1 mark between 3 talls up forward.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Forward line Structure
- Thread starter gbatman
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Underachievers like Gibbs? You idiot.
Everytime we kick the ball to CHF there's no one there.
Hendo must come back and play CHF. Mitchell needs to get a chance as soon as he's built some endurance. We just need someone who can play KPF - not three ruckman.
Hendo must come back and play CHF. Mitchell needs to get a chance as soon as he's built some endurance. We just need someone who can play KPF - not three ruckman.
- Thread starter
- #54
Hampson will never be a good mark. If we had a decent tall forward or 2 he would be a very good ruckman/part time forward but he's not up to it. Kreuzer is even worse. they are both too slow off the mark, not that that is a real worry but they have no tricks to gain ground on an opponant like pushing off and their body work is poor. Kreuzer is a shocker, he's an example of what not to do in a marking contest. Either comes back to the player or who is coaching them. I just hope Mitchell stays fit, plays a couple of games towards the end and we just put him and Waite forward next year, hope to god they stay fit and go from there. Need to give Barker the arse, get a guy who can teach our talls to use their body and need to change how we position all over the field.
- Thread starter
- #55
I think so, Henderson at least gets in the right place even if he's drastically lacking strength. Smart player, good athlete and a good kick.
Wow, so if I was was a forward and had bryce gibbs or andrew Carrazzo streaming down the wing on a fast break im pretty sure I would be leading at them. INstead these 2 good ball users are forced to cough it up. My question is, is it the structure (the coach) or the players not understanding what the coach wants (the coach still needs to be held accountable for this)
- Feb 18, 2009
- 5,009
- 455
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Do we have one key position forward on our list who is not injured? It might help answer our structure question.
The coach is done.
We have recruited too many mid sizers.
Hampson had a go, can do really well at times, but alas, is somwhat eratic.
Kreuzer, not actually sure what he is good for tbh, still, coming off a knee, next year will be his.
Walker, good team goes awol, not always, just mostly.
Waite hitting 30.
Great recruiting.
We have recruited too many mid sizers.
Hampson had a go, can do really well at times, but alas, is somwhat eratic.
Kreuzer, not actually sure what he is good for tbh, still, coming off a knee, next year will be his.
Walker, good team goes awol, not always, just mostly.
Waite hitting 30.
Great recruiting.
- Thread starter
- #59
Nope, even Setanta's body still believes he's at Carlton. Is it bad luck, or is out training regime wrong? What do Geelong do different to us? Is it drafting, training or just luck?
Scoreboard pressure. Carlton has not been able to apply any since the collingwood game. If you don't make the most of your opportunities they'll soon dry up and then everyone else on the field is under the pump and working hard to get more forward entries to make up for the lack of potency. BTW how many times has Garlett hit the post this season? the one stat I believe we may be in front in the competition.
I know that Geelong and Collingwood train in such a way to reduce the chance of injuries and to help recover quickly from an injury if it were to occur. I'm not sure if we do the same.
Doing an ACL is obviously not something you can prevent from happening.
Nor is a dislocated kneecap, fractured shoulder blade, broken shoulder, chronic back injury etc
Surely you guys will persist with Hampson. He could be developed into one of the best 3rd forward / second ruckmen going around. It is a position, actual ruck domination in which, enables a side a huge advantage.
Guys like Finey and Ralph who bash the use of ruckman as forwards end up ignoring actual output (post development) based on the height of the player who is playing forward. When you were in the match in the first half Hampson was very good. He presented with intensity, hit packs, laid tackles and created spillages which should have fed guys like Betts and Gartlett.
This sort of play is what "experts" forget they are talking about when they obsess over the contribution of key forwards to the structure of a side. It is not, really, the ability of a key forward to lead out and take a mark and kick a goal that is unique to the role of a key forward that has any significant contribution to a side's structure. This is why we were banging on about Hurley when he wasn't kicking goals. Hampson's ability to compete on your 50 would have brought a properly functioning forward line in a side with confidence into the game more than it did. Hurley or any equally highly regarded young key forward would hardly have done better than Hampson.
With his athleticism and the improvements he is making, ground level pressure is not beyond Hampson. The point is not that he can become a gun key forward, the aim should be that Hampson is penciled in as the third key forward / second ruckman and developed in the position because he could excel. He could easily get past the forward output of Leigh Brown, for example, and will kill any <195cm second ruckman in the game.
I also still think that Kruezer could still be a great, lead up half forward type (as a stop gap to be used when Waite is injured and/or until you find yourselves a key forward) but he is obviously playing injured so he is not going to be performing well in any position. It just becomes convenient to bash the use of Kreuzer as a forward because his output is low but the reality is that he is not playing well because of his body.
Guys like Finey and Ralph who bash the use of ruckman as forwards end up ignoring actual output (post development) based on the height of the player who is playing forward. When you were in the match in the first half Hampson was very good. He presented with intensity, hit packs, laid tackles and created spillages which should have fed guys like Betts and Gartlett.
This sort of play is what "experts" forget they are talking about when they obsess over the contribution of key forwards to the structure of a side. It is not, really, the ability of a key forward to lead out and take a mark and kick a goal that is unique to the role of a key forward that has any significant contribution to a side's structure. This is why we were banging on about Hurley when he wasn't kicking goals. Hampson's ability to compete on your 50 would have brought a properly functioning forward line in a side with confidence into the game more than it did. Hurley or any equally highly regarded young key forward would hardly have done better than Hampson.
With his athleticism and the improvements he is making, ground level pressure is not beyond Hampson. The point is not that he can become a gun key forward, the aim should be that Hampson is penciled in as the third key forward / second ruckman and developed in the position because he could excel. He could easily get past the forward output of Leigh Brown, for example, and will kill any <195cm second ruckman in the game.
I also still think that Kruezer could still be a great, lead up half forward type (as a stop gap to be used when Waite is injured and/or until you find yourselves a key forward) but he is obviously playing injured so he is not going to be performing well in any position. It just becomes convenient to bash the use of Kreuzer as a forward because his output is low but the reality is that he is not playing well because of his body.
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #68
Nice post Bruno. Hammer is being judged on purely marks and goals, and not on presence and creating a contest. He barely ever gets outmarked and is not as useless as some ruckmen when the ball hits the ground. He is also developing smarts when giving off to a teammate facing goal. He is not a primary forward target but is the cream on a side looking to stretch the opposition.
Too often we see a player fail in one position and call for their head. Forget what they do when playing out of position by necessity. Judge them on what they can do as a component of a structured team.
As you said, Leigh Brown played an important role for the Pies. However, if he had have been forced to play full forward for weeks because Cloke and Dawes were out, how would he have gone?
Too often we see a player fail in one position and call for their head. Forget what they do when playing out of position by necessity. Judge them on what they can do as a component of a structured team.
As you said, Leigh Brown played an important role for the Pies. However, if he had have been forced to play full forward for weeks because Cloke and Dawes were out, how would he have gone?
It is development of players (including the management of players from a strength and conditioning perspective). How could it be anything else when the same group of players is, at one stage, thought to be good enough to win a flag? It is not like the attributes identified when players are drafted suddenly leave.
Recruiting is the most overrated aspect of a football department. Collingwood's strength is fitting young players into a system to play a clearly identified role (and the dedication of people like Alan Richardson to player development and their own VFL side). It is not about magically finding players.
- Thread starter
- #71
Isn't his body a wreck?
thylacine60
Post-Human
- Banned
- #72
We really need another chronically injured forward, fmd...
Be more interested in bringing back Fev.
Putting Walker back in the forward line permanently would be a good start.
More than happy to persist with Hammer as he is capable of taking FF or a FP, as long as we have a decent KPF to support him.
Pretty sure the club hadn't accounted for all of Waite, Mitchell, Rowe and even Casboult to be injured for large chunks of the season.
Kreuzer is not an answer in the forward line and Ratts should stop bothering with it.
Garlett has done squat for ages.
So a combination of poor form, the wrong players being played there, the right players not being played there and a lack of players to choose from are the reasons our forward line is crap.
More than happy to persist with Hammer as he is capable of taking FF or a FP, as long as we have a decent KPF to support him.
Pretty sure the club hadn't accounted for all of Waite, Mitchell, Rowe and even Casboult to be injured for large chunks of the season.
Kreuzer is not an answer in the forward line and Ratts should stop bothering with it.
Garlett has done squat for ages.
So a combination of poor form, the wrong players being played there, the right players not being played there and a lack of players to choose from are the reasons our forward line is crap.
- Thread starter
- #75
Guys like Walker have struggled up forward due to a lack of space and due to the distance in which the kicker is from goal when going forward.
One thing that stands out, appart from us always going wide, not targeting the talls properly and the tall forwards not owning the corridore is the lack of run and lack of possession we are getting 50 - 90m from goal. We just aren't running and controlling the ball at half forward. We just arent getting it there. We are also not creating any space forward of the football. Especially in our forward half. Our opposition are easily creating space forward of the football against us.
I put this down to too many players getting forward of the ball too early. We are trying to do a forward press but we aren't running from behind the footy, we are positioning forward of the play when we should have just a few players forward of the footy and the rest streaming through.
The other issue is that we bring the ball around the boundry. We are horribly slow to rebound, it takes no effort for the opposition to drop back and flood. What hope do the forwards have while we are bringing the ball around the boundry and allowing the opposition to easily get back. None. Then we face the issue of having no one to go to when we do break quickly from defence. Who is organising this mess of a set up!
What we need to do is push more numbers behind the footy and have more players with a starting position behind the ball. Running players, except Betts shouldn't be too far forward of the ball if at all, they should be running through the contest and with the play. This might drag a few opposition players back and open things up on the forward side of the ball and at least it will help us to defend. We have a good running side so what we need to do is start more guys on the defensive side of the play and have these guys running hard from behind the play. Yarran, Gibbs, Walker, Garlett, Simpson, Duigan, Touhy, Armfield, Lucas and at times Robinson, Carrazzo and Judd should be looking to position themselves behind the play and run forward through the contests. At least getting numbers behing the ball would compensate for our poor clearance work.
The forward press is exposing us significantly on the rebound by allowing the opposition too much space in their forward half. We need to pull it back a bit to cover our defence and slow the opposition from rebounding. We also need to look to move the ball up the corridore like all the good teams are doing at the moment and again if we position and run from behind the footy it will make it much easier to run from behind the ball and use more handball which I believe we have not been doing enough through the midfield. The simple handball to a runner through the corridore of the midfield has been missing.
I'd much rather us flood their forwardline than ours. But I don't want us to put on a strong flood. I'd like to see a few of the bigger guys not running themselves into the ground because I think we do a lot of pointless running and our players are often too tired to chase when it is in our forward line becuase they have just come from a long run from up the ground. I'd like to see us push the wingers and flankers behind the ball, have the key position players staying at home and the pockets pushed up infront of the tall key position players ready to run back and crumb. Sure it will leave a few of their guys lose behind the play too but it will still make things more open than they are and those players won't be lose long if we run hard enough from behind the ball.
Again, I would back Ratten and Co if we were losing and playing a good brand of footy and I wasn't suspicious that the injuries and tired looking players are from poor management and not training properly and then there is the lack of size and strength issue. But this is not the case.
One thing that stands out, appart from us always going wide, not targeting the talls properly and the tall forwards not owning the corridore is the lack of run and lack of possession we are getting 50 - 90m from goal. We just aren't running and controlling the ball at half forward. We just arent getting it there. We are also not creating any space forward of the football. Especially in our forward half. Our opposition are easily creating space forward of the football against us.
I put this down to too many players getting forward of the ball too early. We are trying to do a forward press but we aren't running from behind the footy, we are positioning forward of the play when we should have just a few players forward of the footy and the rest streaming through.
The other issue is that we bring the ball around the boundry. We are horribly slow to rebound, it takes no effort for the opposition to drop back and flood. What hope do the forwards have while we are bringing the ball around the boundry and allowing the opposition to easily get back. None. Then we face the issue of having no one to go to when we do break quickly from defence. Who is organising this mess of a set up!
What we need to do is push more numbers behind the footy and have more players with a starting position behind the ball. Running players, except Betts shouldn't be too far forward of the ball if at all, they should be running through the contest and with the play. This might drag a few opposition players back and open things up on the forward side of the ball and at least it will help us to defend. We have a good running side so what we need to do is start more guys on the defensive side of the play and have these guys running hard from behind the play. Yarran, Gibbs, Walker, Garlett, Simpson, Duigan, Touhy, Armfield, Lucas and at times Robinson, Carrazzo and Judd should be looking to position themselves behind the play and run forward through the contests. At least getting numbers behing the ball would compensate for our poor clearance work.
The forward press is exposing us significantly on the rebound by allowing the opposition too much space in their forward half. We need to pull it back a bit to cover our defence and slow the opposition from rebounding. We also need to look to move the ball up the corridore like all the good teams are doing at the moment and again if we position and run from behind the footy it will make it much easier to run from behind the ball and use more handball which I believe we have not been doing enough through the midfield. The simple handball to a runner through the corridore of the midfield has been missing.
I'd much rather us flood their forwardline than ours. But I don't want us to put on a strong flood. I'd like to see a few of the bigger guys not running themselves into the ground because I think we do a lot of pointless running and our players are often too tired to chase when it is in our forward line becuase they have just come from a long run from up the ground. I'd like to see us push the wingers and flankers behind the ball, have the key position players staying at home and the pockets pushed up infront of the tall key position players ready to run back and crumb. Sure it will leave a few of their guys lose behind the play too but it will still make things more open than they are and those players won't be lose long if we run hard enough from behind the ball.
Again, I would back Ratten and Co if we were losing and playing a good brand of footy and I wasn't suspicious that the injuries and tired looking players are from poor management and not training properly and then there is the lack of size and strength issue. But this is not the case.
