Preview Round 1 team

[maxy87]

I'm interested as to why speed was an issue last year? Any stats that say small forwards really did THAT much damage?

Setantas little helpers were up and about last year when we lost to Carlton and Milney has had a reasonable run in recent times. It all depends on how many inside 50s they get and the positioning of our defenders, though a bit of speed would be good

 

[Partridge]

I'm interested as to why speed was an issue last year? Any stats that say small forwards really did THAT much damage?

Because when we did play a quicker side, in Round 20 against the Dogs, we won by over 100 points. Crucially, plenty of pace and rebound from Wocjinski and Taylor Hunt (who I thought formed one hell of a tag-team), and no Lonergan. Meaning we actually had only two key defenders, and a balanced backline for a change.

(What is now happening is fingers are furiously typing "but the Dogs players were all sick with the flu" or something like that.)

Irrelevant. What's pertinent is the manner in which we played. We looked very quick that night. We did not look remotely like that in the finals. But 6 months later, the same "experienced" players are still automatic selections. Nothing has changed, except they're all 6 months older.

 

[Ninty]

Believe me - I want the kids playing if their form warrants it this year. I just don't want players to be picked because they are young/quick though. They still need to be able to play the game.

Same goes for the older guys, if they are not in good form - drop them to the VFL.

I still think we went in with our best team possible in the finals though. If we went in with the likes of Menzel and T Hunt... I could only see us losing by more if anything. I can't knock a side that made three GF's in a row - winning two - and still making a PF... and losing to a dominating side that had a game plan to beat us.

 

[maxy87]

yeah, would be interesting to see him in a clinton young type role, especially since he is one of the few that could bang a goal from outside 50 (and also probably kick it out on the full at the same time).

Concur.

Give him a rocket and a change in position and I think he'll be ok.

 

[you pick one]

Because when we did play a quicker side, in Round 20 against the Dogs, we won by over 100 points. Crucially, plenty of pace and rebound from Wocjinski and Taylor Hunt (who I thought formed one hell of a tag-team), and no Lonergan. Meaning we actually had only two key defenders, and a balanced backline for a change.

(What is now happening is fingers are furiously typing "but the Dogs players were all sick with the flu" or something like that.)

Irrelevant. What's pertinent is the manner in which we played. We looked very quick that night. We did not look remotely like that in the finals. But 6 months later, the same "experienced" players are still automatic selections. Nothing has changed, except they're all 6 months older.

Thank you, thought you were ignoring my comment.How is it irrelevant surly it must have affected the run of the Dogs?

 

[kanyewest]

Thank you, thought you were ignoring my comment.How is it irrelevant surly it must have affected the run of the Dogs?

It's called confirmation bias. You see, Patridge has his argument, and he will keep pushing it regardless of any other evidence that is presented.

Anyone that disagrees with him is simply living in the past and has not woken up yet. We were smashed last year remember! Absolutely killed! If we do it again we will be lucky to make the 8. And T. Hunt and the other guys (who are fast remember!) will come to the rescue. This is why he admits to no hesitation saying T. Hunt is in our best 18, because he has already concluded he is, despite some of us wanting him to show a bit more before he gains an automatic selection.

This obsession with pace is ridiculous. Kane Tenace was fast but ordinary. The Bombers last year were fast but ordinary. The key is intensity - just watch the Pies play.

 

[Partridge]

Believe me - I want the kids playing if their form warrants it this year. I just don't want players to be picked because they are young/quick though. They still need to be able to play the game.

Same goes for the older guys, if they are not in good form - drop them to the VFL.

Absolutely. That's the same as I want, and I believe most people on here.

I think Hunt can play the game, his pace is a nice bonus. I'll give you an example of someone I would pick him ahead of based exactly on your second point (very valid too).

I would play Hunt ahead of Mackie. I thought Hunt's form has been solid without being brilliant, and I thought Mackie was pretty poor (including last Saturday). Mackie's not an elder statesmen, but I believe his current lack of form rules him out. Simple as that.

 

[you pick one]

Because when we did play a quicker side, in Round 20 against the Dogs, we won by over 100 points. Crucially, plenty of pace and rebound from Wocjinski and Taylor Hunt (who I thought formed one hell of a tag-team), and no Lonergan. Meaning we actually had only two key defenders, and a balanced backline for a change.

(What is now happening is fingers are furiously typing "but the Dogs players were all sick with the flu" or something like that.)

Irrelevant. What's pertinent is the manner in which we played. We looked very quick that night. We did not look remotely like that in the finals. But 6 months later, the same "experienced" players are still automatic selections. Nothing has changed, except they're all 6 months older.

And no HarryTaylor.

 

[PatrickBateman]

Anyone that disagrees with him is simply living in the past and has not woken up yet. We were smashed last year remember! Absolutely killed! If we do it again we will be lucky to make the 8. And T. Hunt and the other guys (who are fast remember!) will come to the rescue.

Well he's wrong until proven correct... simple.

For the record I think think he'll remain wrong. No young player will make a significant difference to the team in 2011... there it is. A new structure? Maybe.

 

[Partridge]

It's called confirmation bias. You see, Patridge has his argument, and he will keep pushing it regardless of any other evidence that is presented.

Anyone that disagrees with him is simply living in the past and has not woken up yet. We were smashed last year remember! Absolutely killed! If we do it again we will be lucky to make the 8. And T. Hunt and the other guys (who are fast remember!) will come to the rescue. This is why he admits to no hesitation saying T. Hunt is in our best 18, because he has already concluded he is, despite some of us wanting him to show a bit more before he gains an automatic selection.

Absolute bullshit, and gross oversimplification. By that rationale you never select any young player, as they haven't proven themselves. Tough luck if Vardy or Simpson want a game this year. Neither are fast!

Fine, don't play any young guys who haven't starred in the pre-season (which rules out everyone except Duncan). Play this side, in particular this backline, in Round 1:

B: Milburn - Lonergan - Scarlett
HB: Enright - Taylor - J.Hunt
C: Kelly - Bartel - Varcoe
HF: Johnson - Mooney - Ling
F: Stokes - Podsiadly - Duncan
R: Ottens - Selwood - Corey
I/C: Wocjinski - Mackie - Hawkins
Sub: Hogan

Easy. Hogan the only line ball selection, but as he's a little more mature he'll be better able to handle St.Kilda's physicality. This side assumes Chapman and Byrnes won't be ready.

 

[Partridge]

Thank you, thought you were ignoring my comment.How is it irrelevant surly it must have affected the run of the Dogs?

Not at all.

Maybe it did, but surely what was more noticeable was how willing Geelong were to take chances running the ball out of defence? Especially compared to a few weeks later in the finals. That's the point.

 

[darren forssman]

Easy. Hogan the only line ball selection, but as he's a little more mature he'll be better able to handle St.Kilda's physicality. This side assumes Chapman and Byrnes won't be ready.

didnt hogan play vfl instead of the practice match last week?

if so, im guessing he wont make rnd 1.

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

The Bullies play a more traditional rolling zone , Collingwood upped the ante by taking this and putting extraordinary pressure on both the carrier and receiver - that's why handball fails - the pies know where the handball is going and wham they are on the receiver before he can blink. Running it out is one option as is a 30-40 metre diagonal kick to a target ( hopefully someone in space or a strong mark). Personally I don't like the percentages of running it out all the time against the pies - they are just too good at closing down space and causing the turnover.

 

[vinum coupe]

If we can't 'carry' a few younger kids with the talent we have then we may as well give up.

I for one thought early in 2010 that Malthouse had been given a simple directive to start playing the kids so that bucks had a list to work with at the end of 2011. I still don't believe they thought 2010 would end up like it did.

It doesn't mean it will work for us. But I am rock solid in the belief that the prelim side of 2010 (minus ablett) cannot possibly win 3 finals.
So let's inject youth, so if we fluke it, and if not have a crack at 2012, 2013

 

[Partridge]

If we can't 'carry' a few younger kids with the talent we have then we may as well give up.

I for one thought early in 2010 that Malthouse had been given a simple directive to start playing the kids so that bucks had a list to work with at the end of 2011. I still don't believe they thought 2010 would end up like it did.

It doesn't mean it will work for us. But I am rock solid in the belief that the prelim side of 2010 (minus ablett) cannot possibly win 3 finals.
So let's inject youth, so if we fluke it, and if not have a crack at 2012, 2013

Well said. 100% agree.

 

[you pick one]

If we can't 'carry' a few younger kids with the talent we have then we may as well give up.

I for one thought early in 2010 that Malthouse had been given a simple directive to start playing the kids so that bucks had a list to work with at the end of 2011. I still don't believe they thought 2010 would end up like it did.

It doesn't mean it will work for us. But I am rock solid in the belief that the prelim side of 2010 (minus ablett) cannot possibly win 3 finals.
So let's inject youth, so if we fluke it, and if not have a crack at 2012, 2013

No doubt we should keep bringing youth in to the side VC.

But just on Collingwood yes they were and still are a young side over all but as for playing kids it's interesting there Grand Final team only contained one 19 year old Sidebottom who had played 35 games and two 20 year old players Beams 42 games and Blair 11 games.

 

[you pick one]

Not at all.

Maybe it did, but surely what was more noticeable was how willing Geelong were to take chances running the ball out of defence? Especially compared to a few weeks later in the finals. That's the point.

That's the area of the ground we have got to find a way to improve and having been shown up as a weakness I expect every team to try and exploit it.
Lets hope Scott comes up with the answer early.
People talk about a team finding 5% we can find it right there,

 

[Partridge]

No doubt we should keep bringing youth in to the side VC.

But just on Collingwood yes they were and still are a young side over all but as for playing kids it's interesting there Grand Final team only contained one 19 year old Sidebottom who had played 35 games and two 20 year old players Beams 42 games and Blair 11 games.

That's the thing though, the changes most of us are suggesting aren't wholesale; it's just a few tweaks here and there. Not unlike what Collingwood did last year.

 

[winty]

Concur.

Give him a rocket and a change in position and I think he'll be ok.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it a move to the wing from the half forward flank late in '06 that started Mackie's rise in performance in the first place?

Seeing as this is a team thread, it would be remiss of me not to list mine!

B: Wojcinski Scarlett J.Hunt
HB: Enright Taylor Kelly
C: Mackie Corey Varcoe
HF: Duncan Hawkins Brown
F: S.Johnson Mooney Stokes
Foll: Ottens Selwood Bartel
Int: Menzel T.Hunt Lonergan
Sub: Milburn

This is assuming that Pods, Chappy, Ling and Byrnes are out injured.

I've put Brown in the forward line to hopefully deter the Saints into leaving Gilbert back rather than have him forward - not because he's a dangerous player, but because it could potentially disrupt St.Kilda's structures. The less tall targets the Saints have up forward, the more chance we have of covering Riewoldt.

I've put Milburn as the sub as he can play forward or back. Lonergan's on the bench as insurance for Scarlett and Taylor, or he can be swung onto the ground if the Saints load up their forward line with talls, or Kelly and Mackie could swap places.

Duncan, T.Hunt, Menzel, Varcoe, Hawkins and Brown will fulfil the thread's quota of youngsters in the side, plus they have, with the possible exception of Hawkins, performed well over the pre-season, so should be rewarded with a spot in the side.

 

[maxy87]

Posts #336, 388 and 339 all solid (couldn't be bothered quoting them) Essentially what the discussion should be based around IMO.

I think a combination of the three elements (penetrating kicks, quick handball and run) should be employed, based on the circumstances. Would make us a lot more dynamic and adaptable. In this sense, I'm an advocate for Wojak and T Hunt on the half back flanks.

Having three talls there is also a concern. I guess it depends on whether the coaching staff believe Scarlo can be useful and a play maker rather than a stopper and whether you'd back Lonners to do the job on a key forward. I don't believe it went all that well last year and scarlo was wasted but perhaps with a change in strategy it could work. As mooted a little earlier, this is where Mackie could come into play as the tall (but not too tall) stopper that is also capable of running around a bit more than a giant such as Lonners. Is Mackie up to it though? Some believe no.. I think he could alternate between wing and defense effectively provided he lifts in a few areas

 

[maxy87]

Btw I meant post 338 not 388 haha

 

[vinum coupe]

Are we missing Harley more than we expected guys?

I just think of that body size that can ready the play, drop into a pocket and not get knocked off the ball.
I think Mackie tries to do it but maybe his size isn't suited to it.

Who can fill the void for the Harley type role?

 

[David the Cat]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it a move to the wing from the half forward flank late in '06 that started Mackie's rise in performance in the first place?

Seeing as this is a team thread, it would be remiss of me not to list mine!

B: Wojcinski Scarlett J.Hunt
HB: Enright Taylor Kelly
C: Mackie Corey Varcoe
HF: Duncan Hawkins Brown
F: S.Johnson Mooney Stokes
Foll: Ottens Selwood Bartel
Int: Menzel T.Hunt Lonergan
Sub: Milburn

This is assuming that Pods, Chappy, Ling and Byrnes are out injured.

I've put Brown in the forward line to hopefully deter the Saints into leaving Gilbert back rather than have him forward - not because he's a dangerous player, but because it could potentially disrupt St.Kilda's structures. The less tall targets the Saints have up forward, the more chance we have of covering Riewoldt.

I've put Milburn as the sub as he can play forward or back. Lonergan's on the bench as insurance for Scarlett and Taylor, or he can be swung onto the ground if the Saints load up their forward line with talls, or Kelly and Mackie could swap places.

Duncan, T.Hunt, Menzel, Varcoe, Hawkins and Brown will fulfil the thread's quota of youngsters in the side, plus they have, with the possible exception of Hawkins, performed well over the pre-season, so should be rewarded with a spot in the side.

A couple of minor positional differences but that look good to me Winty. I would give Brown a run too...but maybe Scott has other ideas from recent info leaking out. But your side reflects mine.

Gee, we're good

 

[maxy87]

Are we missing Harley more than we expected guys?

I just think of that body size that can ready the play, drop into a pocket and not get knocked off the ball.
I think Mackie tries to do it but maybe his size isn't suited to it.

Who can fill the void for the Harley type role?

Yes. On and off the field. No disrespect to Ling though!

Could Harry do it?

 

[you pick one]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it a move to the wing from the half forward flank late in '06 that started Mackie's rise in performance in the first place?

Seeing as this is a team thread, it would be remiss of me not to list mine!

B: Wojcinski Scarlett J.Hunt
HB: Enright Taylor Kelly
C: Mackie Corey Varcoe
HF: Duncan Hawkins Brown
F: S.Johnson Mooney Stokes
Foll: Ottens Selwood Bartel
Int: Menzel T.Hunt Lonergan
Sub: Milburn

This is assuming that Pods, Chappy, Ling and Byrnes are out injured.

I've put Brown in the forward line to hopefully deter the Saints into leaving Gilbert back rather than have him forward - not because he's a dangerous player, but because it could potentially disrupt St.Kilda's structures. The less tall targets the Saints have up forward, the more chance we have of covering Riewoldt.

I've put Milburn as the sub as he can play forward or back. Lonergan's on the bench as insurance for Scarlett and Taylor, or he can be swung onto the ground if the Saints load up their forward line with talls, or Kelly and Mackie could swap places.

Duncan, T.Hunt, Menzel, Varcoe, Hawkins and Brown will fulfil the thread's quota of youngsters in the side, plus they have, with the possible exception of Hawkins, performed well over the pre-season, so should be rewarded with a spot in the side.

Asking a lot of Ottens early in the season winty.