Autopsy Pies win by 11 points

[loki04]

I largely have the same 22 other than White and Greenwood out and Cox and Smith in (I think). Smith got a spot because I think they need the extra defender unless you play Varcoe or Adams back.

i get Scodog10 point with the Dogs and hence be happy with either Cox or White but dont think you can have both. I think its a big bet to try and stretch them on a fast deck. I'd rather pick up the extra ball winner as winning the ball vital against them. be interesting to look at the mix when we nearly beat them both games last year to see what we did at selection.

Too much Goldsack for mine.

 

[Quicky]

It is a bit of a puzzle as to what is our optimum forward line. I think Cloke in the past led us to be very one dimensional up forward and I see it as a positive we now have a lot of other genuine goal scorers and different match ups/type of players to share the load.

Cox, Moore & White to me seems 1 too many big guys inside 50, although White & Moore are very mobile. We have so many others that will be more effective as a 3rd forward in my opinion than Cox or White. I see Elliot & Fasolo as marking options although they are smaller, in many ways they are a better overhead marking option than White. So I think we go 2 of those big guys with Moore obviously one of those.

Mayne does not carry all that much excitement but I think he is a smart player who can create the space for the excitement machines. Mayne is a guy that will keep the defence honest, he knows how to mark & lead over & over and you cannot lag off him to double team guys like Cox & Moore. So Mayne can really separate defenders which is a key these days.

At the end of the day it has to be how we maximise the talent of Darcy Moore. I think it is stupidity to expect Darcy to play deep forward and be successful as that makes it very easy for the defence to plan for him and take his run & jump away. Already from the practice & JLT games I see Darcy playing too deep and being negated. Darcy needs to be able to roam the forward half and use his athleticism. So the question then becomes who can play deep forward and give the defenders headaches. The answer there is not Jesse White. Jesse in many ways is a poor mans Darcy Moore, he can play a similar role as outlined above for Darcy, but he can't play deep forward well and attract defenders to him as his threat overhead is not good enough and the oppositions best defender will always beat him.

This leaves Mason Cox. As we saw last year even if he just looks like he may take a few marks the defenders get attracted to him and begin to enter orbit around this great mass of a man. This I see as the only thing he needs to achieve as it makes their defence predictable. Last year seeing the discomfort of gun key defenders like Harry Taylor around him is a great sign - they don't like him in their D50. We will have Fasolo Mayne Elliot & Moore all circling around threatening to mark the ball which means they leave Cox one on one with a shorter guy in the square or they let the others off the leash. Cox like Mayne will allow the forward line to operate better and maxmise our stars output even if they are not kicking bags each week. Cox with these new ruck rules will become a dominant ruckman over time as well, which Grundy needs, so that for me makes it a no brainer to pick him over Jesse.

Where does this leave Jesse White? I think he made big strides last year, beginning with finding form as a defender in the twos. This turned his whole game style around. If he can remain a versatile/flexible player I think he still has a role to play even just off the bench where he can go back/forward/ruck - even wing as required, maybe he is a better utility option than Goldsack. He provides great depth and is more than a useful replacement when injuries hit.

I think you and PIrOed have convinced me.

 

[PIrOed]

I think you and PIrOed have convinced me.

We had a similiar conversation about Cox and White in the Round 1 Best 22 thread about a month ago. At that time my opinion was that it would be better going more mobile with White in the belief that Moore would progress enough to play that deep role. However after watching Moore struggle last Thursday I now think it is important that there is another big body in the forward line to take some of the heat off him. To 4#Didak#4 credit they had already come to that conclusion a month ago.

 

[pablo disco bar]

whiskeytown can you confirm?


Mods delete.

Dont think so

 

[pablo disco bar]

whiskeytown can you confirm?


Mods delete.

Its good that his big and hard at it....

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Where does this leave Jesse White? I think he made big strides last year, beginning with finding form as a defender in the twos. This turned his whole game style around. If he can remain a versatile/flexible player I think he still has a role to play even just off the bench where he can go back/forward/ruck - even wing as required, maybe he is a better utility option than Goldsack. He provides great depth and is more than a useful replacement when injuries hit.

I rewatched the game and declare White the more useful of the two players. Goldsack looked slow and fumbled in the air. I prefer someone else in that fullback role. Goldsack should play a year of VFL if we are to be a serious AFL threat.

A player we will miss for his speed and run in defence is Sinclair. We have no one like him.

 

[sr36]

I think Moore can have a successful year when he hits his stride but I'm not expecting drastic improvement compared to 2016 at this stage unless/until we see a run of games where he really dominates.

I know you weren't meaning to fence sit or hedge your bets, but this gave me a chuckle.

 

[Gone Critical]

Scodog10 been reading this thread with interest and as usual enjoying the thoughts you put forward. Just wanted to put forward some views and evidence that might challenge a theme that you have running through here that Cox is not suited to the forward ruck role as opposed to the ruck forward role. My view agrees with yours in that with Grundy in the team the only role available to Cox is forward ruck but disagree that he can't be suitable for it. My first feeling is it's the role he has predominantly played both at VFL and AFL level thus far in his career. It's the role that Collingwood is grooming him for, wisely with Grundy there, and he has shown some appitude for it. I have places some alternative ideas below

Cox looked solid in the middle last week because he's a ruckman not a forward just like Witts. Unfortunately for him we have an exceptional ruck already so he has to bide his time. Picking three talls (two of whom provide no aerial impact) would make a mockery of our emphasis on defensive pressure!

Cox is a completely different kettle of fish to Witts as a forward. Just on goal scoring ability alone the contrast is stark. Cox 17 goals in 11 games, Witts 18 goals in 40 games. Additionally Cox has elite speed for a big man meaning he can develop further as a leading player and is much more adept offensively below his knees. Comes from soccer I expect but involves tap ons and clearing a path for teammates etc also. Clearly defensively he struggles to impact. Cox is also taller with a much greater leap which means he can even present an even bigger differential in height difference. He is just a different proposition on the forward line compared to Witts

The main issue I have with playing him in the same 22 as Grundy is that he'll need to be forward for 80% of the match and he's just too one dimensional for that to be value adding.
Your final point sums things up nicely he could make a pretty impressive ruck/ fwd not fwd/ ruck! I just hope the club are wise enough to see the differegnce.

While goalkicking isn't the only measure of a forward it remains the primary function so it's interesting to contrast how Cox goes there. Off the top of my head the two most successful players who have spent a lot of time as forward rucks in recent times would be Ryder and Hale. There may be better examples I have neglected. Still Hale in his Hawthorn years never came near scoring 1.6 goals/game that Cox managed in his 1st 11games. Hale was a 3x flag player mainly living in that forward-ruck role. One year at North he was able to match that rate. Ryder, he has rucked a lot but had years also where he played more forward has also never got near that goal per game rate in 10 seasons.

Looking at some of the premier KPFs of recent times only Jeremy Cameron has outscored Cox when 1st 11 games are compared. Cloke 9 goals, Cameron 22 goals, Lynch 12 goals, Wright 11goals, Moore 11 goals, J Riewoldt 13 goals, Kennedy 6 goals, Hawkins 13 goals. Interesting but not necessarily conclusive figures.

I can't see Cox working as the deep man because KPD's have learned to body him and our ball use further afield isn't good enough to get him on the lead. It'll lead to a heap of long bombs to the top of the square. The only advantage is he'll rarely be outmarked, but once it hits the ground he's dead in the water creating an outnumber on top of the loose number we'll already allow them.

If we're playing him he needs to be on the move as often as possible I50 because with his reach you can't stop him on the lead without infringing.
...

Two things here.

It's a curious proposition to suggest experienced KPBs have learned to outbody Cox without giving the 11 game novice the possibility of further learning to use his vast height and leap advantage to push the ledger back to his benefit. Surely one thing Cox may learn to do is be much more dangerous in the contested mark situation where he presents unique challenges to his opponents that he could learn to further exploit.

With regard to our ball use it was appalling in 2016 but shapes as an area of improve in 2017. These names are a good reason for that Wells(elite), Fasolo, Elliott, Pendlebury, WHE, Aish, Ramsay, Smith, Varcoe, Maynard, Sidebottom. All those players are at least improvement on a lot of the 2016 players and are either developing, new to the team, coming off injury or noted good disposers already. It means our forwards should expect better service in 2017. Cox who can lead and will further develop in this area shapes as a major beneficiary here. On the lead with average to good delivery he is a danger potentially.

I think overall you have gone too early with the theory Cox can't be a forward who rucks a bit. His other advantage in this role is he looks like his ruckwork is coming on in leaps and bounds so can be a more dangerous 2 ruck than most who play that role

 

[DaVe86]

Agree with you on eveything but White and Mayne. If I'm picking a front six the first five picked would be Moore, Cox, Elliot, Fasolo and Mayne. That sixth spot would be a horses for courses selection. By my reckoning White does not offer much that Moore doesn't with the exception of a mature body. Like 4#Didak#4 I see Mayne as a smart forward who can keep defenders honest while also providing support up the ground through the midfield.

White like Blair and WHE are then in line for that final spot which would be dependant on the opponent. If you want more marking support up the ground or more help in the ruck then White would be your man. If you want to apply more pressure in your forward 50 then Blair would get the nod. If you want more X factor then WHE would be your man. If you want more ground level attacking power Broomhead would be an option. Alternatively you may want to play an extra mid or defender instead.

I don't really consider White a traditional tall. The thing I like about him is that he offers that option in the ruck as well, but also showed last year he can float across half back and influence a game as well. Typically though, he plays as a high half forward and gets most of his disposals at ground level.

If I had a choice, I'd probably still have White ahead of Cox, but I personally don't see any issue with a Moore/Cox/White forward line.

As I've said a few times though, I'm coming around to the idea of Keeffe ahead of Cox, purely because Keeffe can plug a hole down back. It probably allows us to play one more runner because we can go in with one less key defender. If we need a steadier, then Keeffe can go back to full back. It's an interesting option.

 

[Grodie Brundy]

Scodog10 been reading this thread with interest and as usual enjoying the thoughts you put forward. Just wanted to put forward some views and evidence that might challenge a theme that you have running through here that Cox is not suited to the forward ruck role as opposed to the ruck forward role. My view agrees with yours in that with Grundy in the team the only role available to Cox is forward ruck but disagree that he can't be suitable for it. My first feeling is it's the role he has predominantly played both at VFL and AFL level thus far in his career. It's the role that Collingwood is grooming him for, wisely with Grundy there, and he has shown some appitude for it. I have places some alternative ideas below


Cox is a completely different kettle of fish to Witts as a forward. Just on goal scoring ability alone the contrast is stark. Cox 17 goals in 11 games, Witts 18 goals in 40 games. Additionally Cox has elite speed for a big man meaning he can develop further as a leading player and is much more adept offensively below his knees. Comes from soccer I expect but involves tap ons and clearing a path for teammates etc also. Clearly defensively he struggles to impact. Cox is also taller with a much greater leap which means he can even present an even bigger differential in height difference. He is just a different proposition on the forward line compared to Witts


While goalkicking isn't the only measure of a forward it remains the primary function so it's interesting to contrast how Cox goes there. Off the top of my head the two most successful players who have spent a lot of time as forward rucks in recent times would be Ryder and Hale. There may be better examples I have neglected. Still Hale in his Hawthorn years never came near scoring 1.6 goals/game that Cox managed in his 1st 11games. Hale was a 3x flag player mainly living in that forward-ruck role. One year at North he was able to match that rate. Ryder, he has rucked a lot but had years also where he played more forward has also never got near that goal per game rate in 10 seasons.

Looking at some of the premier KPFs of recent times only Jeremy Cameron has outscored Cox when 1st 11 games are compared. Cloke 9 goals, Cameron 22 goals, Lynch 12 goals, Wright 11goals, Moore 11 goals, J Riewoldt 13 goals, Kennedy 6 goals, Hawkins 13 goals. Interesting but not necessarily conclusive figures.


Two things here.

It's a curious proposition to suggest experienced KPBs have learned to outbody Cox without giving the 11 game novice the possibility of further learning to use his vast height and leap advantage to push the ledger back to his benefit. Surely one thing Cox may learn to do is be much more dangerous in the contested mark situation where he presents unique challenges to his opponents that he could learn to further exploit.

With regard to our ball use it was appalling in 2016 but shapes as an area of improve in 2017. These names are a good reason for that Wells(elite), Fasolo, Elliott, Pendlebury, WHE, Aish, Ramsay, Smith, Varcoe, Maynard, Sidebottom. All those players are at least improvement on a lot of the 2016 players and are either developing, new to the team, coming off injury or noted good disposers already. It means our forwards should expect better service in 2017. Cox who can lead and will further develop in this area shapes as a major beneficiary here. On the lead with average to good delivery he is a danger potentially.

I think overall you have gone too early with the theory Cox can't be a forward who rucks a bit. His other advantage in this role is he looks like his ruckwork is coming on in leaps and bounds so can be a more dangerous 2 ruck than most who play that role

I'm not sure whether I like this analysis because it's so thorough, or just because I want to believe it so badly

Would really like it if Cox could establish himself as a solid forward/ruck. He's already proved that he can take a grab, and although his set shot is unorthodox, it does the trick. He seems to have a lot of confidence in himself, so it'd be nice if he could refrain from getting the yips when lining up. Would like to see him being that unstoppable (through sheer height) overhead mark at half forward that a resting Sandy is for Freo, but with more mobility and goal kicking nouse.

 

[loki04]

I rewatched the game and declare White the more useful of the two players. Goldsack looked slow and fumbled in the air. I prefer someone else in that fullback role. Goldsack should play a year of VFL if we are to be a serious AFL threat.

A player we will miss for his speed and run in defence is Sinclair. We have no one like him.

I call Goldsack the "almost" player.

 

[jackcass]

I don't really consider White a traditional tall. The thing I like about him is that he offers that option in the ruck as well, but also showed last year he can float across half back and influence a game as well. Typically though, he plays as a high half forward and gets most of his disposals at ground level.

If I had a choice, I'd probably still have White ahead of Cox, but I personally don't see any issue with a Moore/Cox/White forward line.

As I've said a few times though, I'm coming around to the idea of Keeffe ahead of Cox, purely because Keeffe can plug a hole down back. It probably allows us to play one more runner because we can go in with one less key defender. If we need a steadier, then Keeffe can go back to full back. It's an interesting option.

But if you go the Moore/Cox/White option then White could plug a hole down back. Maybe not as good as Keeffe in a defensive role but you are only talking about filling a void during a game and White is a much better forward and ruckman than Keeffe on exposed form to date.

 

[4#Didak#4]

I rewatched the game and declare White the more useful of the two players. Goldsack looked slow and fumbled in the air. I prefer someone else in that fullback role. Goldsack should play a year of VFL if we are to be a serious AFL threat.

A player we will miss for his speed and run in defence is Sinclair. We have no one like him.

I do agree, the signs aren't great early for Goldy but there is time to turn it around. Goldy has been an enigma his whole career and I don't expect that to change. He never really nailed a spot down - a sometime forward, sometime defender without really excelling. He is an ideal depth player though as when injuries do hit we can throw him at the hole to stem the flow.

I am hoping for his sake he can find full fitness - that was his big issue in last few years. If he can have this and bring that ferocity and intensity he had for a bit who knows he could force his way back in.

Losing Sinclair will hurt a lot more than some think. That small defender role is becoming specialised and when you look at the small forwards that continually burn us he is our best bet. Lets hope the hammy heals.

 

[jackcass]

I do agree, the signs aren't great early for Goldy but there is time to turn it around. Goldy has been an enigma his whole career and I don't expect that to change. He never really nailed a spot down - a sometime forward, sometime defender without really excelling. He is an ideal depth player though as when injuries do hit we can throw him at the hole to stem the flow.

I am hoping for his sake he can find full fitness - that was his big issue in last few years. If he can have this and bring that ferocity and intensity he had for a bit who knows he could force his way back in.

Losing Sinclair will hurt a lot more than some think. That small defender role is becoming specialised and when you look at the small forwards that continually burn us he is our best bet. Lets hope the hammy heals.

History says that the Sack takes time to build form. His issue will be getting senior games that allow him that luxury. I agree on Sinclair's importance and in his absence we essentially start with defenders ranked 2-7 instead of 1-6 which makes carrying a player while they find form all the more difficult.

 

[PIES 4 LIFE]

I stayed home as Not Lift Home after Game

Public transport, have you heard of it

 

[jonbe54]

Public transport, have you heard of it

Frankston station is a 55 minute ride at the best of times plus bus connections thereafter.

 

[Knightmare]

I know you weren't meaning to fence sit or hedge your bets, but this gave me a chuckle.

It's my expression of skepticism at what I've seen so far this year.

It doesn't feel like his breakout year to put my prediction more plainly.

 

[Pie eyed]

I have no reason to believe otherwise

Is there any reason your view has any weight?

Just last night, a poster told me that the game had passed Blair for the specific reason that he fumbled a lot.

Baffling to say the least. You couldn't name 10 players better than him last night.

17 Disposals (7 contested) @ 77%
5 clearances
2 goal Assists

That is not the game of a player short (*cough*) of talent.

I believe many confuse him with a former UK PM.
It's the only explanation for the vapid hate.

 

[PIrOed]

I don't really consider White a traditional tall. The thing I like about him is that he offers that option in the ruck as well, but also showed last year he can float across half back and influence a game as well. Typically though, he plays as a high half forward and gets most of his disposals at ground level.

If I had a choice, I'd probably still have White ahead of Cox, but I personally don't see any issue with a Moore/Cox/White forward line.

As I've said a few times though, I'm coming around to the idea of Keeffe ahead of Cox, purely because Keeffe can plug a hole down back. It probably allows us to play one more runner because we can go in with one less key defender. If we need a steadier, then Keeffe can go back to full back. It's an interesting option.

Reading that, it looks like you place much more value on flexibility than I do. My view is that the 18 players selected to start on the field should be the best available player on the list to play the role they've been selected for. The four bench players rounding out the 22 are the ones that may be selected based on their versatility.

On White vs Cox I do not see them competing for the same spot and as such I also have no issue with a Moore/Cox/White forward mix. My thinking is that I want two big marking targets in the forward line. Moore and Cox are my picks and White is not even in consideration for one of those roles. White is then competing for a spot on a forward flank. In this role I see him competing with players such as Mayne and WHE. Limiting the discussion to these three Mayne stands out as the only one with a strong defensive side to his game, hence for team balance he gets the first spot leaving the final spot a choice between White and WHE. As Cox is already in the team and this is a forward spot White's ruck work and behind the ball qualities are not a factor in my decision making. I then ask since both WHE and White collect their disposals at ground level which of the two is more likely to do the most damage with those possessions, my answer is WHE. Now if you prefered Cox play 100% forward or you had a genuine second marking forward on the list you could play instead of Cox, then White could be picked for relief ruck duties.

As for Keeffe I have to disagree unless you mean as a KPD, as Cox is far superior as either a ruck or KPF. A more palatable option for me would be Reid to FF, White on the flank and Keeffe at CHB with Cox missing out.

Finally on the concept of playing Keeffe in a forward/ruck role based on the idea it allows you to play a KP player short in preference for another runner, I see that as planning to fail. You are entering the game with a team selected to play two different structures. It is highly unlikely that they could play to either structure as well as they could if the team was selected to play just one. Now I'm not saying you shouldn't have a plan B, C and so on, just that they should not be at the expense of plan A. If you're so concerned that your plan A may fall apart and are willing to further reduce it's chances of success in order to bolster a contingency plan then it's time to get a new plan A.

 

[TradeDraft]

Public transport, have you heard of it

Yes but I won't travel at night with that many Dickheads around

 

[TradeDraft]

Frankston station is a 55 minute ride at the best of times plus bus connections thereafter.

Takes at least Hour and about 15 Minutes to get home.

Not Just around the Corner Type

 

[robertg22]

Yes but I won't travel at night with that many Dickheads around

Meaningless preseason practice match is hardly worth it either

 

[motr]

Could've used that money we spent on Mayne to retain Brown.

That's probably my biggest takeaway.

Far too early to make that call.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Far too early to make that call.

I've got the last eight years to confirm that call. How much time do I need?

 

[Hardas]

I've got the last eight years to confirm that call. How much time do I need?

Mayne is definitely in the spotlight.
As for Browny, let's see how his career plays out - I'm not optimistic for him.