Who will be our first-choice FF in 2009?

[Biggie]

Ben McKinley.

Has the runs on the board.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Your nit picking

You call it "nit-picking". I call it "responding directly to someone's argument".

McKinley and a combination of (Hansen, Brown, Lynch ect..) both in the goal square is better than McKinley vs Scarlett one on one in the goal square. Whatever position McKinley is named he will play the same way but he needs help when he is matched up on someone taller and fitter.

I don't disagree with any of that.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Embley definately needs to be more attacking. As solid as he was last year I feel he was wasted running around in the backline by himself taking uncontested marks from short kicks. Get him up the ground into attacking positions

Not sure who will be our designated full forward but I think Lynch will be given first crack. His marking has improved and if his kicking has improved from last year he will be a solid contributer.

McKinley can play in the FP position but still be our main target inside 50 much like Phil Matera was a few years back.

Therefore forward line in my opinion should be;
FF McKinley Lynch Wirrpanda (or other crumber)
HF Ebert/Embley Kennedy/Brown Lecras

Look you may be right and Lynch may give it "the first crack", but I think this would be because he is the most reliable/suited/experienced player we could use in that position.
In the long term though Lynch's talents would be wasted at FF, as he was sensational playing on the wing for the last 3rd (7 games of the season).
Probably our best performing mid, along with Selwood, late last year.

 

[Obeanie1]

I think it might be the "ideal" combination at the end of the year if everything goes perfectly between now and then.

If that is our first-choice set-up come R22, then it will have been a very productive year.

But I'm not sure that's the combination that would give us the best chance of winning in R1.

Hurray!!!

Gunner finally came out with a positive statement that wasn't laced with sarcasim.

From what I can unravel from your many posts is you think McKinely is your choice for FF. Is he also our best forward?

Left on his own in the goal square maned up by the best defender I think he'd struggle. And thats why he will need his team mates of different sizes to work with. Thats how a modern AFL forward line works Gunner. All that fluff you posted about opposition having 2-3 good defenders and varying match ups are just obvious to all is the reality. Good teams create mismatches to create opportunity.

McKinely will play FF during games, so will others. At times McKinely 's job will be to take an inform backman away from the play.

Its called tactics

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

From what I can unravel from your many posts is you think McKinely is your choice for FF. Is he also our best forward?

Along with LeCras.

All that fluff you posted about opposition having 2-3 good defenders and varying match ups are just obvious to all is the reality.

That's what I thought - apparently it wasn't so obvious to at least one poster.

Its called tactics

Wow - that's really illuminating.

 

[bodazoka]

You call it "nit-picking". I call it "responding directly to someone's argument".

I don't disagree with any of that.

The three tall defenders comment was nit picking, it was not responding too the post its obvious that teams have 2+ tall defenders the post was that teams are lucky to have more than 2 good ones. Not that teams have less than 2.

FWIW I think we agree on the team structure anyway, McKinley as our main taget with a tall in support both inside the forward 50. Weather McKinley is named at FF or not is irrelevant.

 

[Obeanie1]

Along with LeCras.

That's what I thought - apparently it wasn't so obvious to at least one poster.

Wow - that's really illuminating.

Hold the press, Gunnar has offered us up more wisdom, Le Cras is equally at good as McKinely...........(everyone inhales with surprise!!)

From now on I think Gunnar's nick name should be Agent 99. 99% of his posts are negative sarcastic generalisations about other posters but 1% of the time he lets slip with an opinion.

One thing about Agent 99 is you have to ask a specific question or else you end up wondering why has the topic changed. This often occurs when someone has posted a very good point that contradicts a previous Agent 99 dispatch.

So Agent 99 is your boy good enough to win one on one at FF against the oppositions #1 FB without assistance?

 

[Jimmy_the_Gent]

From now on I think Gunnar's nick name should be Agent 99. 99% of his posts are negative sarcastic generalisations about other posters but 1% of the time he lets slip with an opinion.

Ha. You got him in one.

Do Embers.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

The three tall defenders comment was nit picking, it was not responding too the post its obvious that teams have 2+ tall defenders the post was that teams are lucky to have more than 2 good ones. Not that teams have less than 2.

Bollocks.

It was entirely relevant.

If you want an example of "nit-picking", take a look at your post here.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Hold the press, Gunnar has offered us up more wisdom, Le Cras is equally at good as McKinely...........(everyone inhales with surprise!!)

Er, you asked me a question. Should I have not answered it?

Do you actually disagree with anything I've posted here?

Between your creaking attempts at rhetorical argument and slapstick banter, it hasn't really been made clear.

Try again.

From now on I think Gunnar's nick name should be Agent 99. 99% of his posts are negative sarcastic generalisations about other posters but 1% of the time he lets slip with an opinion.

This line about me never offering an opinion is absurd.

I can't take it seriously.

One thing about Agent 99 is you have to ask a specific question or else you end up wondering why has the topic changed. This often occurs when someone has posted a very good point that contradicts a previous Agent 99 dispatch.

Nonsensical.

Asking "specific questions" should be routine for anyone who thinks and argues in a straight line.

Clearly, that's outside your parameters.

So Agent 99 is your boy good enough to win one on one at FF against the oppositions #1 FB without assistance?

What do you mean "without assistance"?

I don't think we're going to empty our F50 and just have McKinley and his man in there. We'll have more than one forward near goals. Obviously. Does that constitute "assistance"?

Whether McKinley is good enough to be our long-term FF remains to be seen. But at this stage, I would say he's our most productive lead-and-mark forward and our best bet. That might not be the case 12 months from now - Kennedy and/or Brown might have stepped up by then. But at the moment, McKinely's exposed form puts him well in front. I certainly have more confidence in him as our focal point than I do in Ash Hansen.

 

[Mop]

I'll assume that Kennedy will be CHF.
Based on what I've seen at training, assuming Lynch is up the ground...
I'd say Mitch Brown would play at FF. Perhaps not the initial first choice, but my tip is he'll make it there sometime before round 11.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I'll assume that Kennedy will be CHF.
Based on what I've seen at training, assuming Lynch is up the ground...
I'd say Mitch Brown would play at FF. Perhaps not the initial first choice, but my tip is he'll make it there sometime before round 11.

I think if, by year's end, we're certain that Kennedy and Brown are our best CHF/FF combination, and we're confident in their ability to deliver in 2010, that will be a massive domino.

I would say that is the number one personnel question that could be answered this season.

That said, I'm not certain we will get the definitive answer just yet.

In some ways, Lynch and Hansen muddy the picture. If they weren't on our list, we would be forced to promote Kennedy and Brown more aggressively. But having two premiership key forwards, who are still young enough, means we could still spend some time fiddling before locking in an emerging CHF/FF combination. It's good to have options, but in this case they foster a degree of indecision.

 

[Bestbird]

I think if, by year's end, we're certain that Kennedy and Brown are our best CHF/FF combination, and we're confident in their ability to deliver in 2010, that will be a massive domino.

I would say that is the number one personnel question that could be answered this season.

That said, I'm not certain we will get the definitive answer just yet.

In some ways, Lynch and Hansen muddy the picture. If they weren't on our list, we would be forced to promote Kennedy and Brown more aggressively. But having two premiership key forwards, who are still young enough, means we could still spend some time fiddling before locking in an emerging CHF/FF combination. It's good to have options, but in this case they foster a degree of indecision.

I'm not so negative about the situation with Lynch and Hansen.

IMO It is a real positive that their will be competition for forward KP spots next year provided all stay fit

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I'm not so negative about the situation with Lynch and Hansen.

IMO It is a real positive that their will be competition for forward KP spots next year provided all stay fit

Competition is fine.

But even if Kennedy emerges as our long-term CHF, Hansen's presence could slow Kennedy's ascent. That's not ideal.

 

[sydney eagle]

I like the idea of Kennedy at full forward because he appears to be able to take a mark under pressure or in a pack. Hansen doesn't do this at all and Lynch's marking is "suspect'. How about Kennedy at full forward, Lynch at CHF and Mckinley opperating as a "third tall forward", slotting into the CHF slot when Lynch leads up the ground or leading to create an option himself ?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I like the idea of Kennedy at full forward because he appears to be able to take a mark under pressure or in a pack. Hansen doesn't do this at all and Lynch's marking is "suspect'. How about Kennedy at full forward, Lynch at CHF and Mckinley opperating as a "third tall forward", slotting into the CHF slot when Lynch leads up the ground or leading to create an option himself ?

One of Kennedy's biggest assets is the size of his tank. He'll run all day.

That gets wasted a bit if he plays so close to goal.

We want Kennedy to be able lead up to the wing, but also work back into that F50. I reckon he'll be a CHF long-term. We should look at someone else at FF.

 

[keviewiggle]

Best place for Hansen is on the long term injured list sitting in the coaches box.
He,s a nice bloke so it's a good place for him.
Elevate Davis as a permanent interchange player.(great utility prospect)

 

[Matt2401]

Hmmm It Doesn't Seem This Has Been Bought Up In Defence Of Mckinley So I'll Bring It Up, Who Was He Playing On When He Kicked His Bag Of 7?

None Other Than Essendons Current #1 Tall Defender .... "Go-Go Gaget Arms" Dustin Flectcher!

Now I Think He's Still Best Suited To Playing The Pocket And Still Leading Up And Taking Big Grabs.

If You Had Mckinley At FF And Brown In The FP It Wouldn't Work, Simple As That. However Brown At FF And Mckinley At FP Sounds Quite Nice To Me.

 

[Obeanie1]

Er, you asked me a question. Should I have not answered it?

Do you actually disagree with anything I've posted here?

Between your creaking attempts at rhetorical argument and slapstick banter, it hasn't really been made clear.

Try again.

This line about me never offering an opinion is absurd.

I can't take it seriously.

Nonsensical.

Asking "specific questions" should be routine for anyone who thinks and argues in a straight line.

Clearly, that's outside your parameters.

What do you mean "without assistance"?

I don't think we're going to empty our F50 and just have McKinley and his man in there. We'll have more than one forward near goals. Obviously. Does that constitute "assistance"?

Whether McKinley is good enough to be our long-term FF remains to be seen. But at this stage, I would say he's our most productive lead-and-mark forward and our best bet. That might not be the case 12 months from now - Kennedy and/or Brown might have stepped up by then. But at the moment, McKinely's exposed form puts him well in front. I certainly have more confidence in him as our focal point than I do in Ash Hansen.

Where did I say you never offer opinions?

I stated that 99% of what you post is negative comments about other posters and 1% of the time you let slip with an opinion. Hence Agent 99!!!

"Asking "specific questions" should be routine for anyone who thinks and argues in a straight line.

Clearly, that's outside your parameters"

If its outside mine then its waaaaaaaaaaaay outside yours 99!!

"Do you actually disagree with anything I've posted here?"

I disagree with your negative comments replying to my first post regarding forward line tactics. You refered to modern day forward line tactics as being 'obvious to the opposition' and put little weight to its relavence. From that stance and your 'man love' of McKinely it seemed clear you were more in favour of a one man forward line structured around McKinely. Hence my question of how would McKinely go on his own.

Then several post later you retreat from that view by agreeing with what someone else said.

Maybe Agent 99 you should spend less time belittling other posters and spend a bit more effort clarifying your opinion!!!

 

[bodazoka]

Bollocks.

It was entirely relevant.

If you want an example of "nit-picking", take a look at your post here.

I really am not interested in arguing for the sake of it. Discussing wether you were nit picking or not is arguing for the sake of it.
Back on topic, could you please post your forward line setup? I did not see it in previous posts.

 

[Beau_Waters for PM]

McKinley should play in the pocket.

Notte is not ready yet, but it wouldn't hurt to give him some games this season.

I never know what to expect with Hunter. CHB/CHF/FF... I have no clue where he'll end up.

Lynch should be played at CHB or in the middle. Could possibly play FF.

Brown and Kennedy I'd love to see as our FF/CHF of the future. So I think we should start them there from Round 1.

______? - Kennedy - LeCras
McKinley - Brown - Wirra

 

[WCEforeverman]

This is one is harder than the CHB one.

I like Brown and Kennedy at full forward and centre half forward, both have their merits in either position, with McKinley and a crumber / opportunist type, lets say Wirra for now, in either pocket.

Where Lynch goes is a tough one...

I would like to see Lynch on a HFF, rotating through a wing or the midfield.

We may get more of an indication in the pre season cup as to where he will play, but from the training reports it looks like his fitness has shot up and therefore a permanent midfield role may not be out of the question.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I disagree with your negative comments replying to my first post regarding forward line tactics. You refered to modern day forward line tactics as being 'obvious to the opposition' and put little weight to its relavence. From that stance and your 'man love' of McKinely it seemed clear you were more in favour of a one man forward line structured around McKinely. !!!

I don't favour a "one-man forward-line structured around McKinley".

I never said I did. Don't suggest otherwise unless you can back it up, which you can't.

This is the kind of bullshit strawman argument you resort to in place of a coherent argument.

Try again.

Then several post later you retreat from that view by agreeing with what someone else said.

This is bollocks.

You've contributed nothing to this discussion, either by way of your own opinion or by meaningful counterpoint to anything I've said.

You have only confirmed your lightweight status.

 

[Obeanie1]

I don't favour a "one-man forward-line structured around McKinley".

I never said I did. Don't suggest otherwise unless you can back it up, which you can't.

This is the kind of bullshit strawman argument you resort to in place of a coherent argument.

Try again.

This is bollocks.

You've contributed nothing to this discussion, either by way of your own opinion or by meaningful counterpoint to anything I've said.

You have only confirmed your lightweight status.

Firstly Agent 99 just read what you just posted above. Looks like your back in character, 99% bullsh!t yet again. I really had a chuckle about the comment about not contributing anything, just to make the point here are my first two posts before I started taking you apart;

Post 1

"FF versus FP named on a team sheet there is no difference, the difference is the role they are required to play.

I don't agree with a FF line of say Wirra McKinely Le Cras. This would mean McKinely would end up being matched up by the best full backs. Not sure he has the pace to out sprint taller / bigger full backs such as Rutten, Scarlett Hudgeton or the strenth to out muscle them.

We need a tall strong option on the FF line to ensure McKinely gets the third best defender not the best or second best. This is the issue, getting our more dangerous forwards matched up on 3rd and 4th best defenders. Kennedy, Lynch, Hansen and Brown's role will be to present and take these bigger backs away and allow space for McKinely and Le Cras to beat opponents one on one."


Post 2

"Left on his own in the goal square manned up by the best defender I think he'd struggle. And thats why he will need his team mates of different sizes to work with. Thats how a modern AFL forward line works Gunner. All that fluff you posted about opposition having 2-3 good defenders and varying match ups are just obvious to all is the reality. Good teams create mismatches to create opportunity.

McKinely will play FF during games, so will others. At times McKinely 's job will be to take an inform backman away from the play."

Now Agent 99 these posts are about football and my opinion on this particular topic. I understand you may struggle with this as 99% of you time is spent arguing about nothing, being obnoxious and attempting to prove in your own mind you are better than anyone else who posts here.


Oh, and I believe we are still waiting for you to post your forward line structure. All of us so called 'light weights' don't seem to have a problem putting up our ideas for critique and debate. You being the 'heavy weight' orb of knowledge seem to avoid sticking your neck out with a clear opinion......................I wonder why

 

[Shadow Minister]

Brown was training with the defenders yesterday, as was Wirra; that could have been a numbers thing tho. Those practising leading, marking and goalkicking with Suma yesterday were Lynch, Notte, Hansen, Kennedy, McKinley, Lecras. Perhaps these players and not Brown will be given first chance in the forward line.