Forward Structure

[Penelope]

 

[the claw]

Martin and Deledio don't need to be good defensively.

yes they do, everyone in the team needs to be good defensively.

[the claw]

hmm people wanted to play riewoldt vickery griffiths and ffs at times mcbean in the one fwd line this yr. yet the same people complained about the lack of fwd pressure and how easy sides took the ball out of our fwd line. go figure.

 what was the area of biggest failure this yr, whats that i hear the fwd line.
the epitimy of madness is to do the same thing over and over expecting different results each time.or maybe some really do believe in magical fairies.


on 6 occasions last yr we played all of vickery, riewoldt, and griffiths in the same fwd line. we lost on 4 occasions only beating a lamentable gws and carlton in rnd 2 where they should have overrun us.
id say playing all three in the same fwd line did not work,  it created all sorts of problems for us not the opposition. yet some wanted to add mcbean to the mix.

is there a place for vickery and griffiths in the same fwd line. imo no. both play exactly the same role and both have  shown  so far they are not good enough to play either the ruck role or kpf role exclusively. hence i dont believe we can play both. play one as a 2nd ruck with time fwd and find a more traditional kpf who is capable of playing kpf exclusively to partner riewoldt.

as for cotchin, deledio, martin here i was under the impression they rotated fairly regularly thru the fwd line. geez between the 3 they must have kicked close to 100 goals. there was nearly always one of em in the fwd half thus solving one of the flank problems.
my issue with this is i dont think any of them are good defensively, especially deledio and martin. geez that is going to cause a stir.

geez the moon must be about to collide with the earth, coz i fully agree about playing three tall forwards, and not just last year.

I know other teams do it with success, but over the last 3-4 years our forward line has worked much better with only two tall forwards.

whether this is simply a result of the dynamics of the players involved or down to coaching/gameplan i do not know.

hmm maybe the moons turned blue.
the fact most other teams do it with success just  leaves the dynamics of the players involved.
maybe just maybe it has something to do with so many 200cm ruck/fwds we play alongside the not so quick riewoldt. of course there is no place for a more traditional sized fwd line that seems to work so well at other clubs. that would just be silly.

[Penelope]

do you really believe that if these blokes were 2-3 cm shorter then the forward line would magically click playing 3 talls?

[Smokey]

Tortoise formation was also quite a handy forward structure

Very effective versus superior but undisciplined enemy

And quite useless when negotiating a low-wire entanglement.

[the claw]

do you really believe that if these blokes were 2-3 cm shorter then the forward line would magically click playing 3 talls?

hmm shouldnt you be asking yourself that. you know what i think if you read what written. cmon stop going off on another tangent and ignoring what is being said. you dont need to ask that question if you was being genuine.

so its to be  questions with questions is it. i can see we are going to go far here eh.
how many 200cm players have become good consistent kpfs i ask  again. it aint hard to answer.but you blokes have done everything you can not to answer it. what 1 3 5 out of how many.

how many 200cm players have played exclusively kpf in a premiership in the last 10 yrs.

geez how many 200cm players have played fwd exclusively ever.


why is it so many of the better kpfs have been taken in the last 10 15 yrs in the 194 - 197 height range. but silly me to even suggest its a good  height range to look at when looking for a guide to take a kpf. even better to ignore that when replying. or even better ignore just about everything that has been said when replying or if we dont ignore whats been said just being plain old disingenuous.
you know i cant recall one topic where you have ever given a straight answer. there must be a mental problem to be this way id say. hm,m paranoia maybe. or maybe you just feel inadequate or threatened.

it  seems  you would rather take a 200cm kpf  because so many at that height work out, that is  gold.i can think of just two current players who play exclusively fwd at 200cm who are decent.
i cant think of one club who has more than ONE permanent  200cm fwd as part of their structure.
yep those 200cm fwds are taking the league by storm.

so let me get this straight. you arre saying most sides play three tall fwds  say 192cm 195cm and possibly even a fwd ruck at 200cm. but you cant determine if us playing the slow riewoldt at 195cm and two 200cm ruck/fwds actually affects the dynamics, wow. i feel sorry for ya.

yes it does seem the extra 3 cm makes a difference when it comes to finding good  kpfs. just my opinion by the way what is yours again. no dont answer im dont need to hear another non answer.

seems  you think theres plenty of kpfs  to be had at 200cm or that its not unusual for a 200cm player to be decent and play exclusively fwd, unbelievable. what is it again your arguing here. no dont answer that i dont want to go off on another inoccuous tangent where straight answers are unheard of.

[Judge Roughneck]

Absence of proof is not proof of absence


Given the following facts:

 - The club is about 150 years old
 - There have only been 18 - 200cm / 200cm plus players in the club long history
- a vast majority of these, have been on the list recent years, or are on it currently
 - Corey Ellis is the same size as jack dyer
 - the number of highly rated tall kpp drafted high in recent years


Is it not possible. That the future will contain more 200cm kpf regardless of the past statistics?

[froars]

End of season and I don't think they rectified much during the year.  In fact, I think Jack is becoming a liability - or more of one perhaps.  He is the last of the dinosaur full forwards that sit around goal getting double teamed.  He has to do more next year around the ground to justify his spot, and I don't think he has the ability to do that, to play a more versatile role for the team other than a one trick pony.  Basically, he has to work harder.  Forwards do more these days and the game is passing him by.

[1965]

Absence of proof is not proof of absence


Given the following facts:

 - The club is about 150 years old
 - There have only been 18 - 200cm / 200cm plus players in the club long history
- a vast majority of these, have been on the list recent years, or are on it currently
 - Corey Ellis is the same size as jack dyer
 - the number of highly rated tall kpp drafted high in recent years


Is it not possible. That the future will contain more 200cm kpf regardless of the past statistics?

Judge making sense, OMG what is the world coming to.

 

[Penelope]

do you really believe that if these blokes were 2-3 cm shorter then the forward line would magically click playing 3 talls?

hmm shouldnt you be asking yourself that. you know what i think if you read what written. cmon stop going off on another tangent and ignoring what is being said. you dont need to ask that question if you was being genuine.

so its to be  questions with questions is it. i can see we are going to go far here eh.
how many 200cm players have become good consistent kpfs i ask  again. it aint hard to answer.but you blokes have done everything you can not to answer it. what 1 3 5 out of how many.

how many 200cm players have played exclusively kpf in a premiership in the last 10 yrs.

geez how many 200cm players have played fwd exclusively ever.


why is it so many of the better kpfs have been taken in the last 10 15 yrs in the 194 - 197 height range. but silly me to even suggest its a good  height range to look at when looking for a guide to take a kpf. even better to ignore that when replying. or even better ignore just about everything that has been said when replying or if we dont ignore whats been said just being plain old disingenuous.
you know i cant recall one topic where you have ever given a straight answer. there must be a mental problem to be this way id say. hm,m paranoia maybe. or maybe you just feel inadequate or threatened.

it  seems  you would rather take a 200cm kpf  because so many at that height work out, that is  gold.i can think of just two current players who play exclusively fwd at 200cm who are decent.
i cant think of one club who has more than ONE permanent  200cm fwd as part of their structure.
yep those 200cm fwds are taking the league by storm.

so let me get this straight. you arre saying most sides play three tall fwds  say 192cm 195cm and possibly even a fwd ruck at 200cm. but you cant determine if us playing the slow riewoldt at 195cm and two 200cm ruck/fwds actually affects the dynamics, wow. i feel sorry for ya.

yes it does seem the extra 3 cm makes a difference when it comes to finding good  kpfs. just my opinion by the way what is yours again. no dont answer im dont need to hear another non answer.

seems  you think theres plenty of kpfs  to be had at 200cm or that its not unusual for a 200cm player to be decent and play exclusively fwd, unbelievable. what is it again your arguing here. no dont answer that i dont want to go off on another inoccuous tangent where straight answers are unheard of.

LMAO straight answers you ask for but you pile out this long winded dribble.
First of all, just because someone doesnt agree with you,that doesnt mean they believe the extreme opposite. that is just either stupid or disingenuous.

Bottom line is that you were the one that made a comment about needing our KPF to be under 200cm for team balance.

You are the one that contanstly has gone about how many 200cm KPF have made it, yet not once have you talked about the attributes of a KPF.

Your whole argument has been around their height, nothing else, so what conclusions can anyone draw about your views?

Pretty sure i summed up my view with this

surely the taller the kpf is, with all other thing being equal, the harder he is to match up on?

Did you not read, forget or just conveniently ignore it.

At the end of the day, i am not going to write a bloke off for being a KPF because he is tall, id rather look at his football ability.

Everything you have posted on the subject suggests that you would, while ignoring his football ability.

It;s amazing how when we actually agree on something, you find a way to argue. are you really that petty?

[Judge Roughneck]

Absence of proof is not proof of absence


Given the following facts:

 - The club is about 150 years old
 - There have only been 18 - 200cm / 200cm plus players in the club long history
- a vast majority of these, have been on the list recent years, or are on it currently
 - Corey Ellis is the same size as jack dyer
 - the number of highly rated tall kpp drafted high in recent years


Is it not possible. That the future will contain more 200cm kpf regardless of the past statistics?

Judge making sense, OMG what is the world coming to.

 

 

[one-eyed]

For those that like quirky graphical stats. We are above AFL average for long distance goals and below average for close-in goals (inside 15m).


Champion Data AFL @championdata twitter:

"Where every team took (green) and conceded (red) shots at goal in 2014."


https://twitter.com/championdata/status/536710007257972736

[yellowandback]

Yes but are we above average for 200cm+ kpfs who have made it?

[lamington]

No surprise Adelaide, Hawthorn, and Port have done really well within 15m of goal. Again this tells us we need a goal sneak or anyone really to back Jack up ala Gunston and Roughead. Can't recall the last decent small crumbing forward we've had. Andrew Krakouer? Nathan Brown?

[Andyy]

Nathan Brown for sure. We identified a top talent and went and paid for him.

But for that broken leg it worked a charm. Need to do it again if we're to win a flag with Lids imo.