geese context is a helpful thing
the argument started off by me suggesting that the below four players starting against generally small forward teams like the Pies, Dogs, Saints in particular would be a disaster. They might not start 3 or 4 smalls in 2010 but they can as they have some very exciting small forwards.
Grundy
Mattner
LRT
Bolton
Mattner is quick but he was exposed badly on the flanks last year when marking a small. He tried hard and will be even better in 2010 no doubt. Grundy looked very good too but he too is slow on a smaller forward. Tag is flexible to play small or tall but he doesnt love marking tight.
I felt this was an area of concern last year ie that the the superior teams of 2009 had very exciting smaller forward combinations and it left our talls grasping at air.
I could be wrong -its only my recollection - but looking for a solution rather than a problem is worthy !
so here we go - just not have one of the talls as there is generally three smalls in most top 4 type teams in their forward lines - of course we can play all 4 talls if they have 4 talls starting.
I wouldnt even be surprised if we saw a Josh Kennedy who is a mobile 189cm start in the backs tagging in the occasional game to get a tight matchup !!
That gives us a great advantage later in the game by gaining another midfielder
Solution (A) against say the pies
Davis vs Shaw
Didack vs Smith
Thomas vs Tag
Pendlebury vs Mattner or Grundy depending on their bench
Anthony vs Bolton
Cloke vs LRT
Solution (B) against say the pies - if they start 4 small quick forwards it is a very tough match up for us and most teams !
Davis vs Malceski
Didack vs Smith
Thomas vs Tag
Dick vs Shaw
Anthony vs Bolton
Cloke vs LRT
-
-
One of the pleasurable sights of 2009 was seeing LRT and Reg run and carry out the back half. For big men they're pretty mobile.Leave a comment:
-
ok to be fair - how we going now ??
I never said three of the 4 players would not be acceptable. I said all 4 on the field starting is a major problem !!
Looks like we have them covered and we will end up top4 in the comp?? Pies love their small forwards, so too the Dogs and the Saints !!
Davis vs Mattner - oh frig
Didack vs Smith - hhhhmmm not in the same class
Thomas vs Tag - that worries me also
Pendlebury vs Grundy - even maybe?
Anthony vs Bolton - we could win this dual
Cloke vs LRT - even maybe?
Bench:
Medhurst vs ?
Brad Dick vs ?Leave a comment:
-
-
Davis vs Mattner
Didack vs Grundy
Thomas vs Bolton
Pendlebury vs LRT
Medhurst vs ?
Brad Dick vs ?
We recruited small forwards / flankers also so we can start isolating the one on one flanks with guys who can burn rubber !!! just like the Pies, Dogs and even the Cats
The point being that against the Pies, Dogs, Cats etc etc etc etc....... playing the above 4 talls will not work........no matter how much we like them as players !!Last edited by Auntie.Gerald; 29 January 2010, 07:31 PM.Leave a comment:
-
-
Bolton
LRT
Mattner
Grundy
Having all 4 in the backline at the one time we will get smashed against small forward teams like Bulldogs or Collingwood etc etcLeave a comment:
-
-
-
Smith C Bolton Grundy
Kennelly LRT Mattner
Shaw J Bolton McVeigh
MOD Goodes McGlynn
Bradshaw White (TDL, Jetta or Sumner)
Mumford O'Keefe Kirk
Jack Seaby Richards Malceski
Emer: Bird Kennedy ThorntonLeave a comment:
-
FB: Smith Bolton C Mattner
HB: Kennelly Grundy Malceski
C:Hannebery O'Keefe Shaw
HF: T D-L Goodes Bolton J.
FF: White Bradshaw Jack
Followers: Mumford Kirk McVeigh
Interchange: LRT,Seaby,Mc Glynn,Jetta
Emergencies: Sumner,Kennedy,Barlow,
This is a dangerously attacking side !
I don't know how to fit LRT into this side. Grundy is in sensational early season form and deserves CHB.Leave a comment:
-
My team for now. This 22 makes certain assumptions about continued improvement and new-found good form, so I'd allow for a healthy degree of flexibililty depending on
who does and doesn't perform in the first few rounds and mix it up accordingly.
B: Smith, LRT, C.Bolton
HB: Kennelly, Grundy, Shaw
C: Malceski, Kirk, Mattner
HF: McGlynn, Goodes, Jack
F: Bradshaw, White, TDL
R: Mumford, O'keefe, McVeigh
I: Seaby, Bird, Richards, Jetta/Hannebery
E: Currie, Kennedy, J.Bolton, O'Dwyer
Missing out (initially):
Vezpremi
Meredith
Bevan
Moore
Barlow
Johnston.. etc
Individual comments:
Smith: Hopefully he continues to develop this year, I think this guy will be a star.
C.Bolton: Ever reliable.
LRT/Grundy: Provided Grundy continues to improve he will be my choice for CHB going forward. LRT could step into CHB if required but I would prefer if Grundy is given the opportunity to grab the CHB role by the horns and hopefully cement his spot there.
Tadhg/Shaw: If they perform to my expectation there will be fireworks at HBF this year.
Malceski: Wing is the position I always wanted him to play, providing accurate kicking into the forward line. I'm putting his name down out of hope that the positive news from training etc actually translates into form this year.
Kirk: Keep the captain in the centre of the ground and let him do what he does best.
Mattner: Again, good decision making and accurate kicking into the forward line. He's performed in this role and should continue to do so.
McGlynn: Depending on who we're playing tagging duty may be the best role initially but I'd also like really like to see what he can do as one of the small men in our forward line. HFF is also where I would rotate Jetta/Hannebery initially, so it's a bit of an open position. Still, this guy looks very tough for a small bloke and given his age as well he is somebody that I'd really like to see as a permanent part of our side regardless of where he starts out.
Goodes: Even though it's what we've been told is happening anyway I can see the sense in playing Goodles at CHF (or just about anywhere else for that matter - is there anything he can't do?). Seriously though, big, strong, highly mobile, sensational skills all round, how do you match up? He'll be a serious headache for any opposition, which will make the job that much easier for the rest of the forward line. Although I view him as the catalyst rather than the main target I think he'll kick a bag, after all, he's managed that as a mid fielder before..
Jack: I can see Jack turning into one of those players that just have a knack for turning up out of nowhere when least expected and causing untold damage (like that match winning goal against the Eagles last year, I was jumping like Tom Cruise on my couch that time!). I would like to give him the freedom to move around quite a bit but still keep his main focus on exploiting opportunities up forward.
Bradshaw: Given age and past injuru issues we should use him while we can (in order of priority) as a) a mentor for our young blokes, b) to take the pressure off the young blokes by drawing opposition defenders and c) as a goal kicker in his own right. I would really like to have a succession plan in place ASAP even though he's on a 3 year contract.
White: Fingers crossed he really is the next big thing.. Either way he'll play, not like we have many real alternatives.
TDL: What was it, 60 something goals in the WAFL? I don't expect him to play to anything like that standard in the AFL, but he's clearly got talent and he looks mature enough to slot right in. If he fails to deliver (or needs a break) there are plenty of other candidates who could have a crack at this position, so I'm not worried about taking the risk.
Mumford: By all accounts this guy is going to be fantastic by the time he gets a couple of seasons under his belt. Even if Seaby looked like a safer bet in the short term I would play Mumford as our #1 ruck to fast-track his development. Either way, from recent reports it looks like Mummy is the one that stands out, and if Seaby doesn't impress quickly he may be the one to find himself giving up his 2nd spot.
O'keefe/McVeigh: Both players have proven to be dangerous up forward as well as in the midfield and both are hard working, natural athletes able to stay mobile without running out of juice. With them both able to move forward with the play and with Goodes, McGlynn and Jack being capable of midfield work if necessary we have a very flexible and unpredictable setup for moving the ball forward.
Seaby/Currie: In finding out that we got Seaby and Mumford at the same time I've always considered Seaby a transitional measure. If Mumford performs and we are able get Currie right for senior level AFL I would much rather spend our time developing him than settle for a player that while 'good' is unlikely to become great, and will not have as long a life span either.
Bird: We desperately need to make a call on the next generation of clearance players soon, and like many of you I think Bird is the hot prospect. He looks really fit now and I would prefer to give him a permanent role this year even if it comes at the cost of losing somebody more experienced in order to make room. While starting on the bench in this line up my intention would be to work him into the regular side so that we basically won't be so dependent on Kirk and Jude.
Richards: Spare defender. He could basically relieve any position in the back half if necessary.
Jetta/Hannebery: I'd love to see both jetta and hannebery in our permanent side, but since they are both so fresh I'm guessing neither player will play all season, and yet I want to see them both play. It might be down to a rotation based on current form.
Kennedy: Haven't seen enough to make a call on him yet, but if both Kirk and Jude were to retire we will need more than one extraction/clearance player. If, like many say, this is what he will be good at then somewhere along the way I'd like to see him get some game time.
J.Bolton: It's already been said that Jude won't be playing his traditional role going forward, and yet I really struggle to see him slide neatly into any other role in our 2010 team. To spend resources developing him into a new role at his current age would almost be wasteful given the pool of young talent we have to work with. It's a very tough call, but I think we're going to have to start getting used to not having him in our 22.
O'Dwyer: A year ago he was one of only a few young, small players with enough talent and experience to be considered for our senior side. This year however we have so many options to explore that I'm not sure I'd include him before trying out the likes of Jetta and giving Hannebery more time. We may even find that some of the other recent arrivals develop ahead or schedule and may find a place in the side sooner than expected. While MOD has not exactly disappointed, I didn't get the same feeling as watching Hannebery last year.
The other boys just haven't showed me enough to put their name down. I'm running out of patience with Moore and Barlow, and while Bevan can usually stand up when required he just doesn't seem to have enough to give in order to stay in the side from 2010 on. Vezpa and Meredith have shown some signs but all of a sudden they need to show a lot more to make our best 22. The other youngsters seem to still have some ways to develop before they are ready.
My thoughts so far, though I'll probably change my mind before the season starts...Leave a comment:
-
We might as well get it right at this stage of his career. It's HANNEBERY, Dan Hannebery. Although the trouble we've had for years with Tadgh er Tidhg um Tigdh...oh , forget it! (Tadhg?)Leave a comment:
-
Here's my updated for Round 1 after a first attempt in October:
Shaw C. Bolton Roberts-Thomson
Kennelly Grundy Richards
Malceski O'Keefe Mattner
J. Bolton Goodes Bird
Jack Bradshaw White
Seaby Kirk McVeigh
Int: Mumford, Smith, McGlynn, Hannaberry
Emergencies: Kennedy , Vezpremi, PlayfairLeave a comment:
Leave a comment: