Numbers are wrong? You really think there is a set formula?
Tigers ran with 2 ruckmen, is that wrong?
-
Guest - BigFooty Tipping 2025 - Get on! - $500 first prize - Weekly Prizes - Click to Join
PLUS Your club board comp is now up!
Prediction Your 2020 Best 22 (Post Trade Period)
- Thread starter V_23
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Numbers are wrong? You really think there is a set formula?
Tigers ran with 2 ruckmen, is that wrong?
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,755
- 15,750
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- carlton
Yeah, there is. Certainly for us under Teague.
And for teams that play 2 rucks, one of them is a forward.
This whole "players only play one role" again?
Stop suggesting people are wrong when you have no idea(nor do we), of what Teague and the MC will do
You think he’ll radically change his coaching philosophy over one pre-season?
I think you might have missed the shift through the last season. Whether caused by or emphasised by the 6-6-6, wings are back in the game. There are more specialist forwards. Less players rotate through the midfield than they did 5 years ago.
I missed it?
Have a look at the first game he took over, the Lions. Going on how you rank players as being one positional robots, he selected, 8 defenders, 6 mids and 7 forwards, plus a ruckman
Strange thing is though, many of those guys played different roles on the day
We are not in the 70's Stamos, nor is Teague
Are you counting Samo as a back? Because he hadn’t been shifted out of the midfield then.
When did he get shifted out?
It was only the last 6 or 7 games
Oh yeah, okay...
Let's pick another game then, round 18, only 6 mids, yet 8 forwards
Nine's Wide World of Sports, Match Results & Live Scores
Nine Wide World of Sports breaking news headlines, live scores and match results
wwos.nine.com.au
Couple more like these Stamos.
Not a high brow line ........................ but have observed since the the AVCO press box days and the Big H (umpire).
Levi is in the squad even when the fragile forwards are fit. He has the natural physical approach (ie: slightly aggro) I've yet to see with anyone other than Mitch McG. And I'm not convinced on him.
I'm hopeful about the the Hawks ruck guy ..................... but we lose a midfielder (Kruez). Does Wow have a Kouta (grand)son?
Levi is in the squad even when the fragile forwards are fit. He has the natural physical approach (ie: slightly aggro) I've yet to see with anyone other than Mitch McG. And I'm not convinced on him.
I'm hopeful about the the Hawks ruck guy ..................... but we lose a midfielder (Kruez). Does Wow have a Kouta (grand)son?
Oh yeah, okay...
Let's pick another game then, round 18, only 6 mids, yet 8 forwards
Nine's Wide World of Sports, Match Results & Live Scores
Nine Wide World of Sports breaking news headlines, live scores and match results
Couple more like these Stamos.
Think you might need to count again?
I don't need to, majority of people understand that many players rotate into different arcs, just like Cripps resting forward. Your Teague theory of playing, 7, 7, 7 plus a ruckman for the 2nd half of the year is incorrect
Here is another game for you, you won't need your abacus to count only 6 backmen
Nine's Wide World of Sports, Match Results & Live Scores
Nine Wide World of Sports breaking news headlines, live scores and match results
wwos.nine.com.au
heatleystandend
Senior List
- Nov 12, 2016
- 170
- 994
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Settlefield played back this game. So we went into the game with 7 designated back line players.
So looks like players can play more than one role
Setterfield played back the entire game. We picked 7 backs.
I have never said that players are only capable of playing a single role, or that they don’t occasionally shift to rest forward, or take the occasional centre bounce due to who’s caught on the bench, or change due to injuries.
But we pick a team structured as 7/7/7.
We don’t pick 10 mids in our 22 and have nobody designated on the bench to play back, or forward.
Players have to accept playing wherever they're told to play.
1. It doesn't mean they want to play there 2. It doesn't mean they're going to be proficient in doing so. e.g. ECurnow, Polson and Gibbons last year.
We've taken this whole conversation into ridiculous extremes for the sake of some internet 'win'
I don't think you're suggesting that every player can play every position well.
I know at least Stamos and I aren't suggesting players should be locked into one specific role forever and a day.
Of course the pieces will be moved around to accommodate needs on the basis of 1. The game/opponent 2. Overall team structure 3. An oversupply of types.
You want your best and highest-skilled players on the ground at the one time, but getting the right balance takes time and I think that's where we're at.
Will SPS be that defender we want him to be?
Can Fisher now play that forward role when being asked to do so?
What are the plans for Dow, if he's not playing midfield?
Is Kennedy going to work playing forward, given a midfield role is seemingly getting further out of reach for him?
Is TDK going to be more of a forward or ruck? etc etc
There are still a lot of questions about the make-up of our best 22 and here's the thing - No matter what we think it will be...we'll be wrong. That's for sure.
Well this contradicts your previous statements of where players play, who is competing for spots and who doesn't, it's a fallacy. Of course you need coverage in all areas, but there are more than 7 players that can play in the one area, on any given day
We don't pick a side based on a formula. Sides are picked on a number of factors based on form/flexibility/structure/weather etc.
The balance of the players picked was no different to Bolton, Teague just shuffled the magnets differently
I think I have read your Ed, Polson, Gibbons posts countless times, it's getting boring.
This has nothing to do with internet wins. Both of you have this stringent set square, of where players will play.
You are now trying to read a player's thoughts that he isn't happy playing in a certain area? Seriously.Now we are even telling people they are wrong, for having an opinion?
Summarise -
First sentence - No content but a personal attack
Second sentence - Making unwarranted assumptions
Third sentence - No content. - How about asking the question?
Running out of gas Arrow?
Summarise -
First sentence - No content but a personal attack
Second sentence - Making unwarranted assumptions
Third sentence - No content. - How about asking the question?
Running out of gas Arrow?
I can go all day Harks, especially around contradictions and opinions being passed off as facts
I know you can and that's why I suggested that 'the win' is important to you.
We all should be able to accept an others' opinion without losing ourselves about it.
There was no menace in the post I put forward but your reaction? Relax. It's just discussion.
You are doing it again Harks, telling people how they feel or think. Debate my original statement that kicked off this interaction with others and now you.
And unlike others, just forget he names. Its a fallacy that different style/types of players are not competing with one another for a spot
Prediction - Your 2020 Best 22 (Post Trade Period)
This idiot is gonna have a go at how we line up round 1 
Plowman - Jones - Simpson Doc - weitering - Newman Newnes - Cripps - Walsh Kruezer - setterfield - Murphy Fisher - McKay - Martin Betts - Kennedy - CAZ Cunningham - SPS - GOV - ED UNLUCKY: Gibbo: outshone by Martin and...
Plowman - Jones - Simpson Doc - weitering - Newman Newnes - Cripps - Walsh Kruezer - setterfield - Murphy Fisher - McKay - Martin Betts - Kennedy - CAZ Cunningham - SPS - GOV - ED UNLUCKY: Gibbo: outshone by Martin and...
www.bigfooty.com
You are doing it again Harks, telling people how they feel or think. Debate my original statement that kicked off this interaction with others and now you.
And unlike others, just forget he names. Its a fallacy that different style/types of players are not competing with one another for a spot
Prediction - Your 2020 Best 22 (Post Trade Period)
This idiot is gonna have a go at how we line up round 1
I'd never tell you what you should think. It actually feels the other way around....but I may be wrong.
An opinion is just that and it's there to be debated. I guess that's the purpose of a 'discussion' board after all
Again, if we continue this path we'll enter the realm of 'You're a this' and 'You're a that' and at that point no further good can come about.
All good.
Well then why engage half way through a debate/interaction. If you or others disagree with my original statement, that's great, share your thoughts. But to post people are "wrong" for posting an opinion seems strange
Let's not pass off opinions as fact
