 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mackasmatt
Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Location: Perth, WA
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
I think Witts will drop for Reid and White will start backup rucking. Also unsure if we need two swingmen (Goldsack).
_________________
------------
----------
MAGPIES '18
----------
------------ |
|
|
|
 |
mackasmatt
Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Location: Perth, WA
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Horses for courses. I like that we now have a way to be nullify the resting opposition ruck planted up forward (using Keeffe). To be honest Adams has been poor in his AFL appearances this year, needs more time to develop to the game plan. So far I havent seen much good out of Kennedy at AFL level but really hope he becomes more accustomed/capable of dealing with the AFL pace.
We could almost have a policy of keep the same side until we lose then drop whoever is most responsible. Depth is developing everywhere.
_________________
------------
----------
MAGPIES '18
----------
------------ |
|
|
|
|
Collingwood Crackerjack
Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Location: Canberra
|
| Post subject: Re: What happens when Reid, Brown, Adams, Sinclair ..... | |
|
| MagpieBat wrote: | On Reid and his spot...
You don't sign a key position player for 4 years on pretty good coin to play him in the reserves.
Reid is a lock for the seniors. Take that to the bank.
Having said that, you are spot on re the chemistry between Cloke and White. Playing as a permanent forward is where White played his best footy at Sydney. No surprise he's in similar form playing that exact same role for us.
White's goal returns playing as a pure KPF...
NAB 1 vs Geelong - 5 goals (Cloke 1, Lynch 1)
NAB 3 vs Gold Coast - 3 goals (Cloke 6)
Round 2 vs Sydney - 0 goals (Cloke 2)
Round 3 vs Geelong - 2 goals (Cloke 0, Witts 0)
Round 4 vs Richmond - 3 goals (Cloke 0, Witts 0)
Round 5 vs North Melbourne - 2 goals (Cloke 4, Witts 0)
Round 6 vs Essendon - 2 goals (Cloke 0, Grundy 1)
Strictly speaking, the most productive 3 tall forwards structure in terms of goals, at least as far as White goes, is the one we played in NAB game #1, the Cloke/White/Lynch setup.
White's best work has come as a pure key forward. He should remain in that role. That means keeping him out of the ruck, a position he is not that good in anyway.
Which raises two questions - who should play the 3rd tall forward/2nd ruck role, and where should Reid play? For mine, the answer to the first question is either Lynch or Witts (I'd still go Lynch to minimise the amount of wear and tear on Grundy and Witts), while the answer to the second question would obviously be in defence given the chemistry between Cloke and White, which means dropping a tall backman.
That means leaving out either a stiff Maxwell (old but playing well), a stiff Keeffe (been pretty good after an ordinary start to the year) or a very stiff Frost (been on fire since taking down Buddy). And that's without considering poor Nathan Brown, who was playing reasonably well when his shoulder went! 
I guess it's better to have too many than too few, but still...
(As a side note, I'm just glad we're getting our list back to full health. It's much easier to contend when you have your players on the park, instead of in the casualty ward).  |
The thing I love about White is you also get a bit of front and centre roving when he's not the main target; he really is fantastic below his feet, and adds a bit in an area we were a bit light on for last season.
_________________
"The last thing he expected WAS THE FIRST THING HE GOT!!!!!"
© Collingwood Crackerjack, 1992 |
|
|
|
|
Duff Soviet Union
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
|
| Post subject: Re: What happens when Reid, Brown, Adams, Sinclair ..... | |
|
| Collingwood Crackerjack wrote: | | MagpieBat wrote: | On Reid and his spot...
You don't sign a key position player for 4 years on pretty good coin to play him in the reserves.
Reid is a lock for the seniors. Take that to the bank.
Having said that, you are spot on re the chemistry between Cloke and White. Playing as a permanent forward is where White played his best footy at Sydney. No surprise he's in similar form playing that exact same role for us.
White's goal returns playing as a pure KPF...
NAB 1 vs Geelong - 5 goals (Cloke 1, Lynch 1)
NAB 3 vs Gold Coast - 3 goals (Cloke 6)
Round 2 vs Sydney - 0 goals (Cloke 2)
Round 3 vs Geelong - 2 goals (Cloke 0, Witts 0)
Round 4 vs Richmond - 3 goals (Cloke 0, Witts 0)
Round 5 vs North Melbourne - 2 goals (Cloke 4, Witts 0)
Round 6 vs Essendon - 2 goals (Cloke 0, Grundy 1)
Strictly speaking, the most productive 3 tall forwards structure in terms of goals, at least as far as White goes, is the one we played in NAB game #1, the Cloke/White/Lynch setup.
White's best work has come as a pure key forward. He should remain in that role. That means keeping him out of the ruck, a position he is not that good in anyway.
Which raises two questions - who should play the 3rd tall forward/2nd ruck role, and where should Reid play? For mine, the answer to the first question is either Lynch or Witts (I'd still go Lynch to minimise the amount of wear and tear on Grundy and Witts), while the answer to the second question would obviously be in defence given the chemistry between Cloke and White, which means dropping a tall backman.
That means leaving out either a stiff Maxwell (old but playing well), a stiff Keeffe (been pretty good after an ordinary start to the year) or a very stiff Frost (been on fire since taking down Buddy). And that's without considering poor Nathan Brown, who was playing reasonably well when his shoulder went!
I guess it's better to have too many than too few, but still...
(As a side note, I'm just glad we're getting our list back to full health. It's much easier to contend when you have your players on the park, instead of in the casualty ward). |
The thing I love about White is you also get a bit of front and centre roving when he's not the main target; he really is fantastic below his feet, and adds a bit in an area we were a bit light on for last season. |
I was sceptical of White when we signed him, he seemed like a guy who was wasting his talent. But he's been really good, a big upgrade on the Q Stick (who I actually liked much more when we signed him. Maybe I'm not that good at this stuff).
_________________
"We ain't gotta dream no more" |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It will depend how they play together when they're all on the park. But on paper our best structure is obvious: Cloke, Reid and White all up forward.
Neither Grundy or Witts are good enough to be playing best 22 in a quality side just yet. We are a chance for top 4 this year, our best side can not include them both, even having one is a weakness.
Down back is also simple: it's Brown at full back with either Frost or Keeffe as the other tall (Frost ahead at this stage).
And I'm talking best team here, there will be games where the mix will be thrown around. But when we're playing a Geelong or a Hawthorn when it really matters, the choices are simple.
_________________
Well done boys!
Last edited by AN_Inkling on Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
Collingwood Crackerjack
Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Location: Canberra
|
| Post subject: Re: What happens when Reid, Brown, Adams, Sinclair ..... | |
|
| Duff Soviet Union wrote: | | Collingwood Crackerjack wrote: | | MagpieBat wrote: | On Reid and his spot...
You don't sign a key position player for 4 years on pretty good coin to play him in the reserves.
Reid is a lock for the seniors. Take that to the bank.
Having said that, you are spot on re the chemistry between Cloke and White. Playing as a permanent forward is where White played his best footy at Sydney. No surprise he's in similar form playing that exact same role for us.
White's goal returns playing as a pure KPF...
NAB 1 vs Geelong - 5 goals (Cloke 1, Lynch 1)
NAB 3 vs Gold Coast - 3 goals (Cloke 6)
Round 2 vs Sydney - 0 goals (Cloke 2)
Round 3 vs Geelong - 2 goals (Cloke 0, Witts 0)
Round 4 vs Richmond - 3 goals (Cloke 0, Witts 0)
Round 5 vs North Melbourne - 2 goals (Cloke 4, Witts 0)
Round 6 vs Essendon - 2 goals (Cloke 0, Grundy 1)
Strictly speaking, the most productive 3 tall forwards structure in terms of goals, at least as far as White goes, is the one we played in NAB game #1, the Cloke/White/Lynch setup.
White's best work has come as a pure key forward. He should remain in that role. That means keeping him out of the ruck, a position he is not that good in anyway.
Which raises two questions - who should play the 3rd tall forward/2nd ruck role, and where should Reid play? For mine, the answer to the first question is either Lynch or Witts (I'd still go Lynch to minimise the amount of wear and tear on Grundy and Witts), while the answer to the second question would obviously be in defence given the chemistry between Cloke and White, which means dropping a tall backman.
That means leaving out either a stiff Maxwell (old but playing well), a stiff Keeffe (been pretty good after an ordinary start to the year) or a very stiff Frost (been on fire since taking down Buddy). And that's without considering poor Nathan Brown, who was playing reasonably well when his shoulder went!
I guess it's better to have too many than too few, but still...
(As a side note, I'm just glad we're getting our list back to full health. It's much easier to contend when you have your players on the park, instead of in the casualty ward). |
The thing I love about White is you also get a bit of front and centre roving when he's not the main target; he really is fantastic below his feet, and adds a bit in an area we were a bit light on for last season. |
I was sceptical of White when we signed him, he seemed like a guy who was wasting his talent. But he's been really good, a big upgrade on the Q Stick (who I actually liked much more when we signed him. Maybe I'm not that good at this stuff). |
He really has been great; I used to see a bit of him in the NEAFL playing Swans reserves, and he had all the tools, but was lacking confidence.
Worried about making him ruck too often though; its not his bag. If we keep Keefe in the 1sts he and White could share the chop-out, but that presents a risk in itself....
_________________
"The last thing he expected WAS THE FIRST THING HE GOT!!!!!"
© Collingwood Crackerjack, 1992 |
|
|
|
|
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Reid is a gun.
Reid up forward will make Cloke better.
Win win.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
swoop42
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | It will depend how they play together when they're all on the park. But on paper our best structure is obvious: Cloke, Reid and White all up forward.
Neither Grundy or Witts are good enough to be playing best 22 in a quality side just yet. We are a chance for top 4 this year, our best side can not include them both, even having one is a weakness.
Down back is also simple: it's Brown at full back then either Frost or Keeffe as the other tall (Frost ahead at this stage).
And I'm talking best team here, there will be games where the mix will be thrown around. But when we're playing a Geelong or a Hawthorn when it really matters, the choices are simple. |
You're like a dog with a bone with this insistence. 
Personally I don't think it's as clear cut as you think.
Keeffe is doing his job nicely at present and would be an improvement over Brown at least when it comes to disposal and perhaps a couple of other areas.
Given he's still played less than 30 games he should only continue to improve.
Frost strikes me as a player who could play on smaller types so it is possible we could fit all 3 in the side if required.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^^Just stating the obvious  . Frost and Keefe are both good players, but they are not very good one on one defenders. That's fine when our mids are shutting down the opposition and not giving them clean ball movement. But when things are not going well, you need a quality defender, and Brown's our clear number 1, even ahead of Reid. Against Geelong, he's an absolute must, as Keeffe and Frost simply can't go with Hawkins (I'd add Reid to that list too). Even against Hawthorn, a Roughead would cause problems for Frost and Keeffe.
Sure, we can beat lesser teams without Brown, no problem. But is that the point? We need him in the team to beat the two best. Even against Freo he'd be needed against Pavlich. And even against the lesser teams it's better to have a quality shutdown tall than not. Frost and Keeffe are good, but body on body they are fairly easy to shift, we'll be in trouble if we drop off in the middle and our defense is opened up. It's like Hawthorn's dilemma: do you want Cheney, or do you want Lake? 
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
roar
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Brown26 wrote: | Reid wont be back for a couple of weeks at least, then (all going well) I'd bring him back for a game or two in the reserves to get some touch. Then I'd bring him into the side and rest a few players, every week one of Grundy, Witts, White and maybe even Cloke (though traditionally he hasn't needed or wanted a rest). By then it'll be half way through the season and we'll have an idea of which combinations work.
I'd also play Lynch at some point - he's great depth material but if you need to call on him come finals time he'll be much better if he's played a game or two in the seniors.
Good problem to have
- Ben |
Good plan. Makes a lot of sense.
Apart from Reid, I'd say the other players need to wait for their opportunity and play really well in the vfl while they wait.
_________________
kill for collingwood! |
|
|
|
|
Warbler
Joined: 12 Mar 2003
Location: Tyaak Vic
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It's just fantastic to have the depth we have .
Who would have thought preseason that Langdon & Frost were going to be so good .
We haven't even touched our midfield strength .
There's no need to rush players back from injury .
Our selection committee has to have one of the hardest ( & best ) jobs in Footy .
GO PIES |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'd play all three of Reid, Cloke and White up forward. White is very mobile and can play a strong role between half forward and wing, so I am not too concerned by the "three slow talls" argument (until the evidence makes me change my mind"!)
Who goes out ? It's hard, but I think i'd have to say Goldsack. That's tough, as I thought his hunting dog presence was instrumental in our comeback yesterday : but pound for pound, he's just not as damaging in class terms as Reid. Of course, injuries mean that Goldy will probably be needed anyway.
Brown comes back in for Keefe, I think. Keefey's done some nice things, but he's a work in progress for me, and I'm not sure he'll even make it, in the end.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Duff Soviet Union
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | I'd play all three of Reid, Cloke and White up forward. White is very mobile and can play a strong role between half forward and wing, so I am not too concerned by the "three slow talls" argument (until the evidence makes me change my mind"!)
Who goes out ? It's hard, but I think i'd have to say Goldsack. That's tough, as I thought his hunting dog presence was instrumental in our comeback yesterday : but pound for pound, he's just not as damaging in class terms as Reid. Of course, injuries mean that Goldy will probably be needed anyway.
Brown comes back in for Keefe, I think. Keefey's done some nice things, but he's a work in progress for me, and I'm not sure he'll even make it, in the end. |
No. Way. Goldsack is far and away our best defensive forward. Playing Reid, Cloke and White without Goldsack would be a disaster once the ball hits the ground. Witts or Grundy will be the one to go, and White will play second ruck.
_________________
"We ain't gotta dream no more" |
|
|
|
|
jackcass 
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Duff Soviet Union wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | I'd play all three of Reid, Cloke and White up forward. White is very mobile and can play a strong role between half forward and wing, so I am not too concerned by the "three slow talls" argument (until the evidence makes me change my mind"!)
Who goes out ? It's hard, but I think i'd have to say Goldsack. That's tough, as I thought his hunting dog presence was instrumental in our comeback yesterday : but pound for pound, he's just not as damaging in class terms as Reid. Of course, injuries mean that Goldy will probably be needed anyway.
Brown comes back in for Keefe, I think. Keefey's done some nice things, but he's a work in progress for me, and I'm not sure he'll even make it, in the end. |
No. Way. Goldsack is far and away our best defensive forward. Playing Reid, Cloke and White without Goldsack would be a disaster once the ball hits the ground. Witts or Grundy will be the one to go, and White will play second ruck. |
Agree, when Reid comes back we'd go with 1 ruckman and either White or Keeffe would give them a chop out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
