I must admit, I had a good chuckle at that one. It's akin to Tiger Woods saying he's not interested in bonking blondes.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

I don't know about that. I rarely see Jamo or Bower lose a marking contest due to lack of size. Take last week, Jamo harldy lost one marking contest to Buddy, it was Buddy's great athleticism to recover from the contest and gather a loose ball that enabled him to have a good game. If they are injury free, I am more than happy with our crop of key defenders. I'd prefer that to having a Rutten type monster who is exposed when the ball hits the deck and provides no run.

Give hammer a go down back as a loose man in the Bullies games after he's been rucking. Couldn't hurt surely.

_________________
--------------------------------------------------------"The only one that could ever love me..."

Once again preacherman, I'm with you on this idea.

We know Hammer can run and jump like no other, and as a result he can ruck, chase and find space with those weapons.
That's the 'known'. What about the 'unknown' and the gaps our team has?

Surely it can't hurt trialling Hammer in the backline. As the loose man, it will give him the time, exposure and a good view of the way the ball travels into the backline and what key forwards do to attract the ball. Overtime, lets say for the rest of the year, he would learn a fair bit about the backline.

I'd like him trialled and developed as a forward as well. At 200cm and with the pace he has, surely he has the tools to close down on leading forwards and on the flipside to find space to take an easy leading mark.

I really think we should be developing this guy, instead of pigeon holing, given we have 4 ruckmen on our books.

Hammer is still so young, and I believe he's been in the system long enough to understand the game very well by now, regardless of what you hear from those who believe he'ss always be disadvantaged because Aussie rules wasn't his first choice sport.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

Yeah agreed I enjoyed watching him play, nice to see a player with a bit of mongrel and willing to throw themselves around. He was always in the thick of things.

Loved Setanta's mark in the first quarter when he made a point of holding the ball up over his head - probably heard everyone yelling "STOP!"

Was glad for the win but it was fairly unconvincing, wobbly kicking and it seemed we just turned the engine off at the end of the third quarter. Just annoyed at our stupid kick-to-kick at the end of the game that resulted in another goal to Kennedy (can we get him back?!)

One thing I've noticed in the past few games is that we are useless at contested marks. We either can't take them or else our players don't position themselves well enough if the ball comes to ground. The only player I reckon who I'm confident in taking a contested mark is Kruz. Butter fingers were working overdrive yesterday.

Also, do our players wear horse blinkers when they play because their peripheral vision is shocking.

I'd love to know the number of marks taken by WCE defenders v Carlton forwards in our F50. Our entries were ordinary and forwards were very static at times. Our forwards have been on top when they spread well and get space on their backmen. Pack marks is not our go really.

_________________
T E A M

Just wanted to say thanks to the Blues for beating the Weagles.

I had a great day at work today laughing at all their sooky supporters over here.

_________________
I support the Navy Blues whatever happens!

Yep ... it was a pleasure phoning my folks today

Satanta got outmarked a number of times which is very rare for him this year. Normally he at least causes a contest. I am sure Ratts has told him all about it.

I agree, i thought he had a great game. He got votes in the HUN today so he may be a chance for thr NRS nomination this week.
My most disappointing moment was when Thornton in the final minute of the game lazily kicked to Jammo and missed causing a turnover and the last goal of the match to WCE. On the replay they went to the coaches box and they were all shaking their heads.

Mitch = Hickmott MkII.

_________________
And so while others miserably pledge themselves to the pursuit of ambition and brief power, I will be stretched out in the shade, singing.

I agree Kaptain Kouta.

Robbo is the closest thing we've had to Hickmott for the past decade.

Hickmott came to Carlton with 6 years under his belt and was one of the best in a losing GF against us when he came to Carlton.
Can you imagine what Robbo will be like with another 3 preseasons under his belt and say 60 games?

It's happening.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

Nowhere near as good overhead as Hickmott at the moment. But I love the way he plays.

And it's for things like this that I believe T-Bird is no longer in our best 22..
He was again beaten by his opponent (Kennedy).. Funny how Thornton's opponents are usually on the oppositions list of best players...

_________________
James Hird and Essendon* FC - #FOREVERDRUGCHEATS

I think t-bird isnt in our best 22 either but if not for kennedy's astonishing accuracy, it wouldn't have looked so bad. If he had kicked 2.3, we would have said T-bird beat him, 3.2 would have been evens. Most shots were from the 50 or beyond. As a defender playing on a forward he wasnt too bad. It's his field play which is lacking

_________________
T E A M

Big size dufference between Kennedy and Thornton.

Having said that, if we choose to go with a 2 tall KP backline, I can't see TBird being one of the 2 if Jamo and Bower are fit.

Then there's Waite to consider forward or back, and waiting in the wings we have Austin who is a tad taller, will be stronger, a better mark and faster than TBird.

If we are to plug our weakness in the backline which is matching the giants the opposition send forward to stretch us, then Waite and Hendo can stay forward and Setanta can swing back.

We have to think of what we would do in a GF, because there is no next week to cover the deficiency.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

I agree with jimmae.

The blokes 195-200cm+ have always been a problem for us.
We've seen what opposition coached do to stretch Jamo 193 and Bower 193...they send in the ruck or the super tall forwards.

I think the point jimmae makes is that our backmen do struggle against the very talls like Brown, Bradshaw, Hall etc and the next crop of upcoming KP's of similar size and maybe ilk will likely do the same as they develop into bonafide stars of the game.

To respond to your comment Spornstar re Jamo and Bower being rarely beaten by height. I have. I have lots of times, by the types jimmae mentions.

Jamo was outmarked against Buddy, and probably the reason he isn't outmarked many of the times is that he chooses to try and get away with giving away the free kick because he's about to lose the marking duel. Everyone must recall umpires catching Jamo giving away free kicks. Same applies to Bower. Refer to last year's Final against Brizzy. Last year when Maric went forward, and Birdman.....it has been discussed at length.

Rutten isn't as slow as some believe. He ran off Fevola all day a couple of weeks ago. Now Fev has got a decent take off and against Rutten it didn't look effective. I wish we had a big bodied tall to out muscle and move KP giants aside and away from a marking opportunity; not necassarily Rutten, but his strength would do just nicley in a GF.

That's not to say I'm unhappy with the current crop of defenders we have. Good thing for us is the mids and forward have been pretty decent this year kicking higher scores than we did in the past and win despite being towered in the backline. Although in a GF, against a competitive midfield, we better have a plan for the tall timber the opposition coach will send to the FF line to stretch Jamo and Bower; after all, that is standard practise.

That's why I'd like us to consider developing Hammer in other roles such as backline in the future, otherwise we have to send back Setanta in times of need and when we did that this year that really robbed Peter to pay Paul as it usually does.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

I'm surprised that you have that view Jimmae. I'm one of those that believe we should have as many who are close to the 190 cm mark as possible in the back half (as long as they are agile), but I'm not sure monster defenders are the way to go IMO. I think Bower and Jammo, although there are doubts about their durability, are shaping up very nicely and haven't peaked yet. They are both very good spoilers and similar sizes to the Geelong CHB, FB combo Scarlett and Taylor. I have high hopes for both of our blokes

They'd be better, but I'd argue guys like Brown, Kennedy, Gumbleton, etc will consistently be a thorn in our side until we get our hands on another tall defender. Austin might be a candidate, but I don't believe him to be much taller.

I know it's a just a few cms and kgs, but one way or another these types of players - provided they are of sufficient quality - do manage to stretch our defence.[/quote]

I'm surprised that you have that view Jimmae. I'm one of those that believe we should have as many who are close to the 190 cm mark as possible in the back half (as long as they are agile), but I'm not sure monster defenders are the way to go IMO. I think Bower and Jammo, although there are doubts about their durability, are shaping up very nicely and haven't peaked yet. They are both very good spoilers and similar sizes to the Geelong CHB, FB combo Scarlett and Taylor. I have high hopes for both of our blokes [/quote]
I agree B. If we can counter the goals these talls kick from contested marks with hard rebound footy off the contested marks they miss then I believe we don’t have a problem. The fast counter from defense sets up our whole game. Gives us use of the corridor which in turn opens up our forward line.

We might get caught out every now and again but more times than not going with a more mobile defence will make us a better side.