Who will be our first-choice FF in 2009?

[Obeanie1]

How would he be "thrown to the lions"?

He'd be shouldering the same burden as he did last year.

Spare me the melodrama. It's very Herald-Sun.

He was our best forward last year.

I reckon that, on exposed form, he is the most dangerous forward we have.

What's your point?

He did the job.

I'm not expecting him to kick 100 goals this season. But with the cattle we've got, he's our best option in that F50. That's the bottom line.

He's our best forward. It's inevitable that we're going to be looking for him.

Let's be clear - I'm not arguing that McKinley should be asked to play a lone hand in attack.

Some of your comments here suggest that you're trying to set up that strawman on my behalf.

That's complete bollocks.

You reckon St. Kilda don't look for Nick Reiwoldt when they come out of defence?

You reckon the Dockers don't look for Pavlich?

You reckon the Blues don't look for Fevola?

These guys - these focal points - are integral parts of their sides' game plans. Ideally, there are other contributors, but to suggest that "there is no focal point" is absurd.

Whats your point Gunnar, the CHF role is to provide a marking option to go to, THATs a CHF job, to be a focal point between 40 - 100m from goal. Last time I looked McKinely isn't a CHF he's your choice full forward and our focal point in attack.

Your using Fevola and Carlton to back up your arguement, that hilarious. Go do some research Gunnar and see what Ratten has been saying time after time. Fev needs help, the Blues cannot rely on Fev as the focal point if they want to win finals or win a flag, thats modern football.

One good full forward being the focal point doesn't win flag these days, thats why expert commentators say the days of the 100 goal full forwards is coming to a close. Now I can picture you bringing up Franklin and Fev but both of their coaches has said when the team puts too much focus on these guys the team suffers.

Exactly how old are you Gunnar as you seem to have a fair few outdated concepts?

 

[Evil Pleb]

Slabs are for drinking, not reading.

Volume is not the same as substance.

If you want a response, consider the people reading your essay.

A well thought out, articulated comment is seemingly too much for your under developed neandethal mind to comprehend, let alone respond to with an intelligent comment of your own. If football was such an over-simplified game as your consistently unreasoned comments suggest then you would be a shoe-in as the next dockers head coach.
You would be an unsurpassable all time great at the dockers, don' t let the opportunity pass you by, go for gold!
Substance is something your not qualified to discuss, considering the tripe that you've branded these pages with.
I know that my argument went way over your head and I sympathize with you. I know your trying your best to comprehend it all.
You can take comfort knowing this is just a game and that life goes on after football.
I wish you all the best regardless of whether you take on the Freo head coaching role or not.
I'll be praying for you!

 

[RoJo Junior]

You assume the primary goal at the moment is to win as many games as possible. It isn't. We are not in premiership mode. It doesn't matter much whether we win 4, 8 or 12 games this year. What matters is developing the players we have. Maybe Brown and Kennedy will get towelled up (and maybe they won't aswell). But even if they do it doesn't matter. We need to invest games in them. I don't see the point is using stop gaps in key positions and delaying giving these blokes expierience. Besides, I didn't see Kennedy get towelled up too often last year and he could hardly have had a worse midfield delivering it to him than ours last season.

Every team aims to win as many games as possible (or so you would hope)

I dont believe in this premiership mode business. Hawthorn werent meant to be in premiership mode for another couple of seasons. We were still meant to be in premiership mode prior to our dramas.

My final point was to get as much exposure to Kennedy and Brown as possible. I dont know if they'll be able to handle the physical burden of a KP slot in their first real full season. The last thing we want is them breaking down again like last season. Otherwise their development will get stalled. I've got no problem with them being named but they cant spend 100% of the time on field without first being used to the rigours of AFL football.

I would expect Kennedy to play every week as hes had quite a bit of exposure to AFL, yet hes still never been named week in week out so im unsure as to how he'll hold up (see last season). Brown meanwhile i'd expect 2/3 of this season out of him. The coaching staff must be careful how we manage our youngsters and remember they're "rising" stars not fully fledged stars yet.

 

[RoJo Junior]

Just because McKinley kicked some goals last year does not make him a full forward. He is 184cm tall. That is small even for a midfielder by todays standards. He is not going to win, or even hold his own, in a physical contest with any decent full back. He will not be breaking any packs and bringing the ball to ground. He will not have the reach to take many overhead marks unless he gets at least 5 metres on his opponent because the bigger full back will be a good chance to get reach over the top of him and get a fist to it. He will only be good for taking marks put on his chest, just like Phil Matera. And he will probably have to lead out wide to the boundary to get those.

In short, he is not a full forward. At best he is going to be a good foil/ second leading option operating our of a pocket (after a big tall key forward who should be the first option) in the forward 50. I can't think of too many successful 184cm full forwards in recent memory.

I also think that if McKinley is going to be in one pocket then there must be a crumber in the other pocket. For that reason i would play LeCras in the midfield, because he is good enough IMO to become a good midfielder and because you can't have a forward 50 made up of all leading forwards.

I disagree with those points on McKinley. Hes got a very good leap on him which i think more than makes up from the 10cm in height and 10kgs weight he lacks in comparison to Kennedy, Brown and Lynch. I also seem to recall McKinley taking a number of pack marks last season when the ball was bombed in as a last resort.

Theres very few big brute like FB's out like Mal Michael used to be. In todays game, teams are more orientated on rebounding athletic defenders, moreso than the oldschool big powerhouse players. With the recent rules on marking contests it also makes it more difficult for the strength battle wrestling 1 on 1 contests. So McKinleys lack of size for a FF is less of a problem that what it used to be and i see no problem with him taking the best defender and the ball being kicked to him in a contest.

FWIW when the ball is bombed into our forward line i'd still expect at least one of Brown, Kennedy and Lynch in there contesting for the mark.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Riewoldt, Pavlich and Fevola are all about 10cm taller in height and god knows how many kilos of muscle heavier than McKinley they are.

I think you missed the point here.

I'm not saying these guys are similar to McKinley.

I'm pointing to these guys to rebut the claim that teams no longer have priority focal points.

Of course it would be foolhardy of us to structure our forwardline on the assumption that McKinley could immediately be as effective as Reiwoldt, Pavlich or Fevola.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Whats your point Gunnar, the CHF role is to provide a marking option to go to, THATs a CHF job, to be a focal point between 40 - 100m from goal. Last time I looked McKinely isn't a CHF he's your choice full forward and our focal point in attack.

My point is that sides still have priority focal points. They still have individual players who they look for in attack.

You disputed this.

One good full forward being the focal point doesn't win flag these days, thats why expert commentators say the days of the 100 goal full forwards is coming to a close.

Ideally, there is a spread of contributors. I'm not disputing that.

But you said that teams no longer have main focal points - that's BS.

If a side has a forward who is good enough to impose himself, they will tend to look for him when they go forward. That goes without saying, but you seem to be disputing it.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

A well thought out, articulated comment is seemingly too much for your under developed neandethal mind to comprehend, let alone respond to with an intelligent comment of your own. If football was such an over-simplified game as your consistently unreasoned comments suggest then you would be a shoe-in as the next dockers head coach.
You would be an unsurpassable all time great at the dockers, don' t let the opportunity pass you by, go for gold!
Substance is something your not qualified to discuss, considering the tripe that you've branded these pages with.
I know that my argument went way over your head and I sympathize with you. I know your trying your best to comprehend it all.
You can take comfort knowing this is just a game and that life goes on after football.
I wish you all the best regardless of whether you take on the Freo head coaching role or not.
I'll be praying for you!

This is waffle, mate.

You've struggled in the football-related argument, and you're now trying to save face.

Poor effort.

 

[15_year_member]

Every team aims to win as many games as possible (or so you would hope)

I dont believe in this premiership mode business. Hawthorn werent meant to be in premiership mode for another couple of seasons. We were still meant to be in premiership mode prior to our dramas.

My final point was to get as much exposure to Kennedy and Brown as possible. I dont know if they'll be able to handle the physical burden of a KP slot in their first real full season. The last thing we want is them breaking down again like last season. Otherwise their development will get stalled. I've got no problem with them being named but they cant spend 100% of the time on field without first being used to the rigours of AFL football.

I would expect Kennedy to play every week as hes had quite a bit of exposure to AFL, yet hes still never been named week in week out so im unsure as to how he'll hold up (see last season). Brown meanwhile i'd expect 2/3 of this season out of him. The coaching staff must be careful how we manage our youngsters and remember they're "rising" stars not fully fledged stars yet.

Both of them must be into somewhere about their 4th year on an AFL list. That is well long enough for them to be fit and physical enough to play regaulr footy. Brown is the size of a monster and he is setting personal tests very impressive for a man of his size in fitness tests. I don't see any problem in them playing every week unless they sustain actual injuries. Get on with it and blood these blokes, i say.

 

[15_year_member]

I disagree with those points on McKinley. Hes got a very good leap on him which i think more than makes up from the 10cm in height and 10kgs weight he lacks in comparison to Kennedy, Brown and Lynch. I also seem to recall McKinley taking a number of pack marks last season when the ball was bombed in as a last resort.

Theres very few big brute like FB's out like Mal Michael used to be. In todays game, teams are more orientated on rebounding athletic defenders, moreso than the oldschool big powerhouse players. With the recent rules on marking contests it also makes it more difficult for the strength battle wrestling 1 on 1 contests. So McKinleys lack of size for a FF is less of a problem that what it used to be and i see no problem with him taking the best defender and the ball being kicked to him in a contest.

FWIW when the ball is bombed into our forward line i'd still expect at least one of Brown, Kennedy and Lynch in there contesting for the mark.

I don't think that McKinley has an exceptional leap. And i have seen all of last seasons games including 5 or so games actually live. I don't remember seeing him take any pack marks or split any packs in the games i saw. And no matter how good your leap is it isn't going to make up for 10cm differential in height and 10kg less in bulk. I can't believe that you seriously argue that he could hold his own in a stationary marking contest with a typical AFL fullback. He will only be any good if he gets out on the lead with a couple of metres on his opponent and space in front of him. Name one other 184cm full forward that has had sustained success in the position being the focal point of the attack?

 

[RoJo Junior]

I don't think that McKinley has an exceptional leap. And i have seen all of last seasons games including 5 or so games actually live. I don't remember seeing him take any pack marks or split any packs in the games i saw. And no matter how good your leap is it isn't going to make up for 10cm differential in height and 10kg less in bulk. I can't believe that you seriously argue that he could hold his own in a stationary marking contest with a typical AFL fullback. He will only be any good if he gets out on the lead with a couple of metres on his opponent and space in front of him. Name one other 184cm full forward that has had sustained success in the position being the focal point of the attack?

Well we did have Aaron Edwards on our list whos seeming to do quite well at the Kangas til he sustained his injury. Now that Thompson is retired he'll become the focal point in their attack. I see McKinley as a far better version of him. He can take a high mark launching off his opponents back. I remember McKinley doing that many times last season. Sometimes trying it excessively to the point where he gave away free kicks.

Tony Modra was 188cm thats pretty close to McKinley.

If you want current examples Russell Robertson was the focal point of the Melbourne forward line when available last year he can certainly take a pack mark, as well as Brett Burton who was the focal point at Adelaide last season. Both are as tall as McKinley and weigh less than him. They've been successful in the forward line however.

 

[RoJo Junior]

Both of them must be into somewhere about their 4th year on an AFL list. That is well long enough for them to be fit and physical enough to play regaulr footy. Brown is the size of a monster and he is setting personal tests very impressive for a man of his size in fitness tests. I don't see any problem in them playing every week unless they sustain actual injuries. Get on with it and blood these blokes, i say.

Yes i want them blooded as well. But you cant just send 2 guys in to hold the most important forward line spots in the team after having such minimal AFL experience previously. We would collapse in the first few games. You're already questioning McKinleys ability to hold his own deep in the forward line so thats half a forward line of unproven players.

Despite Brown appearing to be in peak physical condition, running straight lines getting a 15.0 beep test is a lot different to playing a game of AFL, hes coming back a year out from a knee reco. If not managed carefully its possible to have a recurrence of the injury and the great prodigy may unfortunately end up being nothing but hype.

 

[15_year_member]

Well we did have Aaron Edwards on our list whos seeming to do quite well at the Kangas til he sustained his injury. Now that Thompson is retired he'll become the focal point in their attack. I see McKinley as a far better version of him. He can take a high mark launching off his opponents back. I remember McKinley doing that many times last season. Sometimes trying it excessively to the point where he gave away free kicks.

Tony Modra was 188cm thats pretty close to McKinley.

If you want current examples Russell Robertson was the focal point of the Melbourne forward line when available last year he can certainly take a pack mark, as well as Brett Burton who was the focal point at Adelaide last season. Both are as tall as McKinley and weigh less than him. They've been successful in the forward line however.

Neither Aaron Edwards or Burton or Russell Robertson have ever been used by their teams as regular full forwards. They are flankers who can drift in to the 50m and take a mark when the opportunity presents and they shake off their opponents. None of them play out of the goal square as full forwards.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Neither Aaron Edwards or Burton or Russell Robertson have ever been used by their teams as regular full forwards. They are flankers who can drift in to the 50m and take a mark when the opportunity presents and they shake off their opponents. None of them play out of the goal square as full forwards.

Hmmm... Robertson plays pretty deep.

I'd say he spends more time in the F50 than outside it.

 

[RoJo Junior]

Adelaide had no experience deep in the forward line. Burton was entrenched there all season he kicked bags of 4+ on a number of occasions. As was Robertson, he lined up along side Neitz in that goalsquare for years and played out of the square virtually the whole time Neitz was sidelined. Aaron Edwards is also a mid-sized forward pocket position who plays the similar role to McKinley, who is named there for arguments sake but like McKinley plays out of the square. There really is minimal difference between being named FF or FP.

Im over arguing the matter and i guess we'll have to agree to disagree, or wait a couple months to see who was right.

 

[15_year_member]

Hmmm... Robertson plays pretty deep.

I'd say he spends more time in the F50 than outside it.

David Schwartz has been Melbourne's full forward for about the last 10 years before last season. Drifting into the 50m during game doesn't make you a full forward. If we are going to use that definition then every team has about 4 full forwards and there is no such position as a flank, pocket or CHF.

 

[15_year_member]

Adelaide had no experience deep in the forward line. Burton was entrenched there all season he kicked bags of 4+ on a number of occasions. As was Robertson, he lined up along side Neitz in that goalsquare for years and played out of the square virtually the whole time Neitz was sidelined. Aaron Edwards is also a mid-sized forward pocket position who plays the similar role to McKinley, who is named there for arguments sake but like McKinley plays out of the square. There really is minimal difference between being named FF or FP.

Im over arguing the matter and i guess we'll have to agree to disagree, or wait a couple months to see who was right.

Your entitled to your opinion. And we will see what happens and how it lines up. I would like them to experiment and try some different players there at different times and see what works. Let Brown have a go in the square for a half and then maybe swap positions and try Kennedy or McKinley there. The whole season should be about development IMO. And let me just say RJJ that it's good that we can disagree and debate respectfully without slagging or demeaning each others opinion. What a good example to set.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

David Schwartz has been Melbourne's full forward for about the last 10 years before last season.

You mean Neitz, right?

Drifting into the 50m during game doesn't make you a full forward. If we are going to use that definition then every team has about 4 full forwards and there is no such position as a flank, pocket or CHF.

But Robertson didn't "drift into the F50".

He would start there, and then spend most of the game there.

I'm not saying he was the FF. I'm only saying that he spent most of his time deep - deeper than a flanker who just drifts into the F50 from time-to-time.

He kicked 73 goals in 2005. He came 3rd in the Coleman. I think it's fair to suggest he spent most of the season playing deep.

It's not a big deal. I don't really have a stake in this part of the argument. But I do think you've mischaracterised Robertson's role.

 

[15_year_member]

You mean Neitz, right?

But Robertson didn't "drift into the F50".

He would start there, and then spend most of the game there.

I'm not saying he was the FF. But equally, he spent most of his time deep - deeper than a flanker who just drifts into the F50 from time-to-time.

He kicked 73 goals in 2005. He came 3rd in the Coleman. I think it's fair to suggest he spent most of the season playing deep.

It's not a big deal. I don't really have stake in this part of the argument. But I do think you've mischaracterised Robertson's role.

Thats right, Neitz. I don't recall Roberston ever playing the traditional role of FF of starting in the square and leading at the ball carrier. I don't recall watching him being lined up on in the goal square by the Scarletts and Glass' of the comp. I have always thought of him more as a mobile CHF/flanker.

I will admit that i haven't watched much of Melbourne in recent years. I generally watch the whole of the west coast games and just highlights of other matches unless it is a big game like a top of the table clash. Thats just the way it is on this side of the world (but that is probably all that ppl back home watch anyway). So if Melb have started playing him in the square i haven't noticed it. But even if they have i still say that is not ideal.

But my point is, if i was picking a team i would go down the traditional route of two big key forwards (one in the square and one at the top of the 50m) that would be option number 1 for the midfielders to kick to. One medium size pocket player who can mark on the lead as a foil, which would be McKinley as a back up option if he gets free in space. And at least one and maybe two crumbers for when the ball hits the deck. That is the most reliable and time proven set up to have IMO.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I don't recall Roberston ever playing the traditional role of FF of starting in the square and leading at the ball carrier.

I'm not saying he lined up at FF.

Only that he played deeper than you suggested initially.

I reckon he has always spent more time in the F50 than outside it.

 

[15_year_member]

It seems fairly clear to me from previous statements in the media from the coaching staff that Notte is the man they have earmarked for the FF role in the future. But he is not ready to go right now and they do need to develop a plan B in case he doesn't come up as expected in the years ahead.

I think that Kennedy could develop into a very good FF. He is big, quick in a straight line, big jump, not afraid or too fragile to bust a pack at high velocity, good hands, good kick at goal. He could do well there. But the shame of it would be that his big tank would be wasted in that position. But he would be a good plan B in the long run though, especially if Brown proves capable at CHF.

 

[RoJo Junior]

Your entitled to your opinion. And we will see what happens and how it lines up. I would like them to experiment and try some different players there at different times and see what works. Let Brown have a go in the square for a half and then maybe swap positions and try Kennedy or McKinley there. The whole season should be about development IMO. And let me just say RJJ that it's good that we can disagree and debate respectfully without slagging or demeaning each others opinion. What a good example to set.

Exactly it is an experiment at the moment. All our forward line spots are up for grabs, i dont think theres really any player who has a role cemented in our forward line at this current time, bar McKinley as its the only role hes capable of playing. Its still unknown who our first choice forwards are as many are yet to have the chance to prove themselves fully yet.

Yep its good to have a discussion with people with different viewpoints. Far better than everyone showing off their man-love for all our players and hyping them as the greatest players to grace the Earth or getting irrational when someone says something negative.

 

[Evil Pleb]

This is waffle, mate.

You've struggled in the football-related argument, and you're now trying to save face.

Poor effort.

I notice you try and pick apart everyone elses comments. You do your best but continually fail to make sound arguments.
While you had a go at everyone else, you failed to pick apart my arguments for Brown being our FF. You couldn't even respond with a football related comment! Only to tell me that I should shorten my responses so that they are more easily digestible for you.
I had you beat.
Lift your game son or you'll continue to get owned!

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I notice you try and pick apart everyone elses comments. You do your best but continually fail to make sound arguments.
While you had a go at everyone else, you failed to pick apart my arguments for Brown being our FF. You couldn't even respond with a football related comment! Only to tell me that I should shorten my responses so that they are more easily digestible for you.
I had you beat.
Lift your game son or you'll continue to get owned!

I ignored your argument for Brown because it was turgid and self-indulgent. I make no apologies for that.

If you reckon it's actually because your argument was so devastating that I couldn't respond, then I wish you all the best.

I've made my argument for McKinley to be preferred to other contenders. I've made it concisely and repeatedly. Why pretend otherwise?

You can try to bluff your way through here, but eventually you need to offer something of substance.

 

[beatlesmith]

i'm finding it hard to see why everyone is arguing with gunnars points.

He has said that because Mckinley is currently our most dangerous and potent forward, for the time being (until he is surpassed) he should be the focal point of our forward line. Focal point does not infer that mckinley must play as a traditional gorilla FF, it just iimplies that as our best forward currently, mckinley should be the primary leading target in the forward line. He can lead, he can mark, he can kick for goals. What is wrong with that?

He has said that brown and kennedy should be tried throughout the season, which we all agree with. Neither have thus far proved to be more potent in terms of goalscoring, so rightly, neither should be thrown in to assume the role as the focal point of the forward line, without showing they are the best candidate for the role. Trying them throughout the coming seasons, may end up in them surpassing mckinley in terms of being a dangerous, potent forward, but in the short term future, in the interests of winning games, mckinley is our most dangerous and potent forward, so he should naturally be the focal point of our forward line

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

i'm finding it hard to see why everyone is arguing with gunnars points.

He has said that because Mckinley is currently our most dangerous and potent forward, for the time being (until he is surpassed) he should be the focal point of our forward line. Focal point does not infer that mckinley must play as a traditional gorilla FF, it just iimplies that as our best forward currently, mckinley should be the primary leading target in the forward line. He can lead, he can mark, he can kick for goals. What is wrong with that?

There are points to be scored.