring the ball to ground otherwise Hill, McCreery, Ginni/Lippa et el won't get a look in.

Playing Jezza or WHE up forward instead of Frampton or Kreuger may be going in smaller, but will they offer a less effective contest in the air? For a start they'll both read it better and get to more contests. They'll make better decisions when they're there - and not there. The issue is the slow build up bombs to the hotspot - but we'll try to get a ruck to those to help bring it to ground.

 

[sam_e]

I fully agree Sammy, those concerns are the reason for the suggestion/compromise option that follows in the second paragraph of my post.

yep fair points.

i'm just not sure you can take both Adams (lingering/ residual concern with hammy) and Kreuger (no 'residual' but all core concern with his shoulders) into the same game, let alone a GF

and the manic pressure of a GF can sometimes render the 'lower your eyes /precision passes i50' approach a bit optimistic

 

[sam_e]

Playing Jezza or WHE up forward instead of Frampton or Kreuger may be going in smaller, but will they offer a less effective contest in the air? For a start they'll both read it better and get to more contests. They'll make better decisions when they're there - and not there. The issue is the slow build up bombs to the hotspot - but we'll try to get a ruck to those to help bring it to ground.

agree with all that.

would be more comfortable with that approach and Howe/WHE's ability to compete aerially, across the game, if Payne continues to miss (ie. Gardiner plays) for Brisbane. If he gets up and our guys are competing against both Andrews and Payne, then i fear we'll get monstered in the air

 

[Vicky Park]

Ginni off the bench and into the 22, and us to find a way to include JFN. If he’s the sub, then so be it, but he’s brave and goes like mad, and these are qualities which stand out in GFs. And he’d be so hungry for it, having sat out the first two finals.

 

[sr36]

agree with all that.

would be more comfortable with that approach and Howe/WHE's ability to compete aerially, across the game, if Payne continues to miss (ie. Gardiner plays) for Brisbane. If he gets up and our guys are competing against both Andrews and Payne, then i fear we'll get monstered in the air

My view is that we'll agonize about it, but ultimately the game will be won and lost by whichever team moves the footy better.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

Noble doesn't have a decent match-up down back ..all Brisbane small forwards are too big /strong for him

He has to be able to defend before his run becomes a factor.

TBH (it won't happen, however), if Adams doesn't get up, I'd consider Noble as an option to replace Lippa with the explicit instruction to chase, harras & tackle like a man possessed I50 and also apply his unique pressure & run at stoppage (in high HFF role).

The other reason Kreuger is no chance whatsoever is bc of the potential risk of taking Adams into the game.

McCarthy or Zac Baily would be good match ups for Noble

 

[InternetToughGuy]

Lipinski has to go, surely. Bring in Noble.

 

[sr36]

My big concern about going small by not replacing McStay with either Krueger or Howe is that under pressure we will predictably bomb it in to our only visible marking targets in Checkers and Cox, who will be double-teamed and have no chance of taking a mark. Andrews and Co will rebound it out with ease.

Even with McStay in we often hold it up at half forward to give the ruck time to get forward to compete in the hotspot.

 

[Jelly Bean]

Ginni off the bench and into the 22, and us to find a way to include JFN. If he’s the sub, then so be it, but he’s brave and goes like mad, and these are qualities which stand out in GFs. And he’d be so hungry for it, having sat out the first two finals.

This.

Out: McStay, Lipinski.
In: Adams, Ginnivan.
Sub: Noble

Noble coming on in the last with fresh legs to cause havoc running from the backline (which is how we ignite most of our good scoring chains) would be invaluable. The sub needs speed to run over tired legs, and Noble has that in spades

 

[Antz]

This.

Out: McStay, Lipinski.
In: Adams, Ginnivan.
Sub: Noble

Noble coming on in the last with fresh legs to cause havoc running from the backline (which is how we ignite most of our good scoring chains) would be invaluable. The sub needs speed to run over tired legs, and Noble has that in spades

I like those changes. Makes sense!


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[swoop42]

The forecast is for 28 degrees.

This must be factored in as it's pretty obvious that the team that lives and trains in warm conditions is advantaged.

An extra small rather than a tall replacing McStay for mine as the game will be won by who runs it out best.

 

[OfficialJordynRuffhead]

Kreuger has played only 2 games for 7 disposals this year, a working forward line is more important than the extra centimetres he gives us, and no matter how skilled he is or isn't he hasn't played enough games across his career to be certain he won't disrupt our structure. WHE has played a chunk of his career as a third tall, and even this season has been sent forward regularly (typically toward the end of games like against GWS), if it is not working he rotates with Howe.

If Adams is fit and comes it allows Pendlebury, Daicos and Crisp to rotate through HB when Markov/Quaynor/Moore/Howe/Maynard/Murphy are off.

Otherwise Noble comes in and we see the three aforementioned with extra midfield minutes. Given Crisp has maybe been our best player across the two finals, Pendlebury has stood up in big moments and being able to pick and having the freedom to deploy N Daicos wherever needed is the biggest trump card in the league, this is my preferred option... I think

Not sold on any option involving Cox as a close to permanent forward given we're up against big Oscar and Mason has been integral to our 1st quarter centre bounce blitz the past couple games.

 

[FAIRANDBALANCED]

Ginni off the bench and into the 22, and us to find a way to include JFN. If he’s the sub, then so be it, but he’s brave and goes like mad, and these are qualities which stand out in GFs. And he’d be so hungry for it, having sat out the first two finals.

Is Ginnivan into the 22 because you like him, or because you genuinely think he can play well on the big stage?

I don't see it, but I would love to be proven wrong if he could do an Anzac day of last year.