Given we have two of the biggest name forwards in the league isn't it time we head hunted a proper forward coach instead of rotating blokes like Kirk and Playfair? There never seems to be any system.
Given we have two of the biggest name forwards in the league isn't it time we head hunted a proper forward coach instead of rotating blokes like Kirk and Playfair? There never seems to be any system.
Those who have the greatest power to hurt us are those we love.
How would you define a "proper" forwards coach?
A forward coach from a team who have a great forward set up. Eg the crowsOriginally Posted by ugg
Okay, assuming that we don't manage to poach David Teague from the Crows, what sort of qualities are you hoping for in a proper forwards coach to replace Kirk?
Our forwards are not the problem. It's the midfielders who kick the ball directly to opposition defenders that are the problem.
It's not the forwards as such I'm talking about. it is the structure of the forward line. Look at the options presented to the Giants as they went forward. We are usually out numbered or in one big pack. There is no spread or forwards dummy leading to create space. Kirk should work with the mids. Longmire should take responsibility for looking after the forward line himself because he was a gun. Kirk, Francou, Dew are all ex onballers and Blakey is an ex defender. Only Playfair was a forward and he was no great exponent of the craft.
I know execution is a problem, but look at the options the crows have - space everywhere and forwards leading to all points of the compass.
Teague was mainly a serviceable defender in his AFL career. Buchanan the GWS forwards coach was arguably better in the midfield than in the forwards. Would discredit your theory that only great forwards make great forward coaches.
There may be a strategy but if so it doesn't work very well. You would think that with Buddy up the ground, XR on the lead, either KT or NS out from the goal square, Papley or McG bobbing around and Rohan or Heeney or Parks playing defensively it would be the best in the competition. Sigh!
Up until yesterday I thought our forward structure was operating quite well.
Our forward structure looks much better when only one of Papley/McGlynn is playing.
It is bizarre how its been working so well, and we then pretty much just abandoned it when the going got tough on Saturday.
Will be interesting to see how we structure up with Nankervis in for Tippett. Hopefully we might abandon this idea of Buddy being a midfielder, and keep him where he is most dangerous. Yes it might work when we are in a spot, or in need of some inspiration, but despite getting plenty of touches on Saturday, he was largely ineffective. Stick him back where he should be and let him do the damage he can.
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
Not playing Buddy ANYWHERE near the goal square was a massive mistake on Saturday.
Even if we did manage to get the ball (and Hanners didn't send it directly to the bogans), there was no one to kick it to up forward.
Poor X was sometimes back there, and when he was, he was surrounded by four players.
I know it's obvious, but they really need to man up.
Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks