club29 wrote:
bondiblue wrote:
Always wanted a taller Fwd Ruck than SOS, hence my preference for TDK in the Fwd-Ruck spot for obvious reasons (Saints have identified), and always steadfast having SOS in the backline, instead of Young, not because of his dads legacy, but his footy IQ, and knowing despite he improved his running back in 2021-22 to give him a chance in the midfield, he would always have a faster defender on him playing forward. His pace in the backline never crossed my mind. Every defender will find it challenging to stop a fast lead, creating a 2 metre gap and hit up with a perfect pass; that's footy for all defenders.
What SOS has done is given us IQ in the backline. Something Young (despite his height advantage) couldn't give us. Defence needed to be dumbed down for Young: Punch the ball at all costs. IQ to make good decisions to help team mates and beat his opponent is what SOS would give us and has.
With SOS filling the one huge gap we had on our list, we fixed the backline.
And our midfielders have been brilliant.
Now we have Young who can play a Fwd/ Ruck role which allows Charlie and Harry to run around more than stand the goal square. Young has quicker legs and a higher reach than SOS, but isn't quicker above the shoulders. So, keep it simple for Young in the goal square with Durds near by, and he will keep rewarding us just as he has all year since the preseason.
We are more dangerous when our 2 KPFs are moving around the forward line presenting leads and creating space, and the smalls at their feet are in a frenzied mood. Thank god Durdin came in last week to the bring back the speed needed for create the forward frenzy we have missed in the first 4 weeks, and surprisingly, to remind the Durdin detractors of last year who didnt even realise the role Vossy had his small forwards playing last year....in the backline. Pretty hard to get a kick back there whilst your job is to fill holes, and prettyu hard to be at the feet of a forward to snag goals when in the backline.
We can give this season a nudge, in TDKs last as a Carlton player. The plan to win a flag whilst he's still with us is still the goal. He's not worth a million dollars imo. No ruck is. He's going to Saints as a KPF and to give Marshall a chop out in the ruck. The opposite to Carlton.
We are not far off. In fact we are not far off, we are "on". WE haven't played a 4 quarter game this year. Lets bring on the 4 quarter performance we brought last year when we played the Cats, and Scott declaring that Carlton team was the best team his Cats had ever faced. Ever. We have than in us.
Bring on the Cats at the G.
So you want to play Charlie , H and Young? I can't go with that. We actually look pretty good when we are the team with the energy. Have done all year. When the energy fades we get smashed on the scoreboard. If only the game day data told us when we were fading in quarters and we had a plan to play different in that phase to not get scored against in the very least.
Id go with Charlie and H or Charlie and Young. Keep the extra running player in the line up to maintain energy levels for longer. Avoid long kicks to contests. Take the extra possessions when attacking that brings the small forwards into the game. Choose shorter different options when going inside 50 and dont kick it on Curnows head. Put it into space near him.
Keep the rotations through the middle to even out the way we use our energy.
There's a separate thread discussing the ruck set up. Its called "The ruck debate". There's arguments for and against, and more.
I know where you are coming from club, and respect your position. Personally, I think there's too much risk without ruck cover and messing with our forward structure.
As for your argument the energy dropping is bringing us undone, who are you blaming for that? Surely not 2 rucks or 3 KPFs. Let me remind you, its been our small forwards who have failed us, in first half and 2nd halves in our losses, and currently we have Williams Motlop Durdin Fogarty White and Lord keeping out Evans and Fantasia. There's a plethora of small forwards every week and they have failed us. The small forwards have not given us our run. Williams and Motlop only go into the centre a couple times a game, and in the last 2 weeks 3-4 CB's of the 30-39 CBs. Not much really.
What I will say is, that supporters have argued with me that we will never have 2 rucks and shouldn't. What I do know is its not me who wants the Fwd Ruck included in the team, its the MC who decide to do it and they have. They have their reason, and I buy their reasoning. Some like to sit on the fence and say "Horses for Courses" re the 2 rucks. You seem to be totally against the thought because...the small forwards give us energy (where were Motlop, Fog and White in the first half in the last 2 games against bottom 2 teams?)
I keep hearing OUR supporters reiterate whatever they hear from the media, in particular their god, David King, that our style of footy/ game plan is unsustainable. I keep hearing 2 rucks can't work.
But what I do know and noticed over the last 40 years is that footy has always been bash and crash and its nothing new. Its a physical game. No such thing as winners playing bruise free footy. I also noticed we haven't had injuries last year nor this year due to our bash and crash style. Ive nentioned this several times when I hear the bash crash style (is exclusive to us) and not sustainable. Its another fallacy.
I have noticed we have the midfield group that goes in harder and wins ball more than the opposition, and what we are witnessing is that we are still playing "our way" for longer as we get into the season. I'm not suggesting disrupting the midfield group. Just want to continue to give them service.
I also noticed 8 other teams play 2 rucks. I've also noticed that with one ruck, TDK, we have lost 2 of our first 4 games where his opponent has been the most effective player on the ground and we lost those games...with one ruck. Nothing to do with energy around the ground. We needed a different "type" of ruck to enable us to compete against Nankervis and Cameron. Yes? No?
I also noticed TDK tiring and losing important contests when he fatigues because he cant play ruck 80% of GT at full intensity. Stupid to think he can. Yes? No?
I also notice that last year when SOS was injured, the same posters who are against 2 rucks wished we had SOS available last year to play the 3rd tall, and chop out in the ruck. Not only that, some of those posters wanted SOS as the 3rd tall forward/ruck instead of filling our CHB gap. Its still 3 talls we have the choice to play. Choice. Flexibility.
Young has shown something recently. Have a look at the responses to his game in this thread. I also noticed in this thread a poster suggesting that Harry McKay isn't an auto selection if it means pushing Young out of the team, because Harry couldn't give us all those intense battles and 1%ers Young does. Maybe Young isnt the baffoon some make out he is.
There's 4 on the IC and one sub. Having Young in the team doesn't stop us from playing 2 KPFs (Harry and Charlie) and 3 midgets at their feet and one mid sized HFF (Cottrell or Elijah). It enables us to mix things up, and make the opposition think about us instead of the other way around. I like the idea of having Young in the ruck.
If Young is at FF, Harry and Charlie can roam around making themselves targets. Charlie can kick goals from 50. Harry can kick goals from 50. Why have those 2 elite marks stationed at FF and CHF when they can create a nuisance around the 50m arc. It gives us more weapons. As long as Durdin stays around Young, as you saw, he was involved in first 3 goals and had a part in 7 of our goals. In our first 4 rounds, we only kicked 9, 8, 11 and 8 goals. He has an impact.
Finally, I think Harry is suseptible to concussion. Having 2 KPFs (Harry and Charlie) , and one ruck (TDK) now that we have no Kemp and no SOS, leaves us in the same awful nightmare I want to avoid because it is avoidable. If Harry suffers from late concussion effects or plain concussion or anything else that can have a detrimental effect on his mental well being, that leaves Charlie as the lone target. What do you think of that? Never works.
I tell you what I think is unsustainable, and you saw it in the first half yesterday when the game was hot: We have too many small forwards. Only ones to work for us in the first half were Durdin and Williams with Fog getting abit of ball, but nothing a mid sized forward could do for us. I'd rather have hard running mids and cover for the talls than more than 3 small forwards. If we take anything from first 4 round losses and last 2 rounds wins against bottom teams, Motlop, White and Lord got lucky against a tiring kangas outfit in the 2nd half. The midfield group continued to give them supply like they did for the last 6 games.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
