I can't remember, and the thread is gone so I can't check, but was Shelton 10 one of the Myers baggers? I bet he was. After 2 games as a starting key forward, he has ruled a line through Carlisle. Unbelievable.
Hasn't ruled a line through him, has pointed out that he is just as lost up forward as Hurley seemed to be.
And who knows he could turn out to be a great forward, or he could turn into a mediocre one, at this stage though carlisle is struggling up forward, for whatever reasons.
I was one who said Hurley should be played forward to begin with, then thought the swap was warranted last year, now i'm leaning towards both should play back. They seem more comfortable playing down back, by their actions and words, so why do we have to try and force one of them to be a forward ?
Personally i'd rather have Daniher and ambrose up there, they seem to want to be forwards instead of being asked to play there cos we haven't got any other perceived options.
Until Carlisle was played in the ruck, was he really struggling up forward? Across the first two games he had 35 disposals, 17 marks, 6 shots on goal and 3 goal assists. If he'd kicked 4.2 instead of 2.4 we'd be salivating over those performances - one of them against Hawthorn. I think too many people are reacting too much over a single terrible game against the Saints as a forward, and being trounced by Sandilands in the heat playing as a ruck.
We all rate Daniher but how is he, nor anyone undroppable ?
That's one of the biggest problems with this club, we have way to many players who are undroppable, for a middle of the table club that's just unacceptable. Daniher could be anything but he shouldn't get a free ride til the 50 game mark where supposedly players somehow click, he like everyone should be made to earn their ******* spot and actually cheerish it. Instead we have players continually coasting along cos they know their spot is safe, no matter what.
Playing Hawkins when he wasn't ready, or Franklin, or Roughead didn't seem to hurt their development.
I agree with the notion that Bomber (and possibly Hird when he returns) are pumping games into Joe now so he can flourish later. Much like the Melksham approach which payed dividends in 2013.
This will eventually pay off, but for now we'll have to put up with the inconsistent performances and being outbodied by defenders with ease. The kid has enormous talent, cannot wait until he is physically ready and has about 100 games under his belt!!
I can't remember, and the thread is gone so I can't check, but was Shelton 10 one of the Myers baggers? I bet he was.
After 2 games as a starting key forward, he has ruled a line through Carlisle. Unbelievable.
Hasn't ruled a line through him, has pointed out that he is just as lost up forward as Hurley seemed to be.
And who knows he could turn out to be a great forward, or he could turn into a mediocre one, at this stage though carlisle is struggling up forward, for whatever reasons.
I was one who said Hurley should be played forward to begin with, then thought the swap was warranted last year, now i'm leaning towards both should play back.
They seem more comfortable playing down back, by their actions and words, so why do we have to try and force one of them to be a forward ?
Personally i'd rather have Daniher and ambrose up there, they seem to want to be forwards instead of being asked to play there cos we haven't got any other perceived options.
Until Carlisle was played in the ruck, was he really struggling up forward? Across the first two games he had 35 disposals, 17 marks, 6 shots on goal and 3 goal assists. If he'd kicked 4.2 instead of 2.4 we'd be salivating over those performances - one of them against Hawthorn.
I think too many people are reacting too much over a single terrible game against the Saints as a forward, and being trounced by Sandilands in the heat playing as a ruck.
I can't remember, and the thread is gone so I can't check, but was Shelton 10 one of the Myers baggers? I bet he was.
After 2 games as a starting key forward, he has ruled a line through Carlisle. Unbelievable.
Hasn't ruled a line through him, has pointed out that he is just as lost up forward as Hurley seemed to be.
And who knows he could turn out to be a great forward, or he could turn into a mediocre one, at this stage though carlisle is struggling up forward, for whatever reasons.
I was one who said Hurley should be played forward to begin with, then thought the swap was warranted last year, now i'm leaning towards both should play back.
They seem more comfortable playing down back, by their actions and words, so why do we have to try and force one of them to be a forward ?
Personally i'd rather have Daniher and ambrose up there, they seem to want to be forwards instead of being asked to play there cos we haven't got any other perceived options.
Until Carlisle was played in the ruck, was he really struggling up forward? Across the first two games he had 35 disposals, 17 marks, 6 shots on goal and 3 goal assists. If he'd kicked 4.2 instead of 2.4 we'd be salivating over those performances - one of them against Hawthorn.
I think too many people are reacting too much over a single terrible game against the Saints as a forward, and being trounced by Sandilands in the heat playing as a ruck.
Agree entirely, I also think Bomber is pushing JC very hard to ensure he becomes a gun forward. After 1 bad game he has questioned his work rate and inferred he had a sook about it.
Id say watch out Collingwood, as JC is not one to give up at all, and he will most likely get a strong show of support from bomber and co pre game. Probably pretty similar to the talking to Hawkins got a few rounds before the 09 finals series when people where questioning his work rate and spot in the side.
I expect jake to come out firing, running the legs off the collingwood defenders and crash into blokes hard.
We all rate Daniher but how is he, nor anyone undroppable ?
That's one of the biggest problems with this club, we have way to many players who are undroppable, for a middle of the table club that's just unacceptable.
Daniher could be anything but he shouldn't get a free ride til the 50 game mark where supposedly players somehow click, he like everyone should be made to earn their ******* spot and actually cheerish it.
Instead we have players continually coasting along cos they know their spot is safe, no matter what.
Playing Hawkins when he wasn't ready, or Franklin, or Roughead didn't seem to hurt their development.
Geelong could afford to carry Hawkins, but he didn't get a free ride either, there were question marks all the way up til the 2011 gf where he finally arrived, and he was in and out of the side.
Franklin and roughead were put into a team on the rebuild and had no other real options to replace them with.
Bit different to the current situation we will be facing very shortly when Belly is fit, ambrose is fit and Carlisle and ryder are also playing.
I can't remember, and the thread is gone so I can't check, but was Shelton 10 one of the Myers baggers? I bet he was.
After 2 games as a starting key forward, he has ruled a line through Carlisle. Unbelievable.
Hasn't ruled a line through him, has pointed out that he is just as lost up forward as Hurley seemed to be.
And who knows he could turn out to be a great forward, or he could turn into a mediocre one, at this stage though carlisle is struggling up forward, for whatever reasons.
I was one who said Hurley should be played forward to begin with, then thought the swap was warranted last year, now i'm leaning towards both should play back.
They seem more comfortable playing down back, by their actions and words, so why do we have to try and force one of them to be a forward ?
Personally i'd rather have Daniher and ambrose up there, they seem to want to be forwards instead of being asked to play there cos we haven't got any other perceived options.
Until Carlisle was played in the ruck, was he really struggling up forward? Across the first two games he had 35 disposals, 17 marks, 6 shots on goal and 3 goal assists. If he'd kicked 4.2 instead of 2.4 we'd be salivating over those performances - one of them against Hawthorn.
I think too many people are reacting too much over a single terrible game against the Saints as a forward, and being trounced by Sandilands in the heat playing as a ruck.
Bomber throwing him into the ruck against Hawthorn is what helped boost those numbers though..or have we all forgotten how well he was going as a forward in the first half (against Kyle friggin Cheney of all people)?
I'm backing him in to bounce back this week (if given the opportunity), but he definitely needs to get on his bike more often and lift the workrate.
I can't remember, and the thread is gone so I can't check, but was Shelton 10 one of the Myers baggers? I bet he was.
After 2 games as a starting key forward, he has ruled a line through Carlisle. Unbelievable.
Hasn't ruled a line through him, has pointed out that he is just as lost up forward as Hurley seemed to be.
And who knows he could turn out to be a great forward, or he could turn into a mediocre one, at this stage though carlisle is struggling up forward, for whatever reasons.
I was one who said Hurley should be played forward to begin with, then thought the swap was warranted last year, now i'm leaning towards both should play back.
They seem more comfortable playing down back, by their actions and words, so why do we have to try and force one of them to be a forward ?
Personally i'd rather have Daniher and ambrose up there, they seem to want to be forwards instead of being asked to play there cos we haven't got any other perceived options.
To me it sounds as though Thompson has identified the problems but not the solutions, and that's a worry.
The dogmatic statement that Daniher and Carlisle will work as a forward combination is unconvincing. Like everyone else I've seen Carlisle work as a backman who's been swung forward in the second half of the game and kicked a few goals. I have not seen him work as a starting forward in any game at all. Nor have I seen anything to indicate that he ever will. He seems completely at sea. A key forward is supposed to present constantly, create opportunities not just for himself but for those around him. Carlisle doesn't do that. Most of the time when the ball comes into the forward line Carlisle is invisible, the complete opposite of Riewoldt or even Crameri.
The one thing Thompson didn't talk about is Hooker as a forward, even though in his Bomber TV video after the game he mentioned it as one of the very few bright spots in Saturday's miserable show.
What you see at training is the ball being moved quickly forward from leads at 45 degrees from the kicker and getting the ball back into the corridor when possible.
That we also have to get our share of the ball notwithstanding, I would prefer to win and lose like this.
I don't think I've seen it elsewhere, but what are your thoughts on game style in recent weeks versus how they've trained in the pre-season? I just can't imagine the coaches want them chipping sideways and backwards as much as they have the last couple of weeks.
In very, very simple terms the game style has three parts:
1) Keeping possession.
2) Moving the ball forward quickly whenever possible, being patient when we have to.
3) Not bombing long into the forward line unless when have a good one on one, two on two or favourable terms.
Against St. Kilda we did part one (often by going backwards or sideways) but not part two or three.
What you see at training is the ball being moved quickly forward from leads at 45 degrees from the kicker and getting the ball back into the corridor when possible.
I've been thinking about this.
How much of the training simulation is based on how teams have been setting up against us ?
tis all well and good to practice taking risks in a simulation, but at the end of the day if they are practising a certain way, which teams don't mimic on gameday, can one really blame or wonder why the players are hesitant to indeed take more risks.
The blueprint for potentially stopping us is simple, get numbers back, clog our fwdline and kill us on the counterattack, even if it's prodominately luck based.
Teams know they can allow us to have a dominance around the ground and in clereance work, cos at the end of the day all of that is irrelevant if you can't actually get the score on the board or setup the possession to get into a position to score.
All well and good to say take more risks, but if you're taking a risk and needing to hit targets with 2 or 3 extra opposition players in your way, that are not there in the simulation/practice aspect, again no wonder it's not working at present.
The blueprint for potentially stopping us is simple, get numbers back, clog our fwdline and kill us on the counterattack, even if it's prodominately luck based.
Teams know they can allow us to have a dominance around the ground and in clereance work, cos at the end of the day all of that is irrelevant if you can't actually get the score on the board or setup the possession to get into a position to score.
Isn't that the blueprint for beating most teams though?
I actually thought the game plan was the only thing that kept us in the Freo game for a half, it was the fact that we had no avenues to goal that eventually hurt us.
Against the Saints, the players didn't turn up. Didn't run to create space, didn't run to create viable options, didn't run hard enough to cover on the rebound. It was compounded by usually great users of the ball in Fletch, Hurley and Hibbo making some diabolical skill errors. No game plan can survive that.
Time will tell how effective this game plan is, but it's a cop out to blame last week's loss on it, or imply that the game plan has been 'cracked.'
Stkilda just wanted it more, which is concerning for a whole different bunch of reasons.
The blueprint for potentially stopping us is simple, get numbers back, clog our fwdline and kill us on the counterattack, even if it's prodominately luck based.
Teams know they can allow us to have a dominance around the ground and in clereance work, cos at the end of the day all of that is irrelevant if you can't actually get the score on the board or setup the possession to get into a position to score.
Isn't that the blueprint for beating most teams though?
I actually thought the game plan was the only thing that kept us in the Freo game for a half, it was the fact that we had no avenues to goal that eventually hurt us.
Against the Saints, the players didn't turn up. Didn't run to create space, didn't run to create viable options, didn't run hard enough to cover on the rebound. It was compounded by usually great users of the ball in Fletch, Hurley and Hibbo making some diabolical skill errors. No game plan can survive that.
Time will tell how effective this game plan is, but it's a cop out to blame last week's loss on it, or imply that the game plan has been 'cracked.'
Stkilda just wanted it more, which is concerning for a whole different bunch of reasons.
Just on that, have you noticed how much of the good footy seen this year (even by shizen teams) has been when they have been behind?
Its all about shackles and no shackles.
Get far enough behind - take risks, score quickly, play footy
The blueprint for potentially stopping us is simple, get numbers back, clog our fwdline and kill us on the counterattack, even if it's prodominately luck based.
Teams know they can allow us to have a dominance around the ground and in clereance work, cos at the end of the day all of that is irrelevant if you can't actually get the score on the board or setup the possession to get into a position to score.
Isn't that the blueprint for beating most teams though?
I actually thought the game plan was the only thing that kept us in the Freo game for a half, it was the fact that we had no avenues to goal that eventually hurt us.
Against the Saints, the players didn't turn up. Didn't run to create space, didn't run to create viable options, didn't run hard enough to cover on the rebound. It was compounded by usually great users of the ball in Fletch, Hurley and Hibbo making some diabolical skill errors. No game plan can survive that.
Time will tell how effective this game plan is, but it's a cop out to blame last week's loss on it, or imply that the game plan has been 'cracked.'
Stkilda just wanted it more, which is concerning for a whole different bunch of reasons.
probably is, other teams are better at it though and bringing it out through are defensive wall/zone whatever.
and it's not just the saints one of game i'm talking about, teams were doing it last year against us. The good teams beat us, and one ■■■■■■ team, til we hit the wall, but even then there were games like the dogs and others where they set up right, just their lack of skill and maturity really cost them, esp with turnovers.
But the Hawks did it to us this year, Freo did it, yes they went full retard in the first half due to the belting by the hawks, and now the saints.
the other 2 teams are rabbles with little to no defensive aspect to their games.
tis going to be interesting to see what happens this week, cos Collingwood are a team who like to play with loose players in the backline, so it's going to be a game were this theory is put into practice. Hopefully the bigger ground helps us, as the smaller tesltra dome seems to exacerbate the problem.
OH ps the gameplan is good, they just need to limit the ability of the quick counter attack by leaving even more extra numbers behind the play, so when it does come out of our forwardline we really outnumber the opposition.
I’d like to think that we are better than other clubs, and that we will be smart enough to think long term rather than short term. I think Bomber has the luxury of knowing that he can cop the heat too, if we lose a few more. He mentioned a while ago that he can do some things he normally wouldn’t, because of his unique situation (Hird Returning). The media can’t start crying SACK BOMBER can they?
As for Carlisle, maybe Bomber is giving him a rev up. It surely can’t be lost on Daniher that he’s a passenger either, and putting pressure on Carlisle.
Getting games into blokes doesn’t mean great development if they are losing though. I doubt Bomber needs to be told that. Also there are other blokes to worry about not just JD and JC, Bomber knows that too.
I think he’s foxing, I’m not incensed by it, I don’t think it will hurt.
As for Hurley, I didn’t think he was that bad, but his lack of performance was covered by us winning, which meant he was at least drawing defenders and allowing space for our other forwards. Of course Carlisle can improve and I don’t think he’s been that bad considering his rucking duties and being a fish out of water, but if Chappy, Winders, Ambrose and a Belly/Ryder can help Carlisle then they could probably help Hurley too.
Personally I’m not too worried, I don’t think we are ready for a flag and I hope we select players and play to improve as a side, who can tackle any situation. I look forward to the day JD is dominating and we can throw Hurley or JC forward and no one cares.
Next year when Hird returns we will be in a much better position, a position we might not have been able to obtain if not for Bomber keeping his eye on the big prize and ignoring media and fans whims.