But we had four talls.
When? When Green was injured and we were playing Laverde in his spot? I thought we were all in agreement that that didnât work as well, but that it also wasnât or preferred structure, we just didnât have the depth at small forward.
1 Like
Yeah, I consider laverde a tall.
Iâm talking about next year. I hope we donât go with that fourth tall because I believe it makes us top heavy.
I mentioned a few posts up that I would like to see a defensive small forward from now on because or pressure is very average.
Laverde shouldnât be played in the forwardline even when fit.
I think we can pretty much agree on that.
Laverde should be playing midfield rotations. They can rotate forwards (eg when JD goes into the ruck, and Bellchambers rests on the bench), but the Orazio / Tippa / Green smalls balance was good. Then Orazio got injured, then Green got injured and weâre playing a much less dynamic forward line because we had no one to replace Green, and NO ONE can replace Orazio.
5 Likes
Yeah, green was copping quite a lot of criticism when he was playing but I thought we looked structurally better even if it didnât appear he was having much influence. He did a lot of chasing and harassing that wasnât receiving a lot of credit on here. Sometimes itâs not all about goals for small forwards.
7 Likes
Richmond have the most basic of basic game plans with the entire team buying into the message. Just kick it long and hunt in numbers. They swarm the opposition, get the ball and bang it forward. What Essendon need is a system of play that suit their personnel. Players who wonât give up in the face of onfield adversity. And a defensive set up built for finals footy. Theyâre so easily scored against at times
2 Likes
Surely weâre capable of adjusting our forward structure from a strict 3 talls, 3 smalls setup. Weâve stockpiled a heap of mid-sized utility types (Laverde, Langford, Francis, Redman, Ridley, Begley etc.), so how do we use them? Wouldâve thought versatility was part of their appeal. If Woosha canât occasionally tweak the structure to suit the players he has at his disposal, itâs a bit of a worry.
2 Likes
For sure. I was just suggesting that was our best based on this year and maximised the strengths of the guys we had available.
Iâd imagine that a 2 tall / 2 med marking type / 2 small setup would work when we had the right players available and fit. Unfortunately the closer we got to finals the less we had that with Hooker, Fantasia, Green all getting injured, Laverde never bring fit, Francis not being ready and Begley only being an impact player at this point.
Weâll be more flexible next year, but I still like the smalls if we have Joe and Hooker in the key posts, because they will create the required crumbs for the smalls.
1 Like
How is Laverde a tall and a midfielder?
Surely for those who think he can midfield then he can play small when forward?
*Fwiw I donât think he is a midfielder, I think he is 3rd tall.
1 Like
Heâs a third or fourth or even fifth marking target who should / will be a mid, but who was limited by the lack of fitness due to injury this year.
That limited his impact in both the mid sized forward role, and also his ability to take midfield minutes, which in turn limited our ability to be flexible around forward set ups. But we were limited by not having heaps of other options either.
1 Like
A number of people have said Hooker should move back, or that the forward line didnât have enough pressure. This is rubbish. Our forward line was fine. We were twelfth in the league for I50âs, but scored the third most points. Our forward line was incredibly efficient, and the combination of Hooker, JD, Stewart, Green, Raz and Walla was exceptionally potent. A few pointed out the Richmond game, one of Hookerâs worst matches for the year. He has a better match, that game might have finished differently.
The idea of moving Hooker anywhere unless we have a player who can do that role is ridiculous.
I think we got your point regarding LongâŚ
That said, I also think its just wrong. I have grave doubts over his ability to play that role at VFL let alone AFL level.
Iâm not suggesting move Hooker but its pretty clear something will change if we land Stringer.
Unless of course you think we can carry Joe, Stewart, Hooker, Laverde and potentially Stringer up front. Even allowing for Laverde to be moved I personally think thatâs to tall.
I did suggest Long or somebody else which you didnât highlight. I donât think he will make it on a wing and I prefer to see him tried elsewhere before giving up.
And if you read my post above I was commenting on our scoring ability but our ability to defend in our forwardline. Defense is something that is implemented all over the ground not just the defensive 50.
Why on earth would Laverde be near the team? He wasnât best 22 last year, I doubt he will be next year.
Our main issue with transition out of the forward line wasnât the forwards, it was the midfield. Funny how the forwards look more effective defensively when the options to kick it too out of the F50 are covered like Richmond did.
2 Likes
Not sure if you are serious about Laverde? He was basically brought straight back into the side after a serious injury and despite poor form was persisted with. That tells me that they rate him.
Yeah, Richmondâs small forwards had no impact defensively at all this year.
2 Likes
He was brought in only when at least one of our main forwards was injured. Was in for Green, then Raz, then Hooker. And was never close to any of them in effectiveness. He may push into the side next year, but I suspect it will only be if his game lifts a number of notches or we have injuries.
I didnât say Richmondâs small forwards had no impact. I said they appear more effective when the midfield options to kick to have also been shut down. With the clear corollary (I thought) that Raz/Walla/Green put on a heap of pressure, but as defenders had easy midfield targets they could get rid of the ball quickly and with only minimal accuracy required.
This would also be backed up by our efficiency when we went I50 at scoring.
I think that was largely because of injuries though. If there were no injuries itâs doubtful he would have come in at all. Even less spots if Stringer comes in.
Plus a fair chance that Begley has passed him by.
Will be fascinating to see how Laverde goes (and where he plays) if he gets an uninterrupted pre-season
Iâm not sure why the discussion about Laverde even exists. I donât want him in the side either.
Thought I made that pretty clear in posts above.
They did go with Laverde over Begley initially.
I think Laverde has an interesting preseason ahead.
I donât think he has an obvious position.
1 Like
Because you were using him as an argument that we went too tall and played 4 talls?
The reason I referenced him is because I believe heâs the weak link yet the club stuck with him throughout poor form.
Pretty straightforward I think.