Who will be our first-choice FF in 2009?

[greatwhiteshark]

There is little relevance to the actual position names these days so whether its FF or FP listed in the paper has no impact on how the structure or the oppositions structure will actually line up.

Bottom line however is that Mckinlay will be regarded as the best forward by opposition clubs in 2009. This will mean that he will more than likely attract the best defender. I think this is a good thing for Ben and for the Eagles. It will help him become an even better player quicker.

There is lots of discussion on here about decoy players and trying to hide Mckinlay and I just can't work that out.

I would set up as follows.

Kennedy at CHF starting on the centre square and not inside the 50m arc
Mckinlay at FF starting in the square and with him Lecras.
Lecras given very solid instructions to never fly for the mark over another Eagle. Stay on the ground and crumb.
One FP player starts up near centre square and outside the 50m arc.
One HF starts also on square and also outside the 50m Arc
The other HF starts around the wing area.

If we get a centre break we can get the ball into space and have Mckinlay and Lecras lead and given every chance to swoop on the ball, with our HF and FP and midfielders following the ball to assist and be there to feed off.

In general play its imperitaive that our players don't drift into the 50m arc and clog the space of our forwards. We get caught out a lot with players running backwards into play chasing a kick instead of treading water and being there to assist and work with the leading forwards.

If the opposition decide to drop 2 men back into space in our forward 50m arc then so be it. We should do the same. The reason they do it against the Eagles is because they know that Woosha will man up on them which then clogs our forward line and then opens up their own. We fall for it every game and every opposition coach does this.
Just ignor them and put your two spare men into their forward 50 as spares or at least 1 of them and use the other as a spare midfielder. This then makes the game a shootout of the best midfield. By manning them up plays into the opposition hands. With the extra midfielder we have running around they will have to either man up on him or face the consequences of the ball coming into the forward line so much that scoring is ineveitable.

These are just basic footy plans but they are ones we fail at constantly.

Structure is everything and especially in the forward line. We have failed here for many years. space is required in forward lines and manning up players who clog our foward line is reactive and not pro active.

I know its all much harder when you are out there and you must have the cattle but you have to start somewhere and its no point building your next premiership side with negative tactics, be positive from the start, you may cop some hidings and may not always fall your way but long term you will get there.

 

[Obeanie1]

Bottom line however is that Mckinlay will be regarded as the best forward by opposition clubs in 2009. This will mean that he will more than likely attract the best defender.

There is lots of discussion on here about decoy players and trying to hide Mckinlay and I just can't work that out.

If the opposition decide to drop 2 men back into space in our forward 50m arc then so be it. We should do the same. The reason they do it against the Eagles is because they know that Woosha will man up on them which then clogs our forward line and then opens up their own. We fall for it every game and every opposition coach does this.
Just ignor them and put your two spare men into their forward 50 as spares or at least 1 of them and use the other as a spare midfielder. This then makes the game a shootout of the best midfield. By manning them up plays into the opposition hands. With the extra midfielder we have running around they will have to either man up on him or face the consequences of the ball coming into the forward line so much that scoring is ineveitable.

At some time McKinely will get the best backman and sometimes Ben will win and other times the inform backman will keep McKinely quiet. Thats when the forward structure should mix things up and yes McKinely will become a decoy in order to put doubt in the defences minds. Perfect example was last year with Franklin and Roughead. For a couple of weeks the Hawks became too Buddy focuses and teams started double teaming him, then Clarkson used Buddy as a decoy for a quarter here and 10 minutes there and Roughead became the focal point in attack and kicked a bag.

As to when the opposition drops players back yes Woosha has been a tad predictable in manning up and simply making a contest. Next year I'd like to see Hurn and Lynch firstly go forward to man up and then drift out to the HFF, any defender knows these two have the guns to kick goals from 60m so if they decide to stay back inside the 50 then they take a big risk. Also both Lynch and Hurn can kick 'through the lines' and over the loose men standing 20-30m out from goal.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

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."


"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."

This is just long-winded piffle.

Volume doesn't equate to substance, champ.

Keep trying.

Oh, and I believe we are still waiting for you to post your forward line structure.

Do you want me to post a little six-man line-up?

Do you actually think we will have a set six-man "forward-line structure"?

We will have a handful of regular forwards - i.e. LeCras, McKinley, Hansen/Kennedy - and then we will have a bunch of other guys rotated through there. Lynch, Staker, Ebert, Hurn, Butler, Embley, Wirrpanda, Seaby, Brown, Hunter. Take your pick.

I know you struggle with nuance, but naming six players in two little lines as it appears on a team sheet is a waste of time, because it doesn't account for the endless switcheroos that will inevitably occur.

 

[beatlesmith]

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.

are you sure? I could have sworn he was with the forwards yesterday. I remember distinctly him kicking a goal from 45 on an angle. Might have changed between groups half way through.

 

[Obeanie1]

This is just long-winded piffle.

Volume doesn't equate to substance, champ.

Keep trying.

Do you want me to post a little six-man line-up?

Do you actually think we will have a set six-man "forward-line structure"?

We will have a handful of regular forwards - i.e. LeCras, McKinley, Hansen/Kennedy - and then we will have a bunch of other guys rotated through there. Lynch, Staker, Ebert, Hurn, Butler, Embley, Wirrpanda, Seaby, Brown, Hunter. Take your pick.

I know you struggle with nuance, but naming six players in two little lines as it appears on a team sheet is a waste of time, because it doesn't account for the endless switcheroos that will inevitably occur.

So in response Agent 99 you name every current player who has ever stepped foot in our forward 50...........now thats piffle if I've ever seen it.

And yet again Agent 99 dodges the question / issue, provides next to no opinion and 'goes home to mumma' and continues belittling others.

Agent 99, why don't you just stop playing the man and concentrate on the ball. For a while there after your last red card you actually interacted as close to a normal human being I've seen, unfortunately it didn't take long for you to regress back to the same old pain in the arse meglomaniac.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

So in response Agent 99 you name every current player who has ever stepped foot in our forward 50...........now thats piffle if I've ever seen it.

And yet again Agent 99 dodges the question / issue, provides next to no opinion and 'goes home to mumma' and continues belittling others.:

Did you not read the explanation?

Just carry on pretending that we will play six guys in our fixed "forward-line structure".

It's ridiculous.

If you ask me a question that doesn't have a stupid, unrealistic premise, I will happily answer it.

I notice the way you throw something out there, and then move on the moment you are challenged on it. It points to a shallowness of your ideas, as well as a certain intellectual dishonesty.

You're good for a one-liner, but everything comes tumbling down the moment any follow-up questions get asked.

You're the new Sarah Palin.

 

[PRANKSTER666]

Endless switcheroos, Gunnar?

Great idea, lets chop and change our forward line throughout the year so we can ensure there is absolutely no stability up forward.

We need to work out who is playing forward in the first half dozen games and then stick with it. Throwing Hunter and Lynch down there to pinch hit is only going to make our forward line less productive.

Sure there are always injuries but get something that resembles a forward line in place so they can work as a unit and kick some big scores.

 

[larrikin]

You're the new Sarah Palin.

Ouch

 

[bodazoka]

seriously this thread is becoming degraded if you both want to bitch at each other can you please do it in pms.

 

[fryzie]

are you sure? I could have sworn he was with the forwards yesterday. I remember distinctly him kicking a goal from 45 on an angle. Might have changed between groups half way through.

Yeah, Brown started with the defenders but definately moved to train with the forwards. It excites me

 

[larrikin]

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.

I'll be disapointed if Wirra doesn't play pedominantly as a forward next year. I worry with him down back these days

 

[MaxHunt]

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

I really like the idea of Lynch at CHB especially if he has trimmed down his mass a little and has worked on his pace off the mark.

I also like the thought of Hunter at FF if he's ready at the start of the season however i doubt that he will be 100%.

McKinley, whilst currently our best fwd, should not be our FF in the traditional sense. He does play tall however and will most times draw a key defender.

The coaching staff have an idea of the fwd line that they want to have in place by the end of the year but that will not be the one that lines up Rnd 1. Long term i think Brown or Notte will take the FF spot, short term will be more like Hansen. Lynch or Hunter.

 

[Beau_Waters for PM]

The coaching staff have an idea of the fwd line that they want to have in place by the end of the year but that will not be the one that lines up Rnd 1. Long term i think Brown or Notte will take the FF spot, short term will be more like Hansen. Lynch or Hunter.

True. I still think we'll see Lynch and Hunter at FF a few times this season.

 

[Obeanie1]

Did you not read the explanation?

Just carry on pretending that we will play six guys in our fixed "forward-line structure".

It's ridiculous.

If you ask me a question that doesn't have a stupid, unrealistic premise, I will happily answer it.

I notice the way you throw something out there, and then move on the moment you are challenged on it. It points to a shallowness of your ideas, as well as a certain intellectual dishonesty.

You're good for a one-liner, but everything comes tumbling down the moment any follow-up questions get asked.

You're the new Sarah Palin.

1. Your explination was a cop out and just a bunch of names. Little to no comment on structure, little to no comment on who is best to play where or why (other than your love child McKinley), little to no comment on rotations and little no comment on tactics.
2. When did I ever post we would only play six players in a forward line structure, quote me you goose. Don't make crap up and dishonestly post that I said it. During the year we will play a 3, 4, 5, 6 even a 7 or 8 man forward line at certain stages.
3. What have I been challenged on and then moved on and ignored it? Quote me Agent 99.

If there is a dishonest poster here its you Agent 99. When your arguments get shown up your number 1 tactic is to falsely quote or misrepresent someone and then rant on how silly they are. This is in order for you to 'move the discussion on' and you've just accused me of don't it FFS.

The way you carry on here its as if your a intelectually challenged gutter journalist who has to make stuff up and insult people to be noticed.

As to other posters, sorry about this little exchange, most of the time I ignor Agent 99 but every so often I feel like telling it how it is and before you know it its WW III.

 

[keviewiggle]

Notte will eventually be our permanent FF( reminds me a lot of a young Steven Kernahan) so would like to see him get a few games .
Lynch or Brown to CHB.

Maybe a halfback line of Hurn,Lynch & Nicoski ( All 3 lobbing the ball in the goalsquare) much better than Beau Watters sideways kicks to the opposition.

I guess this will be a year of experiments with positions and the game plan.
I can,t imagine we will have a gameplan set in stone and expect it to change as the year progresses.

 

[Shadow Minister]

are you sure? I could have sworn he was with the forwards yesterday. I remember distinctly him kicking a goal from 45 on an angle. Might have changed between groups half way through.

I'd say you are right in that he was training with the forwards at one stage but in the exercise I saw, Sumich was standing about 70m from goal kicking to the forwards on the lead. They would start about 25m from goal, lead towards Suma and he would ignore them, then they would lead back towards goal and push off their opponent and lead back towards sumich who would kick it to them.

Those involved were Kennedy on Hansen, Lynch on Notte and McKinley on Lecras. No Brown or Wirra who were at the other end with the defenders. Brown may have done some work with the forwards but just not in the drill I saw.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Endless switcheroos, Gunnar?

Great idea, lets chop and change our forward line throughout the year so we can ensure there is absolutely no stability up forward.

It's called a rotation, mate.

Are you another who thinks we will have a fixed 6-7 players who always play forward?

Our forward line is in a state of flux. We have a clutch of young talls jostling for a spot. It's not even clear which end Brown will play at. Is there room for Hansen? Is Lynch still a forward?

We don't have a specialist crumber, so there's going to be some uncertainty there, and there's any number of guys who will be deployed across the flanks.

You can whinge about "a lack of stability", but with a developing side, that's bound to happen.

We need to work out who is playing forward in the first half dozen games and then stick with it.

Won't happen.

That rigidity might simplify things, but our jigsaw is still coming together.

You want it all sorted and cleared up by round seven, but it will take us longer than that to have a neat little picture of our best set-up.

And even then, in an ideal world, we're going to have comings and goings from that forward six in the course of a game.

 

[Shtav]

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)

Totally agree. As soon as we realise he has no place the better we will be. Kennedy and Brown are going to slot in and we also have Lynch and Seaby. Hunter is an option and I would love to see him have first crack. Saw him play there in a practice match a few years ago and he killed it.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

[*]When did I ever post we would only play six players in a forward line structure

You didn't say it would be limited to six, but you are demanding I offer up a rigid, completed template for how our forward-line should function.

I don't believe that exists yet.

There are still a heap of dominoes to fall and, beyond 2-3 regular forwards, there will be extensive rotation throughout that front half.

That is my explanation for not offering up a detailed line-up, structure and set of tactics for our forward-line. It is still very much a work in progress.

I expect to see McKinley and LeCras close to goals and one of Hansen/Kennedy presenting across HF, but the rest of our personnel is yet to be determined. I don't think you can argue with that.

[*]What have I been challenged on and then moved on and ignored it?

For example, you threw out a ridiculous strawman a few pages back, suggesting I thought McKinley should play as a one-man forward-line.

I pointed out that this was a strawman, and you just dropped it and went off on another tangent.

This is a feature of your posting, Sarah.

Throw a heap of shit at the wall and see what sticks.

The way you carry on here its as if your a intelectually challenged gutter journalist who has to make stuff up and insult people to be noticed.

Yawn.

Anyone can do this.

For all your wounded accusations about my style, you default to petty, extended character assassination far more readily than I. Anyone reading this thread will see that.

 

[beatlesmith]

I think claims of palling around with terrorists and socialism are inevitable in this thread.
Can anyone see russia from their hoose??

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I think claims of palling around with terrorists and socialism are inevitable in this thread.

I prefer to talk footy, but that's not enough for some.

They have to make it personal.

It's unfortunate.

 

[RoJo Junior]

For arguments sake you would expect Lynch to be our first choice FF at the beginning of 09. By seasons end i'd say Brown.

As for our forward line structure only has 3 players whos sole primary role has been in the forward line at in the highest level is McKinley, Kennedy and Hansen. The rest play a variety of roles so there would be a rotation of 6 or 7 or more different players in our forward line at a specific time. And we are still yet to discover the most beneficial role for a number of our players. We need to be able have a flexible forward line, and starting lineup to adjust for conditions and to adapt to oppositions positional structures.

By the seasons end i'd expect Lynch to have moved more to a HFF and Brown to have been primarily played as a full forward alongside McKinley. With Kennedy holding down CHF. This may be our best forward line setup yet it certainly wont stay like that for 100% of the match with at least 2 or 3 others to be rotated through constantly during a match.

HF: Lynch Kennedy LeCras
FF: McKinley Brown Wirra

 

[bodazoka]

HF: Lynch, Kennedy, LeCras
FF: McKinley, Hansen, Wirra

Hansen will rotate through CHF/HF
McKinley will rotate through HF/FP/FF named in the FP though
LeCras will drop back to FP on occasion
Lynch will be everywhere and his HF spot will be rotated through allot of players
Kennedy will rotate through FF and CHF mainly

The point of this thread is to see which players will spend MOST of their time in the forward line. Its obvious that our forward line has allot of new players for 2009 and will be pretty usettled but I rekon these 5 players (not including Lynch) will spend more time in the forward line than others. I think Hansen will play FF as I think the staff will try and reinvent him to that role, as they would prefer to have him on the park than not he still is a pretty good young player.

 

[Obeanie1]

You didn't say it would be limited to six, but you are demanding I offer up a rigid, completed template for how our forward-line should function.

Wrong. When did I demand that, quote me!

I asked for you to put up forward line options to discuss instead of criticising others for doing this.

I don't believe that exists yet.

There are still a heap of dominoes to fall and, beyond 2-3 regular forwards, there will be extensive rotation throughout that front half.

That is my explanation (excuse) for not offering up a detailed line-up, structure and set of tactics for our forward-line. It is still very much a work in progress.

So the great Agent 99 doesn't have any ideas or options to discuss, instead you continue to belittle others who make them.

I expect to see McKinley and LeCras close to goals and one of Hansen/Kennedy presenting across HF, but the rest of our personnel is yet to be determined. I don't think you can argue with that.

For example, you threw out a ridiculous strawman a few pages back, suggesting I thought McKinley should play as a one-man forward-line.

I pointed out that this was a strawman, and you just dropped it and went off on another tangent.

What other tangent? You want McKinley as FF, I asked how would he go one on one in the goal square (thats where FF play you know!!) and my view was he would struggle one on one against the better fullbacks. How is thatgoing off on another tangent?

This is a feature of your posting, Sarah.

Actually your describing yourself here mate!

Throw a heap of shit at the wall and see what sticks.

Yawn.

Anyone can do this.

For all your wounded accusations about my style, you default to petty, extended character assassination far more readily than I. Anyone reading this thread will see that.

You live by the sword you die by the sword Gunnar, don't cry about it when someone serves back what you dish out.

As I have said many many times before play the ball and not the man and we will never have these heated debates.

Now this latest exchange of views has gone on enough I think everyone will agree. Lets see if we can get back to talking about football.

 

[RoJo Junior]

The point of this thread is to see which players will spend MOST of their time in the forward line.

If thats so then the only ones you can answer is McKinley and Kennedy end thread. They are the only players considered certain starters whos sole objective has been to play in the forward line. The rest have a variety of roles and no-one here can say they'll a specific period of time in the forward line as their positions will be altered on game day to suit the score.