JLT 2 vs Geelong, Colac, Sunday 11/3/18 1.05pm Fox

[Ants]

Watched second half. Don’t have a lengthy post in me but… McGrath got put on ball late in the third and changed the game. He, parish and hepp (with hepp the defender )was probably our most convincing centre square set up but we only saw it about 3 times in a 5 minutes patch. More please

McGrath was mostly onball all game. He just started affecting it later on (like a lot of the team).

[Ants]

The Doggies actually preferred three talls.
Redpath, Boyd, Stringer with a dummy small centre half forward.
They didn’t always mark it ( though you may be surprised how often they did) but consistently brought it to ground AND locked it in there.

This is Hookers role. He is very good at it.
Joe D’s biggest weakness is the ease with which the ball is rebounded if he doesn’t mark it.

As for Richmond completely different. Joe D is not Riewoldt thank Christ.
And it remains to be seen if their game plan can hold up in Year 2.
The Doggies game plan didn’t.

Hang on , people are saying stewart isnt a kpf , so by that logic, stringer isnt one.

Redpatg went down in rd 18.

Richmond won it with revolt as their only cpf.

Im not saying we go the exact same path as them. All im saying is teams find a way to win , whether the have marking kpf or not.

But again the main premise of my statement is , do you want a gameplan that relys on long contested marking and hooker having to be in the side foe it to work properly??

Or would you rather players up field not panic , find good leading options , and as a last resort bomb it long ?

Cos hooker forward seems to make players think , just like supporters, that if we bomb it long hooker will just mark it all the time. Which obviously isnt the case.

Given it resulted in one of the highest conversions of F50 entries into scores in the league last year, hell yes. Our issue was not enough F50 entries, not what we did with it when it got there.

I do think it’s a fair point to raise, however, that when Hooker missed games we were mostly screwed. And a game plan that falls apart with a single player missing is not ideal.

Edit: which I suppose is a depth issue rather than a style issue. But then again if we had credible depth at that position Hooker wouldn’t be playing there in the first place.

That argument is fundamentally saying a team should never build their system around their best players because if they get injured they’re screwed. Which is a ridiculous approach. You build your system around your best players because it wins you games. Weakening yourself to reduce the drop off IF you get injuries is silly.

[ivan]

He was starting off the wing though and playing as a defensive sweeper. Only played under the ruckman’s feet briefly but had a big impact when he did.

[SplitRound]

I disagree on your phrasing of it. Of course you base your plan on your best players, playing to your strengths is critical, but you shouldn’t be entirely reliant on them. There should be something for the situation where one of them gets injured, or suspended, or hits a bad patch of form. Typically this would be a similar but less good player who can play the same role, allowing you to keep playing the same way, but we absolutely do not have this for Hooker. Alternatively would be a different yet still effective way to play if they miss, which on the evidence of last year we also didn’t have. Maybe we do have a backup plan now that doesn’t involve kicking high balls to unmarked opposition defenders, at which point problem solved.

It may well be silly to weaken yourself to reduce the drop off, but it’s hardly the definition of sensible to assume that someone’s going to play every week of the year, especially in a league which decides the champions in a single knockout game.

[Ants]

I have no issues having a Plan B.

[anon71769209]

Serious? What has he done that you like?

[barnz]

In that 10 minutes cameo.

I’ve lost posted how he’s done sweet ■■■■ all through his VFL stint.

But that goal. Applying pressure and tackles. With raz gone and the other small forward options being no one why not.

[Tippa-the-Iceberg]

Long shot, i think.

[Houli_Dooli]

how he’s done sweet ■■■■ all through his VFL stint.

But that goal. Applying pressure and tackles. With raz gone and the other small forward options being no one why not.

Long might be a player that looks better at the next Level, and never truely dominates a VFL game.

[Speedy_Gonzales]

They were considering bringing him in late last year also when Raz was out also for all those reasons.

[anon71769209]

Ping @Windy_Dill

[darkknightpheonix]

The Doggies actually preferred three talls.
Redpath, Boyd, Stringer with a dummy small centre half forward.
They didn’t always mark it ( though you may be surprised how often they did) but consistently brought it to ground AND locked it in there.

This is Hookers role. He is very good at it.
Joe D’s biggest weakness is the ease with which the ball is rebounded if he doesn’t mark it.

As for Richmond completely different. Joe D is not Riewoldt thank Christ.
And it remains to be seen if their game plan can hold up in Year 2.
The Doggies game plan didn’t.

Hang on , people are saying stewart isnt a kpf , so by that logic, stringer isnt one.

Redpatg went down in rd 18.

Richmond won it with revolt as their only cpf.

Im not saying we go the exact same path as them. All im saying is teams find a way to win , whether the have marking kpf or not.

But again the main premise of my statement is , do you want a gameplan that relys on long contested marking and hooker having to be in the side foe it to work properly??

Or would you rather players up field not panic , find good leading options , and as a last resort bomb it long ?

Cos hooker forward seems to make players think , just like supporters, that if we bomb it long hooker will just mark it all the time. Which obviously isnt the case.

Given it resulted in one of the highest conversions of F50 entries into scores in the league last year, hell yes. Our issue was not enough F50 entries, not what we did with it when it got there.

I do think it’s a fair point to raise, however, that when Hooker missed games we were mostly screwed. And a game plan that falls apart with a single player missing is not ideal.

Edit: which I suppose is a depth issue rather than a style issue. But then again if we had credible depth at that position Hooker wouldn’t be playing there in the first place.

That argument is fundamentally saying a team should never build their system around their best players because if they get injured they’re screwed. Which is a ridiculous approach. You build your system around your best players because it wins you games. Weakening yourself to reduce the drop off IF you get injuries is silly.

Thats a awhole lot if assuming of what i said and or meant.

I never said dont build a team around your best players.
And up unril last year and a few games in 15 , hooker was not a forward , he was a make shift option cos we had no one else to help daniher out. Hurlwy had failed up there ditto carlisle.

If we are picking our side to our strengths then our aa fb should be playing at … full back.

Onw of our biggest issues for along time has been players not taking the game on more and panic kicking the ball forward.

My issue is hooker does nothing to solve that problem , infact his presence in the forwardline gives players an easier out , than instead of finding a better short option to move the ball safer , they just bomb it long and blindly , cos good old hooker will just mark it.

You can chuck in terms you like , its not about weakining how you play , its about teaching players to play different gamestyles in different circumstances, because you never know who will be out on the park from week to week.

Anf imo you cant do that , when you always allow that out , for players to panic kick ir forward. And as people have so eloquently pointed out , hooker is the only real one who can do it, so you’re building your whole forward movement gameplan around the strengths of one player , does that seem smart ?

[Windy_Dill]

Ping @Windy_Dill

Triggered.

[Ants]

The Doggies actually preferred three talls.
Redpath, Boyd, Stringer with a dummy small centre half forward.
They didn’t always mark it ( though you may be surprised how often they did) but consistently brought it to ground AND locked it in there.

This is Hookers role. He is very good at it.
Joe D’s biggest weakness is the ease with which the ball is rebounded if he doesn’t mark it.

As for Richmond completely different. Joe D is not Riewoldt thank Christ.
And it remains to be seen if their game plan can hold up in Year 2.
The Doggies game plan didn’t.

Hang on , people are saying stewart isnt a kpf , so by that logic, stringer isnt one.

Redpatg went down in rd 18.

Richmond won it with revolt as their only cpf.

Im not saying we go the exact same path as them. All im saying is teams find a way to win , whether the have marking kpf or not.

But again the main premise of my statement is , do you want a gameplan that relys on long contested marking and hooker having to be in the side foe it to work properly??

Or would you rather players up field not panic , find good leading options , and as a last resort bomb it long ?

Cos hooker forward seems to make players think , just like supporters, that if we bomb it long hooker will just mark it all the time. Which obviously isnt the case.

Given it resulted in one of the highest conversions of F50 entries into scores in the league last year, hell yes. Our issue was not enough F50 entries, not what we did with it when it got there.

I do think it’s a fair point to raise, however, that when Hooker missed games we were mostly screwed. And a game plan that falls apart with a single player missing is not ideal.

Edit: which I suppose is a depth issue rather than a style issue. But then again if we had credible depth at that position Hooker wouldn’t be playing there in the first place.

That argument is fundamentally saying a team should never build their system around their best players because if they get injured they’re screwed. Which is a ridiculous approach. You build your system around your best players because it wins you games. Weakening yourself to reduce the drop off IF you get injuries is silly.

Thats a awhole lot if assuming of what i said and or meant.

I never said dont build a team around your best players.
And up unril last year and a few games in 15 , hooker was not a forward , he was a make shift option cos we had no one else to help daniher out. Hurlwy had failed up there ditto carlisle.

If we are picking our side to our strengths then our aa fb should be playing at … full back.

Onw of our biggest issues for along time has been players not taking the game on more and panic kicking the ball forward.

My issue is hooker does nothing to solve that problem , infact his presence in the forwardline gives players an easier out , than instead of finding a better short option to move the ball safer , they just bomb it long and blindly , cos good old hooker will just mark it.

You can chuck in terms you like , its not about weakining how you play , its about teaching players to play different gamestyles in different circumstances, because you never know who will be out on the park from week to week.

Anf imo you cant do that , when you always allow that out , for players to panic kick ir forward. And as people have so eloquently pointed out , hooker is the only real one who can do it, so you’re building your whole forward movement gameplan around the strengths of one player , does that seem smart ?

a) It was SplitRound who said that about the hole Hooker would leave if he was injured, and who I was replying to.
b) You keep talking about how Hooker forward didn’t solve our F50 problems, and that we have a problem panic kicking it forward, while ignoring that last year the problems were solved. We had one of the best F50 conversions in the league. The issue wasn’t the F50, it was getting it in there.

[Bully]

Still not sure why McKernan can;t play the hooker role to about 70% of hookers ability, its a bit of a reflection on Mckernan that he can;t do it competently.
He is a strong contested mark, same height as hooker, strong and probably quicker and a straighter kick, he must just not have the discipline to watch hooker and emulate him to the best of his ability. If he was able to give us 70% of what hooker does at Full forward (standing in the square, crashing packs bringing the ball to ground and taking a big defender) then hooker could move to defence and we’d all be laughing.

[Alan_Noonan_10]

I have no issues having a Plan B.

You’ve also got to remember that your opposition are going to try to shut down your strengths, e.g. blocking Saad and Conor’s runs, not letting Hurls get free, block off Myers’s left foot, try to get our tall forwards flying against each other, so you’ve got to be ready for that. Do things like honouring Stewart or Begley’s position, not bomb it to Tippa or Green.

[Alan_Noonan_10]

Still not sure why McKernan can;t play the hooker role to about 70% of hookers ability, its a bit of a reflection on Mckernan that he can;t do it competently.
He is a strong contested mark, same height as hooker, strong and probably quicker and a straighter kick, he must just not have the discipline to watch hooker and emulate him to the best of his ability. If he was able to give us 70% of what hooker does at Full forward (standing in the square, crashing packs bringing the ball to ground and taking a big defender) then hooker could move to defence and we’d all be laughing.

McKernan struggles to put two games together. Every time we get an encouraging performance out of him, it seems that within two weeks, he’s put in an unsighted shocker.

[up_up]

This may have been mentioned before, but if Tippa and a defender are one out in the forward line, I see no problem with bombing to the vicinity of Anthony William Watson as long as it is not at marking height. Just make sure your kick gets it to ground and let Walla do the rest.

[Fozdog]

I would rather him back now that we have the forward line covered. We have fewer options down back from when we sent him there. Carlol, Hibbo and Kelly gone we really have lost a fair bit there.
The main reason I would like him back is he seems to turn up each week in defence, where in attack you never know if and for how long he is going to.

[bloodychoir]

Kelly and Gleeson gone, cannot cover that without opening a hole somewhere else. Will need to recruit a serious back man for next year.