Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 25 to 34 of 34

Thread: 2018 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

  1. #25
    Like I argued at the beginning and half way thru season a great team has flexibility in stages of a game to temper opposition momentum and or cycles in the season.

    Primarily adjusting between contested and uncontested footy.

    Therefore to have a squad that is more flexible with speed and execution is paramount

    That is what it feels like we have been trying to achieve last season and in this season in our receruitment ie some rebounding run and carry ability is critical for the swans

  2. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    I don't think we can apply last year's view on how we play the ruck to the upcoming season. We were the last contender playing 2 ruckmen.
    As I asked many times last year, are we playing 2 ruckmen or playing a three tall forward line. Horse loves to play Naismith, Buddy, Reid and Tippett/Sinclair as it provides a lot of flexibility
    - 3 tall marking forwards to expose small defensive setup
    - allows Buddy to roam up ground whilst still maintaining marking options up forward.
    - ability to move Reid back to defense for last 5min of each qtr or when required whilst still maintaining marking options up forward
    - provide relief for primary ruckmen.

    So its not so much dropping the 2nd ruckman, it is dropping the 3rd tall forward and what impact this has on our game plan and structures.

    I've never liked the 3 tall forward line option. Though last year i was prepared to give it a chance. But it just doesn't work for us. Nor Adelaide for that matter. And I think their 3 talls are better than ours as a combined unit. I'm back to a more balanced structure. If your worried about your defence, then play defenders. If your primary ruckman isn't fit enough to get through 4 qtrs, play someone who is.

    For me Naismith/Tippet/Sinclair/Cameron are fighting for the primary ruck role. The rest are back-ups.

    A forward line of Buddy, Reid, Rohan, Hayward, Papley and resting midfielder provides us with much more balance and versatility.

  3. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Flying South View Post
    A forward line of Buddy, Reid, Rohan, Hayward, Papley and resting midfielder provides us with much more balance and versatility.
    I am very much in favour of this forward line. Richmond proved that one tall forward was enough let alone three.

  4. #28
    I saw Richmond winning via incredible contested pressure,very fast counter attack and their rotation being tweaked towards more runners hence probably having the legs to maintain the intensity all 4 qtrs

  5. #29
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Crowland :-(
    Posts
    2,818
    Should we have a separate thread to discuss game plans, player roles, player positions, tactics etc, particularly during the off season?

    Leave this thread purely for trading, drafting, list management? Mods?

  6. #30
    pr. dim-melb; m not f
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Northcote
    Posts
    6,241
    Quote Originally Posted by 707 View Post
    Should we have a separate thread to discuss game plans, player roles, player positions, tactics etc, particularly during the off season?

    Leave this thread purely for trading, drafting, list management? Mods?
    I think this is a good idea. We could call it The R&W Coaches' Box.
    He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)

  7. #31
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Rai
    Posts
    5,181
    Some of the posts on this page illustrate how closely related are the topics of game plans and list management. Posts about one subject seem to flow into the other, so even if we had separate threads, we would probably then end up with 2 threads where both subjects are discussed. It's easy to see that if someone suggests that we have a 'run and gun' offense, then someone else will bring up what kind of players we need to fit that game plan. If RWO members tend to combine the subject matter then we probably should just let it flow that way rather than try to artificially separate these subjects. We often get people posting the same thing to 2 different threads when we have 2 active threads which are closely related.

  8. #32
    Veterans List wolftone57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lilyfield
    Posts
    4,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Flying South View Post
    As I asked many times last year, are we playing 2 ruckmen or playing a three tall forward line. Horse loves to play Naismith, Buddy, Reid and Tippett/Sinclair as it provides a lot of flexibility
    - 3 tall marking forwards to expose small defensive setup
    - allows Buddy to roam up ground whilst still maintaining marking options up forward.
    - ability to move Reid back to defense for last 5min of each qtr or when required whilst still maintaining marking options up forward
    - provide relief for primary ruckmen.

    So its not so much dropping the 2nd ruckman, it is dropping the 3rd tall forward and what impact this has on our game plan and structures.

    I've never liked the 3 tall forward line option. Though last year i was prepared to give it a chance. But it just doesn't work for us. Nor Adelaide for that matter. And I think their 3 talls are better than ours as a combined unit. I'm back to a more balanced structure. If your worried about your defence, then play defenders. If your primary ruckman isn't fit enough to get through 4 qtrs, play someone who is.

    For me Naismith/Tippet/Sinclair/Cameron are fighting for the primary ruck role. The rest are back-ups.

    A forward line of Buddy, Reid, Rohan, Hayward, Papley and resting midfielder provides us with much more balance and versatility.

    The other thing is Cameron is a very good drop back and intercept player. He played like that in the reserves taking some super grabs and setting up run out of defence.

  9. #33
    pr. dim-melb; m not f
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Northcote
    Posts
    6,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    Some of the posts on this page illustrate how closely related are the topics of game plans and list management. Posts about one subject seem to flow into the other, so even if we had separate threads, we would probably then end up with 2 threads where both subjects are discussed. It's easy to see that if someone suggests that we have a 'run and gun' offense, then someone else will bring up what kind of players we need to fit that game plan. If RWO members tend to combine the subject matter then we probably should just let it flow that way rather than try to artificially separate these subjects. We often get people posting the same thing to 2 different threads when we have 2 active threads which are closely related.
    I take your point. Maybe coaching is something the match day thread might encourage - it tends to do that anyway!
    He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)

  10. #34
    Agree with Ludwig.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO