Woosha has said that while he is still considered a forward, they are keeping their options open re moving him back sometimes.
I love him as a forward, but we are overflowing with forward options at the moment, so if rotating Stringer forward and mid occurs Hooker could move in and out of the forward line. Joe and JS can also swap KPF roles, with players off the bench potentially coming forward, as well as mid, like Langers and Fridge.
Having Hooker with the potential to go back could free up Hurley, keep Gleeson flexible as a third tall or half back option depending on the opposition. Putting Ambrose on the bench where he can relieve or free up any of the tall defenders or smash up the midfield (maybe in a quick burst - a la burying Hill) or even to make some defenders think twice in contested situations if he had a quick stint up forward.
As I said above, there is a lot of possibilities with changing the shape of the team to advantage with our current personnel and Iām excited.
If we have a plan B that isnāt kick it on hookers head, we have no reason for him to be forward. then we can go back to having 2 of the best 3 defenders in the league.
Apart from the reason that we donāt have anyone else who can take a contested or pack mark forward, and therefore draw a key defender.
Stewart - canāt do it, not his strength
Stringer- canāt do it ( lost the taste for it over his last two seasons - depended on Redpath & Boyd to hit packs)
Belly - can, but canāt lead out of goal square.
Francis - donāt we all wish
Hartley - at least youāve thought about an option.
So anyone who moves Hooker back had better explain why their forward choices can play at least as well in that position & role.
Yet to see any best 22 with Hooker back that does this.
Iām not quite getting you.
Daniher, obviously, takes a decent contested mark.
Perhaps youāre concerned about him being double-teamed without Hooker.
Thatās reasonable.
Itās what made our forward-line so good, the three different types of tall forwards (teamed with Fanta and Tippa).
I donāt think thatās going to be an issue with Stewart and Stringer in the same forward-line.
It would make whoever we play very tall if you put an extra big body on Daniher.
Stewartās match-up needs to be tall and fast, and Stringerās match-up needs to be strong.
B: Jake Kelly, Daniel Talia, Luke Brown Tippa, Stewart, Stringer
HB: Rory Laird, Kyle Hartigan, David Mackay Smith, Daniher, Fantasia
That looks alright to me.
And thatās a decent backline.
Yes there are other ways to structure a forward line.
But ours is working the best it has for umpteen years, relying on Daniher to swing between deep forward and outside 50, Stewart to provide marking options out wide, and Hooker to demand a key back, and often being double teamed deep.
This leaves space for our three smalls to work as leading targets, as well as crumbers.
Stewart canāt hold down a key post solo, much less require double teaming.
Stringer is a much better third tall, which is essentially what he was for the last couple of years at Footscray. By all means replace Stewart with Stringer, they are similar in role, and Stringer is better.
As for never bombing the ball in long, thatās nice in theory but never works in practice. Long, high balls will always happen during the chaos of footy - at the moment even those pose a threat to the opposition. Take Hooker out, and weāre just another team whoāll be rebounded against repeatedly. See Swans final for evidence.
Iām not as fussed whether he plays back or forward as long as we get better balance between attack and defence. A lot of that will come from the midfield output.
I agree with your point on how well our forwardline performed. I do believe it to be a little presumptuous to put that down to Hooker though. As with all parts of the ground its about how they operate as a group and not just one part.
If we are so heavily reliant on Hooker being our centerpiece in the forwardline then that puts us in a very vulnerable position if he goes down.
I suspect we will be working on a number of different scenarios.
Yes weāre very dependant on Hooker, especially when Joe D goes into spell the ruck, and even more if Hooker is injured.
Our whole structure seems to fall away then, and I reckon itās one of the trickiest for the coaches to resolve.
Donāt doubt theyāre working on it, but again itās only exacerbated by permanently moving Hooker back.
In short currently we have two pack marking forwards - Joe and Hooker.
One when Joes in the ruck.
Weāve tried the more mobile slightly smaller forwards in Laverde and Begley - do we persevere with one or both?
Discarded the two ruck option, with the resting ruck forward - if we had two rucks who could mark overhead like the Swine or Weagles it might work.
Itās where Francis is a real pity - couldāve, shouldāve given us that third option.
I havenāt totally written Francis off, but I think at best heāll need to play behind the ball for a while in the Ones to gain confidence and read the play more easily.
So I donāt expect him to solve our forward issues this year.
Francis needs to play as a defender, until he gets to say, 30 to 50 games.
Lets try and concentrate on getting him playing AFL level. You know the routine, crawling/walking.