Is our 3 pronged KPF team going to work? Smack, Walker, Tex

[earlsta]

Is it?

I don't see any other team running with 3 KPF's.
I guess it's sorta two..because Smack plays as a ruckman.
I'm just worried about our forward pressure when guys run the ball out of our forward 50.

How long will we persist with this setup. To be honest, Smack is too good to not be playing AFL, so he has to play, along with Tex and Tipp for obvious reasons.

Will we ever have these three guys in the F50 working alone? You all know Smack had the second highest leap in his draft year...#1 was Natanui.
All our guys are pushing 100kgs, I know Tipp is, but Walker would be close now and so would Smack.

No teams have 3rd KPD to contain a 3rd tall that weighs that much. How is this going to work? I'm really worried about the defensive pressure in our forward 50, otherwise sure I see this setup working, but we need to be on the ball here..

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Walker and Tex are both good players

I reckon the three key talls can work. Tippett and Mckernan will basically share the second ruck duties with Jacobs filling the bulk of the ruck role.

It is a similar set up to Collingwood who rotate Cloke, Brown and Dawes through the forward line with Brown providing relief for Jolly.

The difference at the moment - apart from the obvious different in class - is that Collingwood have worked towards a precise kicking game that allows them to hit these forwards on the lead or to generate one on one contests. Our footskills don't allow us to play this type of game so we are reliant on the bomb it long tactic which means big packs and a tough gig for the key forwards. Add no crumbers and it isn't difficult to see why we've been so rubbish for the last two seasons.

So... after all that waffle... yes, it can work if we get a new coach who values foot skills and selects/recruits accordingly and who has more attacking ploys than just the rain-maker to the top of the goal square.

 

[Mego Red]

So... after all that waffle... yes, it can work if we get a new coach who values foot skills and selects/recruits accordingly and who has more attacking ploys than just the rain-maker to the top of the goal square.

Do any of your posts not end up being attacks at Craig? Even when I agree with you, it's gets tedious.

 

[Crow_Magnon]

Is it?

I don't see any other team running with 3 KPF's.
I guess it's sorta two..because Smack plays as a ruckman.
I'm just worried about our forward pressure when guys run the ball out of our forward 50.

How long will we persist with this setup. To be honest, Smack is too good to not be playing AFL, so he has to play, along with Tex and Tipp for obvious reasons.

Will we ever have these three guys in the F50 working alone? You all know Smack had the second highest leap in his draft year...#1 was Natanui.
All our guys are pushing 100kgs, I know Tipp is, but Walker would be close now and so would Smack.

No teams have 3rd KPD to contain a 3rd tall that weighs that much. How is this going to work? I'm really worried about the defensive pressure in our forward 50, otherwise sure I see this setup working, but we need to be on the ball here..

I think it can work, but not sure we should have all three up forward at once. I wasn't overly impressed with Smack against Carlton...and can't really agree with all the hype surrounding him by some posters. Looks like a gangling, awkward sort of bloke...but does do the odd good thing. I'd prefer him to come off the bench and relieve Jacobs purely in the ruck, unless he's desperately needed up forward. Also a bit worried we'll be too top heavy / slow this week against the Saints - given the weather forecast. Would have preferred maybe Schmidt to come in before Davis - at least for this week.

 

[Lawrst]

Yes it will work if we can learn to hit a target in the forward 50. Sure Smack and Tip can take some great marks and Walker can make things happen from no where but we would look much better if we put the ball to these guys advantage.

 

[Cap]

I think it will work

The quality of the player is more important that their height - WB used to win games with a small forward line.

Clubs are going to have a some difficulty containing all three if they fire, regardless the #1 tall forward will always start on Tippet openinig up the game for Walker and Smack.

With Jacobs resting down their it is going to be a tough forward line to defend if we can get it down there

 

[knobby]

It can work, Tex can play the deep forward, traditional FF kind of role, Smack in FP alongside Tex (opposing back men would have nightmares if ball is delivered properly) with Tippo playing floating across HF and taking ruck duties in forward 50 this can be interchanged with Smack as well.
This then also allows Jacobs to play that kick behind play role as well.
Just need a genuine crumber to complete it which I think is what Callinan was being groomed for until his injury (Wright or Jaensch now maybe).

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Do any of your posts not end up being attacks at Craig? Even when I agree with you, it's gets tedious.

And those in the opposite "It's not Craig's fault because..." camp would be equally tedious I gather?

 

[ruscy002]

I think it will work

The quality of the player is more important that their height - WB used to win games with a small forward line.

Clubs are going to have a some difficulty containing all three if they fire, regardless the #1 tall forward will always start on Tippet openinig up the game for Walker and Smack.

With Jacobs resting down their it is going to be a tough forward line to defend if we can get it down there

Eggzackery!

Tippo, Tex and Smack aren't the issue, between them there's as much raw potential as any forward line in the comp. The midfield has to be up to the task of getting it to them with some kind of fluency.

Step 1 - Get Vince fit and back in form. He is an excellent long, penetrating kick when he's on song.

Step 2 - Gunston in, slot him in on a wing and play through him to use up those silky skills.

Step 3 - Return of the Mack(ay). Right up there in terms of footskills and we're missing them badly at the moment. Ditto Porplyzia.

Step 4 - Target an established midfielder with elite footskills in this year's meat market. Don't really care if we have to torch our first round DP in order to do this, our squad will benefit more from the addition of a 22-26 year old rather than another 18 year old with potential.

 

[WALL-e]

Collingwood go with 2 KPF's + Brown who stars forward with them, rucks and filled gaps in the back line occasionally.

Our tall forward line isn't our problem at the moment.

 

[WAG]

I agree that it can work, but I'm worried that when they don't mark it or take control of the ball, it is rebounded out far to easily. As carl said, at the moment our forward entires are still predominantly the bomb it long on their heads option. We know that Tip is a great mark and even if he has no chance he usually provides a contest to bring it the ground, however as it has been for the last x years, we are missing that small crumbing forward ingrediant that turns good forward lines into potent attacks. With Callinan out, we still haven't been able to find that guy.

So yes, on those perfect 20 degree sunny days, our three pronged attack has the potential to rip sides apart, but I'm more worried about the other 17 games of the year.

 

[Cap]

I actually think that the Sub rule has had a unintended consequence.

I don't believe all the clubs are now working towards a similar game plan like what was occuring.

Whilst I don't like it, I don't wind the fact that we don't have 14 teams trying to emulate the top 2.

 

[beartoo]

Our forwards don't work hard enough to provide quality leads. It is not simply a case of the mids being unable to deliver, they often lack mobile targets to kick to.
Contrast our forwards to blokes like either Rooey, Dawes, Cloke, JB, Fev....

 

[ruscy002]

Our forwards don't work hard enough to provide quality leads. It is not simply a case of the mids being unable to deliver, they often lack mobile targets to kick to.
Contrast our forwards to blokes like either Rooey, Dawes, Cloke, JB, Fev....

I get what you're saying, but there is a lot of "bomb it in long" about our game, and working hard to present is just a waste of time and effort.

Walker is definitely the one who needs to get on his bike more though. He becomes first option, then if he's covered then let Tippett and/or McKernan fly at it.

 

[Cap]

I agree, Walker should be the "go to" guy

his footy nous means he gets there, it just is often enough.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Our forwards don't work hard enough to provide quality leads. It is not simply a case of the mids being unable to deliver, they often lack mobile targets to kick to.
Contrast our forwards to blokes like either Rooey, Dawes, Cloke, JB, Fev....

That's a fair point. There are certainly times when Walker and Tippett don't present hard enough up the ground.

The best forwards manage to put distance between them and their defenders, making the kicker's job easier.

I remember one commentator describing the 'uncontested mark' stat as a misnomer, after watching Reiwoldt play. he would work his man over, lead 2-3 times, double back, dodge, push off him and then burn him with his run. He'd end up taking a mark in the clear but there is nothing uncontested about it.

 

[jenny61_99]

Last week was the first time we saw glimpses of how this approach could work as we allowed space for them to lead into. I suspect it wouldn't work against all teams particularly those with small running defenders - unless we are accurate with our kicks and don't drop the ball to ground. Essendon seem to be exploring this option too at the moment, playing three ruckmen.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Last week was the first time we saw glimpses of how this approach could work as we allowed space for them to lead into. I suspect it wouldn't work against all teams particularly those with small running defenders - unless we are accurate with our kicks and don't drop the ball to ground. Essendon seem to be exploring this option too at the moment, playing three ruckmen.

Last week was definitely the best signs we have seen from our forward line in terms of structure. We managed to generate one on one contests and isolated their worse defenders really well.

The work of our forwards was the major reason we were still in the game given that our midfield got smashed.

 

[Bovo]

My biggest concern with such a top heavy forward is the oval may eventually tip over...even flip upside down. In my opinion I don't think we are that top heavy, in fact I think we are very very lucky to have 3 players of that size. What we need now is a couple of crumbers and we will have a balanced outfit.

With the new interchange of 3, a second dedicated ruckman no longer exists. We can afford to have one dedicated ruck, and a fwd/ruck or def/ruck rotate. When the ball comes in high, the talls have a better chance of marking the ball than the smalls. It also very importantly stretches the opposition defenders; not many are suited for 3 big lumbering forwards.

 

[knobby]

Big Blokes struggling in the wet is quite often a myth ! Sure the big marks arent available, but the wet will tend to slow the speedier teams down ! There is also a saying in football "Big Blokes are still big blokes when it is wet" meaning they are still big bodies and still valuable taking chest marks crashing packs etc.
On a dry day the speedier teams will tend to run you off your feet ! Unless delivery is good and marks are grabbed !
Its a catch 22 really.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Blighty didn't mind playing big blokes in the wet. I remember him explaining once that even if the conditions were totally unsuitable it guaranteed that the opposition would have to have a big oaf in their backlines making errors where they are most dangerous.

 

[WALL-e]

As long as they're not slow flat footed blokes, t's good.

Bigs ware their men down in the wet. Tip and Smack always a change for a contested mark as well as being very agile and ruck components and Walker is so strong h=in his core he'll slip a lot of tackles.

Where we need help is the SF guys to be at the feet.

Need aREAL opportunist.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Blighty didn't mind playing big blokes in the wet. I remember him explaining once that even if the conditions were totally unsuitable it guaranteed that the opposition would have to have a big oaf in their backlines making errors where they are most dangerous.

Vintage Malcolm.

 

[Slippery Pete]

I think it's too predictable to use as a standard set play every week. In situations like last week where we use it to stretch a small defence - that's great. But in other situations it's not going to work at all.

As Spackler noted earlier in the thread, kicking long to a forward contest is not what you want to be doing on every entry. Bread and butter needs to be hitting a lead.

This is why on occasions I'd take Tippett out of there completely and let Walker work his magic.

 

[Freddy Bassett]

I think it's too predictable to use as a standard set play every week. In situations like last week where we use it to stretch a small defence - that's great. But in other situations it's not going to work at all.

As Spackler noted earlier in the thread, kicking long to a forward contest is not what you want to be doing on every entry. Bread and butter needs to be hitting a lead.

This is why on occasions I'd take Tippett out of there completely and let Walker work his magic.

Couldnt agree more SP. And Walker on other occassions needs to play a more mobile game, up the ground to leave Tippett at times isolated up forward, depending on match up's. Our forward line needs to be less predicatable and more flexible.
As much as everyone used to say leave Tippett out of the ruck, with the new interchange rule, I think he will need to rotate through there.