Roughead or Howe forward?

[Doug44]

Naturally very disappointed about last night. A goal up into time on in the last quarter in a low scoring game, and Geelong respond with two goals-one to our no score. We can over analyse everything else up until that point but the fact is we were in a position where we had the game on our terms and we let it slip. Very frustrating.

Without wishing to contradict myself though, allow me to analyse things.

Given Moore worked a treat down back, do we need both Roughead and Howe in defence as well? Especially with Goldsack available, Dunn in a couple of weeks, and Shaz middle of the year?

I was under the impression one of the reasons we recruited Roughead was to have some depth in our ruck stocks and potentially allow Cox to be a stay at home forward not having to ruck. The poor guy wasn't at his best last night but too often he is out of position when interchanging from pinching in the ruck. He is most dangerous inside 50. His one goal showed how easily defenders panic when we get it into him quickly.

Instead, Roughead has essentially replaced Goldsack down back and the forward set up is the same - with plenty of room for improvement.


Plan A:
When Dunn is available, could Dunn not just take Roughead's spot in defence, Roughead takes Cox's spot as the second ruck / forward (the Leigh Brown role as it were), allowing Cox to stay as a permanent forward?

The maths of that equation is one of our forwards would have to make way and right now I see that as Mihocek. I like him, but my feeling is he is a role player, he peaked last year, and given the depth we have at our disposal, might not have as much to offer as others.


Plan B:
Howe forward. He is obviously not 100%, despite what he has said. How(e) about some x factor up forward instead? Either a straight swap for Mihocek, or maybe Goldsack comes in for Mihocek in defence. We are just crying out for another marking option other than Cox.


The more I think about it, the more I like Plan A. Cox as a PERMANENT forward, with the swoop squad at his feet, and Roughead as a second marking option who can pinch in the ruck.

Dunn obviously won't be available this week, but I think we could get away with Moore on Lynch and Goldsack on Jack, which allows Roughead forward to help out in the ruck, which then allows Cox to do a repeat of last year without having to worry about when Grundy is on or off the ground. Mihocek the unlucky one to miss in that equation.

Thoughts?

[masoncox]

Maybe time to put checkers down back.
He was recruited as a back.
I think roughie's best position is ruck.
Grundy doesn't look right to me.
50/50 in ruck for roughie and grundy.
Cox as a permanent forward with the occassional chop out.
That may work......or maybe not.
Howe forward ....no way.

[Presti35]

I cannot wait for Dunn to be back.

When he's fit, it will open up our opportunities and give us the leadership we need down back.

I think both Howe and Roughy need to stay in defence. When Dunn is back, we may be able to move Moore around.

Of course Reid could enter this conversation, but with his constant injuries, I dont know how much he can help us. Goldsack is another we could throw in there.

[RudeBoy]

We will need Roughead this week to play on one of the tigers talls. However, for most weeks, I actually think he will be surplus to requirements, given we now have Moore in good form and Langdon and Howe can play tall, and what we really need is some more run and carry out of defence. Maybe move Varcoe back to defence?

[5 from the wing on debut]

Dogs supporters that I know tell me that unless there has been a magical improvement in Roughead he is a ruckman or he is nothing. Although, similar things were said about Leigh Brown.

I don't know that Roughead has the mobility to play on Riewoldt, or to play on Lynch if Lynch's dodgy knee allows him to run freely. Moore could play on either of them.

I wouldn't like to play Goldsack on Lynch either with the large size difference.

I can't see our forward line being better with Roughead in it in preference to Mihocek.

[stui magpie]

I wouldn't be inclined to make structural changes after a sample size of one game we lost by 7 points despite playing badly.

We clearly like to play a mobile 2-4 foward line, 2 talls and 4 smalls although you could mount an argument that both Mihocek and De Goey are actually mid sized rather than a tall and a small.

Roughead doesn't strike me as very mobile so I can't see him replacing checkers up forward, I think checkers stays forward unless he has a real crap patch of form in which case he's more likely to be replaced by a small/mid like Croker, WHE, Daics, Goldsack or even Tyler Brown.

Roughead, unless he strikes a rich vein of very good form, is holding down FB until Dunn is ready to return, then he's back to the VFL, Cox can ruck while Grundy rests either on the bench or at FF.