All the talk of who would play CHF, is a little confusing, do we structure that way anymore?

We seem to play a little too wide along the flanks, and often by pass that position. I'm not convinced that this is a result of a lack of options, but rather a reluctance to play through the middle.

We all see it, but the question is why?

I think we (talking carlton forum) will discover the reasons why this is so, and maybe answer the other questions on everyones mind.

a) Why is fev hit out wide ?
b) Why are other options not used ?
c) Why are we so concerned being negating forwards ?
d) Why are we so uncertain as to who we should develop for the CHF role ?
e) Have we conceeded that Edwards won't make it?

Look forward to the debate, please keep it to the point, really interested in how the forward structure can change to what we all believe it can be, productive.

Go Blues!!!!

They are all good questions. Our guys are programmed in a majority of cases to go to Fev. It makes it easier to defend as an opposition if you know this going to happen. We don't have a CHF and if we did we probably would not use him anyway.
Setanta was up and going early, he was making Lovett Murray look second rate and looked very dangerous. On several occassions he was ignored when he was in a better position than Fev but the ball went to Fev. I can see it, the coaches can see it, nothing happens though.

Indeed - I think Setanta gave us a huge mismatch last night, but we failed to capitalize on it - that is the fault of the onfield strategists and setup players not reading the play - Gibbs, Murphy, Scotland, Stevens - the receivers. Judd unfortunately is too busy getting in and under to be able to sit back and setup play so I excuse him.

It is also the fault of the Coaches for not doing something when the players failed to do something

_________________
I will miss you Kouta - thanks for the memories. ps. Kouta > * for ∞

I looked at the forward line huddle at 3 quarter time when the sh!t was hitting the fan ....and guys like Fev and Houla - who weren't performing and needed a rocket up only needed to answer to Matty Lappin - their old drinking buddy from way back. Now I'm sure Matty Lappin is professioanl and a smart footy bloke, but he is not going to make Fev or Houla stand up and listen. He probably still owes them $50, a 6 pack and half the pizza cost from the Thursday night Poker game at Houla's place!

Houla's finished and to get Fev to play a more team role we need to
A) get a coach brave enough to devise a plan to use mulitple options and train/coach the young guys accordingly and
B) get a forward coach that Fev will listen to and learn off....not sure who though?
(John Longmire, Alistair Lynch, Mic Oloughlin, Jade Rawlings, Nathan Thompson off the top of my head????)

If we don't make big structural changes to our forward line then there is no point getting or finding a CHF!

_________________
It's the vibe.........Tell him he's dreamin' Darryl!

Our CHF was playing for the team that beat WC tonight...At least Pagan had the balls to drag Fevola and give him a spray on the phone. Has ANYONE on our team EVER cracked it at Fev on the field when it was warranted. Judd might be a superstar and a gun player but not once have I seen him give Fevola the rocket he deserved. Not good enough.

_________________
I stole Sheedy's Gatorade...

Bit of a dying position actually. Seems to be used as a space to lead into mostly or a space to lead further up the ground to act as a link man. It's not the gateway to the goals it used to be (in terms of playing though someone permantly stationed there). Probably a number of reasons for this: with the tactic of dropping players back, CHF is the first position to go, players (in numbers usually) are much more proficient at blocking and preventing marking now and the way modern teams run the ball, a turn over at CHF gives the corridor to the opposition. Good CHFs like Reiwoldt and Brown will occasionally play a more traditional style when they can get one out and on the end of a quick long kick out of the backline but they're both very hard working forwards who spend a lot of time leading into and out of that area.

At Carlton we use CHF almost exclusively as a space and almost exclusively as a space for Fevola's long leads. Trouble is Fev is not a CHF and he is the antithesis of a hard-working forward.

The Scott brothers might be able to make an impression..

_________________
There's so much I could say...

Unfortunately, I don't think Setanta has the required respect of his team mates to enable a fluid and cohesive forward structure.
The forward line is still all about Fev, which is disappointing remembering back to R1 where things looked promising. We've gone back to our old ways.

_________________
There's so much I could say...

Setanta is not a genuine forward.

DId you see how Lloyd and Lucas operate as a forward duo and Bradshaw and Brown. Never get in each others way, know when to lead, make space, find each other.

We have tried to recruit a CHF and had one on the list only to lose him to WC as part of the Judd deal. Edwards and Hartlett were given another year to see if either could step up and they haven't made it. Although the role of the CHF has changed the position is still crucial in big matches as is a marking half forward flanker with pace.

I'm happy with Fev at FF and Setanta at CHF (till Waites gets back)...but the chemistry of the team going forward needs to change.

Where are the options? One on one Fev and Setanta were always going to do well on Friday, but what about the rest of them? Who? The DEFENSIVE forwards....bloody ridiculous.

Not enough movement in the forwardline and not enough of the midfield getting loose a kick ahead of play to have the opportunity to pass without pressure.

The forwardline is not functional and I don't think it's Fev and Setanta who are the problem. The whole of the preseaon was to create multiple options...where is that plan at?

It all starts in the middle. We got slaughtered there because I think all our midfield (excluding Judd) were playing defensive games.

Compare the Bumbers development with ours. We have gone defensive and they have gone full on attack. It's obvious which brand is better to watch, for the players to understand and for better results.

I'm @#$%&! spewing on the coaches at the moment. Yeah the players like Stevens have a lot to answer, but its the coaches who make the decisions on who plays and where, and it's them who motivate and devise plans to suit the strengths of the team.

Hurry up Walker and Warnock...there's not much in the Ants other than the promise of Yarran, Robbo and Garlett...the 2 W's are very much needed now. Maybe they will help out the coaches because the coaches can't help anyone at present.

@#$%&! @#$%&! @#$%&!

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

Good comments coming through, but I must say that the coaching styles and or strategies do matter for the development of their respective teams.

Firstly defence is a harder discilpline to learn, naturally players will hunt the ball, most players who enter the AFL structure do so by their ability to find and use the ball. This translates into a natural progression to play attacking footy.

There is a school of thought that offence is the best form of defence! Not sure that translates well against well drilled sides who control the tempo by knowing when to be restrictive and when to push forward and attack.

That aside, I believe Ratts is opting to teach the defensive game, and ensuring this skill is well drilled first, before switching to a more ascertive offensive game. This strategy has its downfall, if not implemented or drilled well, you have a few poor results, until you finally get it right!!

The other aspect to this strategy, as a result of the peak and trough results your rise to fame becomes a little staggered, but its not all bad, in light of the last uncomprimised draft. The flip side to this, is playing with a strategy which elevates you side higher than you potential, without really developing the team. The pitful is that the bubble may burst later in their development when the result will not be beneficial within a more tilted draft system for GC17 etc.

Back to our forward structure, and directly with reference to forwards being set defensive roles. This is a little concerning, I understand the importance to negate certain HBF who are damaging with their use of the ball. But I'm not sold on the startegy of having more than one, we seemed too concerned with these players, rather than making them accountable, by ensuring that players who run off their opponents are forced back by playing through the respective forward and hopefully scoring.

Here ly's the problem, the Fev vortex prevents this from happening!!
We somehow, restrict our options by firing it to the one player who we have depended on for so long. IS IT HIS PROBLEM, or are the alternative options simply not working hard enough or smart enough to become that other option.
This is why I posed the original question, good sides work on structures, and if players are not available through injury or form, the strategy ensures consistency. The other angle is the impact of moving the ball through the flanks. It is no coincedence that Fevs shots at goal are (on average) closer to the boundary. The use of the CHF has become all but gone, it warrants a kick from the flank into the centre, which potentially opens the middle of the ground to a rebounding attack if the kick doesn't find its mark. Maybe just maybe, this may change once the team becomes confident in restricting that rebounding ball from our forward 50, and encourage our attack to come from the middle!!

As for personnel, we all have our views. But what I will say, is that there is two players or player types we need to introduce.
A clearance in and under player (bentick / Hadlee), and a smart accurate forward (Ellard / Edwards). If we are opting for size than we must be sure we choose wisely. We have had so many pasing through, Cloke, Fisher, Setanta, Waite, along with Kreuser and Hampson rolling through with ruck duties.

Not too impressive, when you consider that Kreuser and Waite are probably the two most likley to cause opposition teams any concerns.

Food for thought and good debate.

Look forward to reading your comments.

Go Blues.!!

I reckon Kreuzer is the answer. Seems the most likely to do the role long term with the current list.
Hammer/ Carlos have to stand up in the centre and back half ruck contests, until Warnock comes in.

_________________
Green Shooter

We definitely have to address this position.I don`t agree that the position has become redundant. The only team really getting away without one are the Dogs and in games where their midfield is held accountable its glaringly obvious they need one.
We actually looked far more dangerous at the start of the year when Cloke was filling this position,not that i`m advocating his return.
For the life of me i don`t know why Hartlett hasn`t been given a chance there this year. IMO we must have 2 key forwards with Betts,Yarran and Garlett crumbing.
Maybe a Kruezer/Waite combo in seasons to come.

Good post

IMO either our forward line tactics leave a lot to be desired or we have a lot of dumb players.

Perhaps it is because we don't have a CHF or reliable player other than Fev up forward but certainly when we come out of defence we stick to the flanks and rather than centre the ball from the wing we tend to kick to the pockets or Fev no matter who is open.

Personally I don't think that our players have been drilled enough on forward set ups or on how to take advantage of teams concentrating on Fev. They drop off their man and run to Fev as soon as we enter our forward area. The player with the ball should know that this means we have another player open and look to go across the field.

The other tactical issue is forwards not working for each other. How often do you see our forwards being isolated with their opponent only to have another forward bring his opponent to the contest?

CHF is the most important position on the field.Always has been,and always will be.Check out Flag sides as far back as you want,and 9 out of 10 teams have a class CHF,or a guy who has a paticularly good year in that position.If anybody thinks we are a threat with our current setup of no decent CHF then im sure they believe in fairies in the bottom of the garden.

_________________
All my dangerous friends

Agree with Mick....you need quality at CHF and good teams have multiple key forwards....no surprise that Stkilda are now a threat becuase Kossie is over his shell shock and performing like a No 2 draft pick....
What about Geelong you say....well Geelong are the exception and thats becuase they have two A grade flankers in Johnson and Chapman which allows Mooney and Hawkins to play support roles and a bloke called G Ablett also gets in for his chop as well.....its more about how Geelong make their goals than who does the finishing...they tend to pride themsleves on assists rather than who kicks them....

The Crows are a much better team with structure because they have Tippet and Walker up forward.....you can build around a good spine....and they will add Phil Davis and Sean Mckernan to that spine and already have Bock and Rutten.
Nice position to be in....

_________________
"When you have the attitude of a champion, you see adversity as your
training partner."
- Conor Gillen