Where Will Hardwick Play Griffiths???

[Hellenic Tiger]

Quite the conundrum has size and strength for the backline but equally he is mobile enough to use at CHF. Marking 80 out and penetrating disposal to fwd targets is something we clearly lack. Will give us another dimension. If he marks within 60 it's a legitimate shot at goal.

Makes Grimes or Astbury and their fitness so critical for our backline freeing up Griff to play at CHF.

[Judge Roughneck]

CHF hardest spot to play.

[tigs2011]

CHF hardest spot to play.

It's why Jack doesn't play there...


 

[Judge Roughneck]

Jacks a bit fat/slow.

Suited to the square

[Mr Magic]

Just became a lot more likely Griffo will play down back again with the latest setback to Grimes.

[Judge Roughneck]

Astbury is the key.

[Penelope]

any chf worth their salt can play chb, and visa versa.

[Coach]

Richo couldn't and he's the best CHF the game has had in a very long time apart from Duck

[Penelope]

couldn't or didn't?

[Coach]

He couldn't play down back to save his life

[the claw]

jack has footy smarts one of the biggest needs to play chf. his lack of pace doesnt count so much when you have to run all the time.  at ff jacks lack of pace has regularly cost us dearly its one reason why he struggles on frawley . frawley easily has him covered on the lead and out bodies him with greater strength 99 time out of 100.

we have an ideal structure to develop up forward but we refuse to go down that path.
vickery in a fp allows us to have him play significant development time in the ruck. he is the resting ruckman there. why play him in a key post only to lose your structure for 40% of a game do collingwood geelong wce etc do this not on your life.  are we really going to ask him to play chf and then spend significant time in the ruck. we really cant have it both ways.
so who plays or who do we develop at chf for when vickery is in ruck bloody hell we cant find 1 chf yet alone two.

griffiths at ff as i said in the other post. hes a natural ff who provides just about every option you could wish for. size height strength speed and hopefully contesti=ed marking.

riewoldt at chf and in the short term while griffiths and vickery develop we may lose a bit of scoring power by playing him here. just my opinion but jacks attributes a better suited to this role than ff.

looking at the list imo astbury should be developed as a chf  and todd elton as a second ruck come forward. that leaves us needing to recruit another young ff to round out our list of forwards.

finally while it is certainly possible based on what ive seen of both astbury and griffiths playing as defenders they have done nothing at all to make them standouts in fact i see them struggle with key aspects of the role. i have already said i believe post has shown more as a defender and we cut him.
 imo they have far more value and upside as forwards.

to me a lot of it comes down to having just a bit more patience and reign in the expectations. this is what happens when you build a list with smls/med first you sort of stagnate while you wait for your structure talls to develop.

looking from my  list perspective  we have
tall forwards
riewoldt mature, griffiths junior, astbury  development, elton junior, mcguane mature.  definately need at least one more genuine tall forward.

tall defenders
chaplin mature, rance development , grimes ijuryhow long?? junior , mcintosh junior, darrou junior.  i personally would like us to target at least one more tall defender even a mature one like kyle hartigan,
that would mean we could afford to actually develop one of astbury or griffiths  or both as a tall forward where they should be developed imo.

rucks
maric mature, derickx mature, vickery ruck/for development,  mcbean ruck/def junior. a good number it does lack a junior of marics type. with this all i can say is they must relly think derickx will come on in leaps and bounds yet they have hardly played him as a ruckman.

so not only do i think astbury and griffiths more suited to key forward roles by developing them there we actually go a fair way to balancing the list out properly and have development occuring to cove all areas and provide some sort of depth.

[Coach]

It's probablu not going to happen. Riewoldt doesn't have a big enough tank to play CHF and he doesn't work hard enough anyway. He needs to play closer to goal where we can use his strengths. He's a very good kick for goal but not a great field kick. No use playing him CHF where he would get 10 touches and one or two goals. Need him deep where he can have those massive games where he bags 6+

[the claw]

It's probablu not going to happen. Riewoldt doesn't have a big enough tank to play CHF and he doesn't work hard enough anyway. He needs to play closer to goal where we can use his strengths. He's a very good kick for goal but not a great field kick. No use playing him CHF where he would get 10 touches and one or two goals. Need him deep where he can have those massive games where he bags 6+

jack certainly has the capacity to run all day. as junior his workrate was phenomenal. imo the injuries hes had and managed to carry has limited his work in this area certainly the last couple of yrs.
 i reckon you would still get 40 plus goals a game out of him at chf.
as a chf he would be getting far more than 10 possies a game and as for firld kicking its decent besides  his decision making is spot on and more than makes up for this.

everyone keeps on saying we need a chf well imo we have a good one we just dont play him there. everyone worries if we move jack where will the goals come from well we have a 200cm ff who was touted to be the next lockett andinstead of showing faith and patience in him as a forward we choose to develop him as a so so defender instead.
the key is development i get critical with those in charge because i feel far too often we play blokes out of their natural positions never to go back to what they had shown they do best.

[Coach]

Live in the Bellerive area, claw? Jack did have a good workrate as a youngster but that was a long time ago. I happen to have seen a bit of of him live when he played seniors at a young age in Tasmania. He's a full forward these days and he only brings his good workrate to the table every so often (eg end of season games like the ones against Port & Essendon). If he works hard every week he is too good not to play at full forward. When he is being lazy then yeah, chuck him up the field. But then he might have a sook

[Loui Tufga]

It's probablu not going to happen. Riewoldt doesn't have a big enough tank to play CHF and he doesn't work hard enough anyway. He needs to play closer to goal where we can use his strengths. He's a very good kick for goal but not a great field kick. No use playing him CHF where he would get 10 touches and one or two goals. Need him deep where he can have those massive games where he bags 6+

jack certainly has the capacity to run all day. as junior his workrate was phenomenal. imo the injuries hes had and managed to carry has limited his work in this area certainly the last couple of yrs.
i reckon you would still get 40 plus goals a game out of him at chf.
as a chf he would be getting far more than 10 possies a game and as for firld kicking its decent besides  his decision making is spot on and more than makes up for this.

everyone keeps on saying we need a chf well imo we have a good one we just dont play him there. everyone worries if we move jack where will the goals come from well we have a 200cm ff who was touted to be the next lockett andinstead of showing faith and patience in him as a forward we choose to develop him as a so so defender instead.
the key is development i get critical with those in charge because i feel far too often we play blokes out of their natural positions never to go back to what they had shown they do best.

Your certainly an optimist Claw but if you think we can get 40 goals a game out of him you really need to call the club and let them in on your theory!!