Strategy The case for a third tall forward

[wilbur_15]

Played forward against Essendon last year and was horrendous. Obviously not his fault, but he had no idea what he was doing.

Hombsch has improved out of sight since then so don't think that game's too relevant anymore. He has plenty of time and scope to develop as a pinch hitting forward imo but I wouldn't move him out of defence now with the form he's in back there.

 

[Adz2332]

Trengove certainly wasnt an effective forward....
Why try to play a backman as a forward when we have forwards who could play as forwards!
Its hugely different judging where u need to be, to lead to etc etc! Shaw couldnt do any worse then trengove as a forward!! Plus he can kick

 

[edgie]

None of our players bar Schulz and Boak, and even Schulz had an off day this week, have demonstrated a reliable ability to kick goals, so IMO the argument against Butcher based on his bad kicking is out the window.

Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk

 

[Janus]

You guys are just being stupid now. Shaw can't do any worse than Trengove? At least Trengove can be pushed back into defense - if Shaw doesn't fire, he's useless to the team.

The rest of the team can't kick goals, so let's bring in ANOTHER player who can't in Butcher? Really?

Third tall at any cost apologists = flat earthers in my eyes. We'll play Shaw/Redden/Butcher when they are ready. In the meantime, the best you're going to get IS Trengove up forward, with perhaps Clurey coming in to take his spot in defense.

 

[Adz2332]

You guys are just being stupid now. Shaw can't do any worse than Trengove? At least Trengove can be pushed back into defense - if Shaw doesn't fire, he's useless to the team.

The rest of the team can't kick goals, so let's bring in ANOTHER player who can't in Butcher? Really?

Third tall at any cost apologists = flat earthers in my eyes. We'll play Shaw/Redden/Butcher when they are ready. In the meantime, the best you're going to get IS Trengove up forward, with perhaps Clurey coming in to take his spot in defense.

My problem with that is Trengove IS a backman! Who should be there, in the backlines 90% of the time and maybe 10% in the ruck!
If we can only find a spot for him in the team as a forward he shouldnt be there! And of course im not saying he shouldnt be there!
Shaw comes in plays 3/4 of a game doesnt fire then is subbed. simple. back to the short people up forward who we are playing anyway.
At least he is a forward. And you never know he may surprise you, he may not but i doubt Trengove will kick more then 1 in a game as a full time forward.... id go as far as saying if Trengove plays forward for an entire match he would be lucky to kick 1 single goal...

 

[Andre]

If Trengove is going to be the third tall (some of the time) option, then he needs to be concentrating on that at training from here in for the rest of the year. As a stop gap with Redden out, Butcher sick and out of form and Shaw not considered ready it's not too bad an option if he's more a CHF than FF.

He's not a goal kicker so being able to grab it 50 / 60 out and put it at the top of the square for Schulz and Westhoff is a better option. We managed to contain Sydney's two tall towers with him doing that role, so we could probably get away with not playing Clurey with Hombsch and Carlile taking the two key forwards and O'Shea the third tall forward if there's one. Clurey could come in if we are facing sides that play two tall forwards and a resting ruck up forward a lot.

I certainly wouldn't want Trengove turned into a tall forward on a permanent basis beyond this year, but we certainly looked our most damaging against Sydney when we had that extra height up forward early to target.

 

[Janus]

If Trengove is going to be the third tall (some of the time) option, then he needs to be concentrating on that at training from here in for the rest of the year. As a stop gap with Redden out, Butcher sick and out of form and Shaw not considered ready it's not too bad an option if he's more a CHF than FF.

He's not a goal kicker so being able to grab it 50 / 60 out and put it at the top of the square for Schulz and Westhoff is a better option. We managed to contain Sydney's two tall towers with him doing that role, so we could probably get away with not playing Clurey with Hombsch and Carlile taking the two key forwards and O'Shea the third tall forward if there's one. Clurey could come in if we are facing sides that play two tall forwards and a resting ruck up forward a lot.

I certainly wouldn't want Trengove turned into a tall forward on a permanent basis beyond this year, but we certainly looked our most damaging against Sydney when we had that extra height up forward early to target.

I've never been against playing another key forward target. It would give us diversity and actually allow us more freedom, not less. All you need is a pivot point either end, and Hombsch has proven he's got what it takes to nullify the best (1 goal to Buddy proves that - I'm not counting that blatant push in the back one). Trengove would also suck defenders back instead of allowing them to push up with out midfield type forwards when they go help.

It wouldn't surprise me if that cameo up forward was a test to see how the team reacted - which is what would have been how we played had we had Redden in the squad.

 

[Andre]

It wouldn't surprise me if that cameo up forward was a test to see how the team reacted - which is what would have been how we played had we had Redden in the squad.

We've been told Ken is able to be a left of field thinker, but I don't think we've seen too much evidence of this so far. The cameo was a success IMO, so if we go with this the remainder of the year (unless Butcher gets well and finds form quick smart) it'd definitely go down as a left of field move.

 

[El_Scorcho]

You guys are just being stupid now. Shaw can't do any worse than Trengove? At least Trengove can be pushed back into defense - if Shaw doesn't fire, he's useless to the team.

The rest of the team can't kick goals, so let's bring in ANOTHER player who can't in Butcher? Really?

Third tall at any cost apologists = flat earthers in my eyes. We'll play Shaw/Redden/Butcher when they are ready. In the meantime, the best you're going to get IS Trengove up forward, with perhaps Clurey coming in to take his spot in defense.

The only flat earthers in this thread are the people arguing that this sort of discussion shouldn't be had because Ken and the coaches know what they are doing.

An extra tall improves accuracy because it allows us to have the centre corridor back. Teams know we want to go up the middle so they clog it up, forcing us to lead wide. The result is 7.16. Extra marking targets make it much harder for teams to simply sit in the corridor and block us off. We are being dominated in the air and one of the symptoms of that is difficult shots for goal. I'm by no means saying that we're only missing because we're kicking from the boundary, but its absolutely a contributing factor.

Teams have very obviously figured out to sit back, let us have all the ball we like in the back half and stick two loose men a kick behind play to cut off our attacks. Freewheeling attacks out of defence don't work anymore because teams know exactly what we're doing and know how they can counter it.

When a team is sitting back like teams are doing to us now, the only way to get through is to have marking targets up forward. Our apparent poor skill level is the result of having absolutely nobody to kick to anymore. Even when we can run through the press and kick, loose defenders are running back as fast as we are, so a disturbingly large amount of the time, we're either bombing up the wing to space and a turnover, or to a small forward who has two tall defenders marking him.

Jake Neade was a great inclusion because he played the crumbing role we've so sorely lacked since we got figured out. He plays a role that can help counter what teams have been doing to us. An extra KPF would also play a role that could help counter what teams are doing to us by providing an extra target for when Schulz leads up the wing, turns around and sees Jake Neade in a 1 on 2.

I'm happy for Clurey to come in provided one of the 4 tall defenders plays as a forward. Trengove started there but he certainly wasn't there for the whole game. The problem I have is that we chose to leave guys in the SANFL all season because they weren't ready, and in doing so we cost ourselves an AFL experienced KPF who could make such a big difference to our side now that teams know how to beat us.

I dispute the assertion that Butcher wasn't ready, but even if we assume he wasn't, there would have been nothing better for his development than playing while we beat sides from pillar to post in the first half of the season, and if he'd been given that run of games, he'd be playing now and we wouldn't have to play Trengove or Hombsch forward. As i've said lots of times, we went all in with our gameplan and we no longer have the winning hand.

Plan A will work again, but it wont work again while it's our only gameplan. We need to be able to spot up targets and play a traditional structure so that teams can't simply sit back as they are and pick us off. Our current gameplan is reminiscent of an NFL team going for the deep pass on every play and wondering why teams are so easily able to defend against them.

 

[El_Scorcho]

We've been told Ken is able to be a left of field thinker, but I don't think we've seen too much evidence of this so far. The cameo was a success IMO, so if we go with this the remainder of the year (unless Butcher gets well and finds form quick smart) it'd definitely go down as a left of field move.

His left field thinking is good, IMO. He just needs to revert to traditional structure when the left field idea is no longer effective. The thing is, if we simply played a more traditional gameplan then we could change gears and go for the slingshot and teams would find it much harder to defend against because they'd have to set up normally.

 

[Andre]

The thing is, if we simply played a more traditional gameplan then we could change gears and go for the slingshot and teams would find it much harder to defend against because they'd have to set up normally.

Exactly. The idea that the slingshot and the extra tall forward are somehow mutually exclusive is one of the stranger ideas around. As you note they dovetail nicely. It's the old If you chase two rabbits you'll catch none. Teams can either cover the tall forwards and smalls at their feet and we have space to slingshot. Or they push up the ground trying to clog space and leave tall forwards not in 2 or 3 on 1 situations to lead up in a more traditional manner with small forwards at their feet.

Our disposal was shit Saturday night, but we did get back to getting clearances, against arguably the best clearance side in the league. And early on, despite that shit disposal we were matching it with Sydney with Trengove up forward. For the love of god Ken stick with it for a whole game (now Trengove has made it through his first game back.)

 

[PowerBaz]

Exactly. The idea that the slingshot and the extra tall forward are somehow mutually exclusive is one of the stranger ideas around. As you note they dovetail nicely. It's the old If you chase two rabbits you'll catch none. Teams can either cover the tall forwards and smalls at their feet and we have space to slingshot. Or they push up the ground trying to clog space and leave tall forwards not in 2 or 3 on 1 situations to lead up in a more traditional manner with small forwards at their feet.

Our disposal was shit Saturday night, but we did get back to getting clearances, against arguably the best clearance side in the league. And early on, despite that shit disposal we were matching it with Sydney with Trengove up forward. For the love of god Ken stick with it for a whole game (now Trengove has made it through his first game back.)

I reckon Trengove will rest up forward with Lobbe, (did Lobbe rest up forward on Saturday night - I didn't take much notice).

He might not be the greatest kick (Trengove) but he competes and forces the opposition to throw someone on him and brings the ball to ground (which is what I though Butcher was good at).

Neade was handy as a small 'busy' forward but we really need Wingard to lift big time, maybe this week?

Maybe Young could play as a half forward - he tends to be able to kick goals from around the 50.

We have been missing White too - he generally bags a goal on the run against the run.

We'll be good this week, can feel it.

 

[edgie]

I dunno about Ken, remember round 1 when Carlton were all over us early, he puts the forward line extra deep from the goal square, 3 talls lead out and (with Butch taking 2nd defender) Hoff ends up one on one on the end of a few passes and kicks 4 for the quarter, leading toward the ball. The same against Sydney the first time, combined with the artificial widening of the oval. Where has that mixing it up been since? His only move has been to empty out the forward completely, have Schulz sit way too high (why he starts from 30m out instead of the goal square I'll never know) the aforementioned midget marking target, nothing that has actually tipped the momentum in our favour through bold attacking structure and plan.

Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk

 

[*PAF]

You guys are just being stupid now. Shaw can't do any worse than Trengove? At least Trengove can be pushed back into defense - if Shaw doesn't fire, he's useless to the team.

The rest of the team can't kick goals, so let's bring in ANOTHER player who can't in Butcher? Really?

Third tall at any cost apologists = flat earthers in my eyes. We'll play Shaw/Redden/Butcher when they are ready. In the meantime, the best you're going to get IS Trengove up forward, with perhaps Clurey coming in to take his spot in defense.

I missed something there.
Do not change a losing side because the proposed changes may cause us to lose? Weird.

 

[Honeyboy Wilson]

Trengove was our best tall forward by a long way in the first quarter against Sydney.

I was disappointed when he was moved back.

 

[Port01]

Our backline was fine without Trengove in it as far as covering Sydney's talls. This week just make Trengove and Lobbe a ruck tandem resting deep forward, let Westhoff roam half forward and Schulz leadup. Traditional structure still used by very good sides (ie Hawthorn).

 

[cj_09]

The only flat earthers in this thread are the people arguing that this sort of discussion shouldn't be had because Ken and the coaches know what they are doing.

An extra tall improves accuracy because it allows us to have the centre corridor back. Teams know we want to go up the middle so they clog it up, forcing us to lead wide. The result is 7.16. Extra marking targets make it much harder for teams to simply sit in the corridor and block us off. We are being dominated in the air and one of the symptoms of that is difficult shots for goal. I'm by no means saying that we're only missing because we're kicking from the boundary, but its absolutely a contributing factor.

Teams have very obviously figured out to sit back, let us have all the ball we like in the back half and stick two loose men a kick behind play to cut off our attacks. Freewheeling attacks out of defence don't work anymore because teams know exactly what we're doing and know how they can counter it.

When a team is sitting back like teams are doing to us now, the only way to get through is to have marking targets up forward. Our apparent poor skill level is the result of having absolutely nobody to kick to anymore. Even when we can run through the press and kick, loose defenders are running back as fast as we are, so a disturbingly large amount of the time, we're either bombing up the wing to space and a turnover, or to a small forward who has two tall defenders marking him.

Jake Neade was a great inclusion because he played the crumbing role we've so sorely lacked since we got figured out. He plays a role that can help counter what teams have been doing to us. An extra KPF would also play a role that could help counter what teams are doing to us by providing an extra target for when Schulz leads up the wing, turns around and sees Jake Neade in a 1 on 2.

I'm happy for Clurey to come in provided one of the 4 tall defenders plays as a forward. Trengove started there but he certainly wasn't there for the whole game. The problem I have is that we chose to leave guys in the SANFL all season because they weren't ready, and in doing so we cost ourselves an AFL experienced KPF who could make such a big difference to our side now that teams know how to beat us.

I dispute the assertion that Butcher wasn't ready, but even if we assume he wasn't, there would have been nothing better for his development than playing while we beat sides from pillar to post in the first half of the season, and if he'd been given that run of games, he'd be playing now and we wouldn't have to play Trengove or Hombsch forward. As i've said lots of times, we went all in with our gameplan and we no longer have the winning hand.

Plan A will work again, but it wont work again while it's our only gameplan. We need to be able to spot up targets and play a traditional structure so that teams can't simply sit back as they are and pick us off. Our current gameplan is reminiscent of an NFL team going for the deep pass on every play and wondering why teams are so easily able to defend against them.

Well said mate and totally agree.

I tell you what though, If Shaw does a full pre season (or close to it) and is fit and injury free, we better see him getting game time next year.

 

[Malibu#27]

My problem with that is Trengove IS a backman! Who should be there, in the backlines 90% of the time and maybe 10% in the ruck!
If we can only find a spot for him in the team as a forward he shouldnt be there! And of course im not saying he shouldnt be there!
Shaw comes in plays 3/4 of a game doesnt fire then is subbed. simple. back to the short people up forward who we are playing anyway.
At least he is a forward. And you never know he may surprise you, he may not but i doubt Trengove will kick more then 1 in a game as a full time forward.... id go as far as saying if Trengove plays forward for an entire match he would be lucky to kick 1 single goal...

So you don't think Trengove was our most effective tall forward in the first half ?

Not saying he's a long term solution, but on the weekend the move definitely worked. We didn't miss him down back, and he provided a target forward, and furthermore allowed Lobbe a break from the ruck.

I'm with Ken on Shaw, or ANY of our young talls ... if they aren't ready, they aren't ready, and playing them in the AFL just so us fans can see for ourselves that they aren't ready helps no-one.

 

[edgie]

ETW, do a transcript of Ken at Geelong continuously arguing against the selection of Hawkins, he wasn't ready.

Or Gold Coast, Day/Lynch/Dixon weren't ready

I don't buy the "the aren't ready" and never have. More ready than 170cm and 65kg of Jake Neade (not a crack at Neade, he had a good game)

 

[Janus]

I missed something there.
Do not change a losing side because the proposed changes may cause us to lose? Weird.

You CAN lose more heavily, you know. The team we select each week is the team that gives us the greatest chance to win...and there's more to being an AFL forward than just staying in one spot if you wanna be successful. Take a look at what a young key forward in Daniher does each week - it's about running to the right spots, supporting the team when required etc. You play Shaw when he doesn't understand that, and you might as well throw the pick we used for him away. Cause he'll be like "Hey, but when I stay here, I kick goals!" Even though the lack of pressure might be conceding two at the other end.

****, even Cloke pushes down into defense when necessary. If they had to wait for coaches to tell them to do that, the game would be over before they reacted.

 

[*PAF]

For mine a loss is a loss.

 

[Powerade 08]

And it worked for the first quarter or so he was in that role.

We kicked 3 goals for the first half and got killed going the other way by their running defenders, so no, it didn't.

If we persisted with it any longer than we did in that 2nd qtr the game would have quickly gone out of reach.

Why is it so hard for people to accept we don't have the cattle for a proper forward line?

 

[edgie]

We kicked 3 goals for the first half and got killed going the other way by their running defenders, so no, it didn't.

If we persisted with it any longer than we did in that 2nd qtr the game would have quickly gone out of reach.

Why is it so hard for people to accept we don't have the cattle for a proper forward line?

We outscored them in the first and would not have been as far behind if we kicked straight. The structure allowed us to score freely, unfortunately we only scored behinds.





Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk

 

[El_Scorcho]

You CAN lose more heavily, you know. The team we select each week is the team that gives us the greatest chance to win...

This categorically wasn't the case in the Essendon, Melbourne and Richmond games

and there's more to being an AFL forward than just staying in one spot if you wanna be successful. Take a look at what a young key forward in Daniher does each week - it's about running to the right spots, supporting the team when required etc. You play Shaw when he doesn't understand that, and you might as well throw the pick we used for him away. Cause he'll be like "Hey, but when I stay here, I kick goals!" Even though the lack of pressure might be conceding two at the other end.

****, even Cloke pushes down into defense when necessary. If they had to wait for coaches to tell them to do that, the game would be over before they reacted.

This concept that Shaw and Butcher are too stupid to follow basic instructions is wearing a little thin. I'd love to hear an explanation of what Sam Gray and Kane Mitchell were contributing to the side that Shaw and Butcher weren't "ready" to contribute, and how their selection in those games over Shaw and Butcher made us a better team.

 

[Forzaport]

This concept that Shaw and Butcher are too stupid to follow basic instructions is wearing a little thin. I'd love to hear an explanation of what Sam Gray and Kane Mitchell were contributing to the side that Shaw and Butcher weren't "ready" to contribute, and how their selection in those games over Shaw and Butcher made us a better team.

I think we all want you to be right. I just keep thinking of Butcher round 3 though. That shouldn't condemn either Butcher or Shaw to SANFL for all of 2014 but it does provide some counter weight to consider.

Either way it's too late for 2014. We're on a set path and only have a limited number of talls that we must pray will stay fit all September.