How many players are locked in to our best 22 for 2011?

[Belisarius]

My side by the end of the season is -

B T.Hunt M.Scarlett Drum/Gillies
HB C.Enright H.Taylor A.Mackie
C T.Varcoe J.Bartel Duncan
HF P.Chapman C.Mooney Byrnes
F Menzel J.Podsiadly S.Johnson
R B.Ottens J.Selwood Kelly

INT D.Simpson, D.Wojcinski C.Ling J.Corey

EMG T.West M.Drum T.Hawkins JHunt, Lonergan, Stokes.

Five new players - so a fair turn over and some good emergencies.

Following year Mooney retired and either Vardy, B johnson or Brown taking CHF.

Byrnes probably gone for Motlop or Smedts or Guthrie.

 

[Vdubs]

My side by the end of the season is -

B T.Hunt M.Scarlett Drum/Gillies
HB C.Enright H.Taylor A.Mackie
C T.Varcoe J.Bartel Duncan
HF P.Chapman C.Mooney Byrnes
F Menzel J.Podsiadly S.Johnson
R B.Ottens J.Selwood Kelly

INT D.Simpson, D.Wojcinski C.Ling J.Corey

EMG T.West M.Drum T.Hawkins JHunt, Lonergan, Stokes.

Five new players - so a fair turn over and some good emergencies.

Following year Mooney retired and either Vardy, B johnson or Brown taking CHF.

Byrnes probably gone for Motlop or Smedts or Guthrie.

All agreed, except Blake for Ottens and somebody for Corey

 

[Belisarius]

I should have added Ling will be replaced in 2012 by one of Smedts, Guthrie or Shroder.

Joel Corey, if his knee comes good, will play this season and still be a good contributor. If his knee is dickey then yes he will be replaced by seasons end.

Thinking Smedts if it happens.

Note - I have not bitten the bullet and replaced one KP player for this year - maybe the biggest issue we have if Ottens or Mooney or Scarlett have an injury or form drops off. I just do not think the replacements are ready yet for a KP in the senior side. Hope I am wrong.

I reckon Simpson has more of a future than Blake. If Ottens falls over I think we are in trouble given we have lost Ablett - as the mid-field will not be as strong. We need a good ruckman more than ever with his departure.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I think with Hogan it's even simpler than that, it's simply his disposal that needs to improve. He's rarely had a problem getting the ball at senior level, it's the quality of delivery that lets him down. If he can lift that to the required standard, he could yet be a useful player.

A few fans I know have mentioned possibly trying Hogan as a tagger. He's got the endurance, and pace. Could be worse options at the moment.

Really enjoying this phase, it looks like there could be some very different names running around in certainly the NAB Cup and possibly round 1.

Yeah true, although you have to work out why that is so, and the answer is because as I said, he's indecisive and overthinks (and sometimes makes bad decisions), and he can get away with it at VFL level but not afl level where it's so much quicker and you have less time to make decisions. I've watched heaps of our VFL the last couple of years and someone like Djerrkura up and unders the ball a lot whereas Hogan is actually a very good kick, and dominates at VFL level because he has time to hesitate or be off with the decisions, but at the top level he doesn't.

Hence why tagging, following a bloke around a lot, may be a good option because as you say he's one of the best endurance runners we have.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

My side by the end of the season is -

B T.Hunt M.Scarlett Drum/Gillies
HB C.Enright H.Taylor A.Mackie
C T.Varcoe J.Bartel Duncan
HF P.Chapman C.Mooney Byrnes
F Menzel J.Podsiadly S.Johnson
R B.Ottens J.Selwood Kelly

INT D.Simpson, D.Wojcinski C.Ling J.Corey

EMG T.West M.Drum T.Hawkins JHunt, Lonergan, Stokes.

Five new players - so a fair turn over and some good emergencies.

Following year Mooney retired and either Vardy, B johnson or Brown taking CHF.

Byrnes probably gone for Motlop or Smedts or Guthrie.

Swap Simpson for West or Vardy and Ling for somebody less slow and that's about the right side.

 

[brown tabby]

Swap Simpson for West or Vardy and Ling for somebody less slow and that's about the right side.

Agree with all that. Except I'd want to make room for Hawkins. What's the problem with three talls with one on the bench? Or low and behold, all of them on the park with one as a lead up?

 

[Partridge]

Agree with all that. Except I'd want to make room for Hawkins. What's the problem with three talls with one on the bench? Or low and behold, all of them on the park with one as a lead up?

1. Makes the forward line (and by extension the side) too slow.
2. We got horrendously and brutally exposed in the finals with exactly this setup. It wasn't the only problem we had, but it was a big one.
3. Neither Pods nor Mooney nor Hawkins exactly deserve a game based on their finals efforts, let alone all three.
4. It makes us too slow.

 

[brown tabby]

1. Makes the forward line (and by extension the side) too slow.
2. We got horrendously and brutally exposed in the finals with exactly this setup. It wasn't the only problem we had, but it was a big one.
3. Neither Pods nor Mooney nor Hawkins exactly deserve a game based on their finals efforts, let alone all three.
4. It makes us too slow.

Boring rubbish argument! What is this manifest problem with three talls? Besides Pods is 193 and plays as a semi-tall & can play lead up.

When did we get exposed because of this set up in the finals? You say it wasn't the only problem...it wasn't a problem at all. The Mids got smashed and you blame the Forwards. Anyway, let's assess the claim.

St.Kilda? No, we should've won that game. Besides Pods missed that night, so no problem there with either theory.
Freo? It worked alright then. 1-0 Talls
Collingwood? And you blame the forward structure for that? Our Mids deserved the blame that night. At best 1-1 draw for our theories. I think Talls take the points.

Besides, everyone on here reckons Mooney & Pods before Hawkins. MADNESS - THINK FUTURE!!!!
Crap Hawkins off this season with sporatic games and he'll get a nice BIG offer from GWS, and we'll be left with Mooney (going on 43 next year) and Pods (29/30). Yeah, smart strategic thinking there. Come on...Hawkins must be played up front and left there to find his feet. He was just breaking through in 09 and then we stuffed around with him last year. Be pragmatic and calculating, Mooney & Pods are on the way out very soon anyway. All respect to them, but thems the facts!

If Hawkins gets a consistent go next year in the forward line, I'm tipping 60+ goals. Time for Mooney & Pods to make room for him.

 

[you pick one]

I think with Hogan it's even simpler than that, it's simply his disposal that needs to improve. He's rarely had a problem getting the ball at senior level, it's the quality of delivery that lets him down. If he can lift that to the required standard, he could yet be a useful player.

A few fans I know have mentioned possibly trying Hogan as a tagger. He's got the endurance, and pace. Could be worse options at the moment.

Really enjoying this phase, it looks like there could be some very different names running around in certainly the NAB Cup and possibly round 1.

Good take on Hogan first instinct is to dish it off with a handball, if it's not on he's under pressure or puts someone else under pressure.Hope Scott encourages the likes of Hogan Varcoe Duncan Menzel to run and carry, try and brake the lines,Instinctive football, take the first option, not this I must look for a handball all the time it's the Geelong way.That's the bit the good sides depend on to beat us.

 

[Claude Balls]

Boring rubbish argument! What is this manifest problem with three talls? Besides Pods is 193 and plays as a semi-tall & can play lead up.

When did we get exposed because of this set up in the finals? You say it wasn't the only problem...it wasn't a problem at all. The Mids got smashed and you blame the Forwards. Anyway, let's assess the claim.

St.Kilda? No, we should've won that game. Besides Pods missed that night, so no problem there with either theory.
Freo? It worked alright then. 1-0 Talls
Collingwood? And you blame the forward structure for that? Our Mids deserved the blame that night. At best 1-1 draw for our theories. I think Talls take the points.

Besides, everyone on here reckons Mooney & Pods before Hawkins. MADNESS - THINK FUTURE!!!!
Crap Hawkins off this season with sporatic games and he'll get a nice BIG offer from GWS, and we'll be left with Mooney (going on 43 next year) and Pods (29/30). Yeah, smart strategic thinking there. Come on...Hawkins must be played up front and left there to find his feet. He was just breaking through in 09 and then we stuffed around with him last year. Be pragmatic and calculating, Mooney & Pods are on the way out very soon anyway. All respect to them, but thems the facts!

If Hawkins gets a consistent go next year in the forward line, I'm tipping 60+ goals. Time for Mooney & Pods to make room for him.

But how is Hawk going to get a good go and kick 60+ with 2 other talls to compete with. You did just advocate having 3 talls in the forwardline at once didn't you?

By the way, have you heard of the term 'defensive pressure'? It is pretty big these days - in fact it won Collingwood the premiership this year. It doesn't work when 50% of the players in the forward line are over 6'4" and not quick.

 

[brown tabby]

But how is Hawk going to get a good go and kick 60+ with 2 other talls to compete with. You did just advocate having 3 talls in the forwardline at once didn't you?

By the way, have you heard of the term 'defensive pressure'? It is pretty big these days - in fact it won Collingwood the premiership this year. It doesn't work when 50% of the players in the forward line are over 6'4" and not quick.

Point 1: I did advocate three talls at once, or three talls with one on the bench, or two talls in the forward 50 with one ranging up the ground as a lead up target out of the back line. It's called flexibility! Most on this forum think only 2 at most...that limits all those options. Besides, when one tall or both talls are not firing, you have no other option if you stick to just two. I find the two talls structure less flexible than three.

Point 2: Three talls YES, but leave Hawkins up front...he will kick a bag! He is our future, start honoring him as such! I don't see your logic that having three talls automatically means one of them can't kick 60 goals in 22 games. I find this a negative & self-limiting philosophy!

Point 3: Defensive Pressure. And you don't think three talls can create offensive pressure! Opposition will have to think about playing a third tall in defense to match up. Horses for courses! And yes, if we become a little cumbersome, then bench one. Pretty simple really!

Collingwood are an interesting subject that actually backs up my theory. Cloke, Dawes, and Leigh Brown (similar size to Pods: Brown 194cm, 101kg while Pods is 193cm, 102kg - we'll have to play spot the difference) played up the ground as a big strong unit who could float back onto forward line to create third tall option. YES IT DID WORK FOR THEM!!! I rest my case!

My wife is a mad Pies fan, so I watch them a lot, and they love their flexibility with their two talls + 1 = 3 Talls or 2 Talls given the situation.

Anyway, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree over this. Some say 2, I say 3. In the end Chris Scott will decide!

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Agree with all that. Except I'd want to make room for Hawkins. What's the problem with three talls with one on the bench? Or low and behold, all of them on the park with one as a lead up?

It'll be the latter, but the third tall will have to be the second ruckman (I suspect most clubs will go this way under the new rule) so unless Hawkins plans to become that, he'll still have to find good enough form to push Mooney out of the side, or he'll be playing VFL at various stages in 2011.

With one less bench player, we can't afford to have a tall on the bench for anything but the briefest periods, so in all likelihood only three of Pods, Mooney, Hawkins and West will play in the side.

 

[brown tabby]

It'll be the latter, but the third tall will have to be the second ruckman (I suspect most clubs will go this way under the new rule) so unless Hawkins plans to become that, he'll still have to find good enough form to push Mooney out of the side, or he'll be playing VFL at various stages in 2011.

With one less bench player, we can't afford to have a tall on the bench for anything but the briefest periods, so in all likelihood only three of Pods, Mooney, Hawkins and West will play in the side.

Agree But I think Mooney would be ok on the ball, leaving Hawkins to settle down at Full Forward. That's best case scenario of course.

 

[Partridge]

Agree But I think Mooney would be ok on the ball, leaving Hawkins to settle down at Full Forward. That's best case scenario of course.

Sorry, but I think Mooney on the ball is a recipe for disaster. It's amazing how many people keep referring to that as a backup plan. Mooney hasn't played in the ruck for us since 2005. That is a long time ago now. He's much older, and much slower. I just can't see him adding any value in that role, and he'll get slaughtered at centre bounces.

It's been mentioned on here before, but we do have 5 ruckmen on our list. I'd rather play 2 ruckman and see how that goes. Ottens and West would be my preferred option, but I'd love to see Dawson Simpson get a game also.

I'm hoping we revert to a traditional (and sane) structure of 2 key forwards and 2 ruckman (and 2 key defenders too, but that's another argument). As long as the correct players are chosen there shouldn't be a problem. If that means Mooney or Pods or Hawkins has to play in the seconds bad luck. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of 2010.

 

[meto]

We need 3 talls, last year proved that, once we went away from that formula, we struggled to kick 100 pts a match.

Collingwood, Dawes, Cloke and Brown with McCaffer the Johnson size mid and two smalls.

That's the formula!!!!!!!!!

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Sorry, but I think Mooney on the ball is a recipe for disaster. It's amazing how many people keep referring to that as a backup plan. Mooney hasn't played in the ruck for us since 2005. That is a long time ago now. He's much older, and much slower. I just can't see him adding any value in that role, and he'll get slaughtered at centre bounces.

It's been mentioned on here before, but we do have 5 ruckmen on our list. I'd rather play 2 ruckman and see how that goes. Ottens and West would be my preferred option, but I'd love to see Dawson Simpson get a game also.

I'm hoping we revert to a traditional (and sane) structure of 2 key forwards and 2 ruckman (and 2 key defenders too, but that's another argument). As long as the correct players are chosen there shouldn't be a problem. If that means Mooney or Pods or Hawkins has to play in the seconds bad luck. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of 2010.

I agree, only ruckmen in the ruck.

I know with the new rule the second ruckman must be mobile and able to play elsewhere, but he still must be a decent ruckman. To me, either West or Vardy (though the latter probably isn't ready yet) fit that description better than Mooney or Hawkins, so someone has to be dropped so we can play a decent 2nd ruck, so be it.

 

[Partridge]

I agree, only ruckmen in the ruck.

I know with the new rule the second ruckman must be mobile and able to play elsewhere, but he still must be a decent ruckman. To me, either West or Vardy (though the latter probably isn't ready yet) fit that description better than Mooney or Hawkins, so someone has to be dropped so we can play a decent 2nd ruck, so be it.

Absolutely. A selection of say Ottens and West in the ruck, with Pods and Hawkins up forward sounds fine to me.

Obviously this is based on pre-season form, fitness and attitude and so forth, but I don't see any of our key forwards pencilled in at this stage.

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

I agree that no-one is an automatic lock for 2011 but based on expectations and form I would expect the following : Bartel , Selwood, Kelly, Scarlett, Taylor, Enright, Chapman, SJ and Varcoe.
Bit thin on the big man side of things...........

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Absolutely. A selection of say Ottens and West in the ruck, with Pods and Hawkins up forward sounds fine to me.

Obviously this is based on pre-season form, fitness and attitude and so forth, but I don't see any of our key forwards pencilled in at this stage.

Agree.

The thing meto hasn't accounted for is 3 talls is fine (I know you didn't like it last year, but this year everyone will be doing it so it's fine) but not 4 talls. Yes Collingwood did play 3 talls, but they won't now play one extra because they already have the ideal second ruck for the new rule (Brown). So for us, it's Ottens (or if he isn't fit, Simpson or Blake), with West as the second ruckman playing 50-60 % as the 3rd tall forward and relieving in the ruck, along with 2 of Pods/Mooney/Hawkins as far as I can see.

 

[brown tabby]

Fair enough, we've had the debate about the forward talls & ruckmen. I'll only say that Hawkins must be first option from this point on as he is the future, Mooney & Pods simply are not.

BUT I wanted to bring up another contentious one. I see that most on this thread have omitted Lonergan from their starting 22. Again, this astounds me. I thought he was great last year and rarely had his colors lowered. He had some big roles too. My contention is that he must now be our permanent CHB as he has size and strength to become another Egan. The BIG pillar that we've been searching for since 07. I know he gets regularly canned on this forum...I honestly don't know why.

The only reason I can think of is that he had a ripping season in the forward line in 08 only to have a bad finals series...consequently everyone blamed him for our lose against the arch-enemy. Other than that, he's done absolutely nothing wrong in my opinion.

He's tough, honest, pretty good at ground level for his size. And most of all courageous. As with Hawkins...I believe we have to lock Lonergan down to a key position and leave him there. Allowing Taylor & Scarlett use their creative flair around him.

Thoughts?

 

[you pick one]

I agree that no-one is an automatic lock for 2011 but based on expectations and form I would expect the following : Bartel , Selwood, Kelly, Scarlett, Taylor, Enright, Chapman, SJ and Varcoe.
Bit thin on the big man side of things...........

I picked my locks in order, I had all the above ,I slotted Mooney in at 7 head and shoulder still the best bet at CHF,also had Mackie[ AA again next year] Pods and otto at jack,queen,king.
So thats 13 locked in for me.
And like you thin on big men.

 

[Gaz_Brownlow]

We shouldn't make the trap of trying to copy Collingwoods structure and gameplan to the tee....Afterall 16 other teams will be modifying themselves to that style.

I would suggest that if we have 4 geniune talls then we play 4 geniune talls...trouble is i don't think we do. I would definitely imagine Mooney and Otto' will decline slightly this year....Otto' has not put together a season since 07' so we should be just concentrating on playing him in a somewhat reduced capacity.... I like West being able to play the more mobile role, i think he is aggressive enough and still a reasonable enough ruck...would love to see him get the opportunity. Certainly there is great competition between him and Dawson for the no#2 role, you would imagine that a few people are a bit sick of Blake.

Its hard to see Pods getting removed from FF after playing such a pivotal role last year....Not sure what Scott will try with Mooney and Hawkins, but both have roles to play. Certainly, i think the Hawkins ruck experiment will be put aside and Hawkins will just have to establish himself as a key forward in some capacity....I think Mooney can still play a deep leading option with Hawkins occupting true CHF. Aggression is the key for Hawkins, if he can find it again he will cement his spot.

I can see a lot of our Goals this year coming from a focussed attack with the likes of Mitch Brown and Daniel Menzel forcing there way into the team and benefitting from the roles that Hawkins, Mooney, Podsiadly and Stevie Johnson play.

 

[Gaz_Brownlow]

My side by the end of the season is -

B T.Hunt M.Scarlett Drum/Gillies
HB C.Enright H.Taylor A.Mackie
C T.Varcoe J.Bartel Duncan
HF P.Chapman C.Mooney Byrnes
F Menzel J.Podsiadly S.Johnson
R B.Ottens J.Selwood Kelly

INT D.Simpson, D.Wojcinski C.Ling J.Corey

EMG T.West M.Drum T.Hawkins JHunt, Lonergan, Stokes.

Five new players - so a fair turn over and some good emergencies.

Following year Mooney retired and either Vardy, B johnson or Brown taking CHF.

Byrnes probably gone for Motlop or Smedts or Guthrie.

B Lonergan M.Scarlett Joel Corey
HB C.Enright H.Taylor A.Mackie
C T.Varcoe J.Bartel Kelly
HF T. Hawkins, C.Mooney Byrnes
F Menzel J.Podsiadly S.Johnson
R B.Ottens J.Selwood Chapman

INT T. West, D.Wojcinski C.Ling ,M.Brown

EMG D.Simpson T.Hawkins, Stokes, J.Hunt

Thats a very solid team, a team that can still challenge for a premiership!

 

[brown tabby]

Locked in best 22 for round 1...I'm not as hard to please as most.
In no particular order,

Scarlett,
Taylor
Enright,
Lonergan,
Mackie
Varcoe,
Bartell,
Kelly
Chapman,
Mooney,
Johnson,
Hawkins,
Ottens,
Corey,
Selwood
Pods,
Brynes
Milburn
J. Hunt

They are locked in for mine...3 spots up for grabs.

 

[brown tabby]

B Lonergan M.Scarlett Joel Corey
HB C.Enright H.Taylor A.Mackie
C T.Varcoe J.Bartel Kelly
HF T. Hawkins, C.Mooney Byrnes
F Menzel J.Podsiadly S.Johnson
R B.Ottens J.Selwood Chapman

INT T. West, D.Wojcinski C.Ling ,M.Brown

EMG D.Simpson T.Hawkins, Stokes, J.Hunt

Thats a very solid team, a team that can still challenge for a premiership!

LOVE IT...that's almost identical to my team. Not afraid to play the talls up front (although you have Hawkins as an emergency) & Lonergan is in! my only change was to have him at CHB...not sure about Corey playing deep in defense. Yet trifles, looks good. Even a dash of youth to excite. Like it a lot.