Crameri was the glue that held our forward line together.
He doesn't kick a lot of goals (having said that he was our leading goalkicker) but jesus we could bomb away to him & he'd pluck it, & if he didn't mark it he'd rove his own work & still beat his opponent more times than not. Plus he had an engine that made our game plan work with the 18 man press because he could get on his bike when we won possession in the middle & outrun his opponent to get dangerous forward of the ball. In the air or on the ground he was hard to beat.
Now we have two, maybe three (Belly) dinosaurs in the forward line yet we persist with all forwards pressing up into the midfield when defending. At least one tall forward should be staying inside the forward 50 Ala Hawkins for Geelong. It doesn't need to be the same forward everytime but as a team they should be trying to keep one in the forward 50.
If the opposition want to try to utilize their full back by running off our stay at home forward then good luck, we'd only need one goal from a turnover & all of a sudden their going to be frightened to try to run off.
It's our game plan that sucks & does not seem to have been rejigged after the loss of Crameri.
As much as I liked Crameri you may be re-writing history. He often had injuries and struggled to move freely.
This.
he was lazy, didn't chase, hardly ever shepherded a colleague, and often didn't contest second or third efforts, or try to defend a ball in the fwd 50.
It was downright shameful - watching the game at the ground - how little he tried, sometimes.
Plenty of talent - and certainly kicked goals - but please don't gild the lily so comprehensively.
Crameri was the glue that held our forward line together.
He doesn't kick a lot of goals (having said that he was our leading goalkicker) but jesus we could bomb away to him & he'd pluck it, & if he didn't mark it he'd rove his own work & still beat his opponent more times than not. Plus he had an engine that made our game plan work with the 18 man press because he could get on his bike when we won possession in the middle & outrun his opponent to get dangerous forward of the ball. In the air or on the ground he was hard to beat.
Now we have two, maybe three (Belly) dinosaurs in the forward line yet we persist with all forwards pressing up into the midfield when defending. At least one tall forward should be staying inside the forward 50 Ala Hawkins for Geelong. It doesn't need to be the same forward everytime but as a team they should be trying to keep one in the forward 50.
If the opposition want to try to utilize their full back by running off our stay at home forward then good luck, we'd only need one goal from a turnover & all of a sudden their going to be frightened to try to run off.
It's our game plan that sucks & does not seem to have been rejigged after the loss of Crameri.
As much as I liked Crameri you may be re-writing history. He often had injuries and struggled to move freely.
Um, no. He was pretty durable from memory. At times he looked to struggle to move freely & there were times when he did play with a niggling injury but it didn't stop him from getting the job done for us.
I preferred the following tall forwards: FF: small player C.Johns J.Neagle CHF: S.Gumbleton D.Daniher M.Still You know, you look at that and although some were just muppets, injuries certainly haven't helped. Just one of either Daniher or Gumby being injury free and this discussion probably isn't occurring.
All i can say is that Kennedy OF THE WC kicked 11 against Sam Frost and Carlisle against an equivalent type opponent in Darcy Gardiner kicked 1. Tall forwards with ability dine out against poor or developing defenders.
Midfield is not the issue. How can you have more inside 50's than the opposition up to Round 8. Poor midfield means you dont get the ball into forward 50 as often as the opposition.
Ridiculous point. Completely different ground, completely different game, completely different players.
Who of the other players who have played on Gardiner this year has kicked a bag on him? (ignoring that Brisbane were more competitive in the midfield than they have been)
Its not ridiculous. It's a fact that GUN forwards kick more goals in their career against bottom eight teams and inexperienced opponents. Brisbane think so much of Carlisle that they refused to play Patfull ( who beat Riewoldt two weeks earlier ) on Carlisle, the Bulldogs refused to play Morris on Carlisle ( he picked up Winderlich and was later moved on to JD). In the last 3 weeks Carlisle has got Keefe/Stringer/Gardiner - This is a s week as it gets for key defenders in the AFL. Put Hurley against these guys and he would have kicked 15 goals.
All i can say is that Kennedy OF THE WC kicked 11 against Sam Frost and Carlisle against an equivalent type opponent in Darcy Gardiner kicked 1. Tall forwards with ability dine out against poor or developing defenders.
Midfield is not the issue. How can you have more inside 50's than the opposition up to Round 8. Poor midfield means you dont get the ball into forward 50 as often as the opposition.
Ridiculous comparison. Frost and Gardiner may be similar, but Kennedy and Carlisle are not. Kennedy has been in the system 10 years, all of it as a forward. Carlisle has been in the system 4 years, 2-3 of them as a defender.
The fact is that Carlisle has come up against rubbish in the last 3 weeks. Bulldogs and Brisbane refused to play Patfull and Morris respectively on Carlisle. AFL teams don't rate Carlisle as a forward. You assume that carlisle will get Grundy or Richards. If not Carlisle is on the way to getting the 44th listed player as his opponent.
All i can say is that Kennedy OF THE WC kicked 11 against Sam Frost and Carlisle against an equivalent type opponent in Darcy Gardiner kicked 1. Tall forwards with ability dine out against poor or developing defenders. Midfield is not the issue. How can you have more inside 50's than the opposition up to Round 8. Poor midfield means you dont get the ball into forward 50 as often as the opposition.
Ridiculous point. Completely different ground, completely different game, completely different players. Who of the other players who have played on Gardiner this year has kicked a bag on him? (ignoring that Brisbane were more competitive in the midfield than they have been)
Its not ridiculous. It's a fact that GUN forwards kick more goals in their career against bottom eight teams and inexperienced opponents. Brisbane think so much of Carlisle that they refused to play Patfull ( who beat Riewoldt two weeks earlier ) on Carlisle, the Bulldogs refused to play Morris on Carlisle ( he picked up Winderlich and was later moved on to JD). In the last 3 weeks Carlisle has got Keefe/Stringer/Gardiner - This is a s week as it gets for key defenders in the AFL. Put Hurley against these guys and he would have kicked 15 goals.
Hurley has only kicked 5 goals in a game a couple of times, and you think he'd have done it three weeks in a row with that midfield delivery? You're delusional.
“refused”, what a strange choice of wording. Teams choose to play defenders on different forwards for many reasons. Carlisle is tall. Morris is 190 cm. Patfull is also 190cm. Perhaps they thought Gardiner at 194 was a better match in for Carlisle, or that Patfull was a better option for one of our other forwards.
(I suppose we didn’t rate Carey when we played Barnard or Young on him when we had Fletcher and Wellman available)
Irrespective. Your point remains crazy. Kennedy kicks a bag against GWS and you go with “see that’s what good forwards do against weak opponents” despite the fact that no other forwards have gone near doing that against any other opponent this year.
Forwards only kick bags (plugger excepted) when they have a combination of a good day themselves and some good service creating opportunities. Kennedy doesn’t kick 11 in a vacuum. The midfield dominated, and the GWS defence lost a key position option 2 minutes in.
When, against these “weak” opponents in the last couple of weeks has Essendon’s midfield dominated? Or even been on top? To compare Kennedy’s bag to Carlisle’s output is ridiculous. The circumstances are not even vaguely comparable.
All i can say is that Kennedy OF THE WC kicked 11 against Sam Frost and Carlisle against an equivalent type opponent in Darcy Gardiner kicked 1. Tall forwards with ability dine out against poor or developing defenders.
Midfield is not the issue. How can you have more inside 50's than the opposition up to Round 8. Poor midfield means you dont get the ball into forward 50 as often as the opposition.
Ridiculous point. Completely different ground, completely different game, completely different players.
Who of the other players who have played on Gardiner this year has kicked a bag on him? (ignoring that Brisbane were more competitive in the midfield than they have been)
Its not ridiculous. It's a fact that GUN forwards kick more goals in their career against bottom eight teams and inexperienced opponents. Brisbane think so much of Carlisle that they refused to play Patfull ( who beat Riewoldt two weeks earlier ) on Carlisle, the Bulldogs refused to play Morris on Carlisle ( he picked up Winderlich and was later moved on to JD). In the last 3 weeks Carlisle has got Keefe/Stringer/Gardiner - This is a s week as it gets for key defenders in the AFL. Put Hurley against these guys and he would have kicked 15 goals.
Hurley has only kicked 5 goals in a game a couple of times, and you think he'd have done it three weeks in a row with that midfield delivery? You're delusional.
And we clearly rate Stanley better than Reiwoldt as we put Hooker on Stanley.
I really want Adam Tomlinson. I remember the game he played against us in his first year at the dome. This boy can play and has the ability to run hard. He would be perfect. Much prefer him over Sam Reid (who is also a handy player).
I wanted to have Carlisle forward, and I would normally think that the games to date are nowhere near enough to determine if Carlisle can make it as a forward or not.
HOWEVER, if this is completely doing Carlisle's head in. If whether due to the swap or personal issues he is in no place to be doing this, then maybe he needs to be moved back. Only the coaching staff would no if this is the case, or just the story been created by some fans/commentators/media to explain some of what has happened. It could all be rubbish.
The problem is, if we move Carlisle anywhere (whether VFL or backline), we need somebody to support JD up forward. Even when Belly is fit we probably still want another tall forward. So the choice is pretty much switch one of Hurley/Hooker forward (both of which has a heap of issues), have an undersized forwardline, or try someone like Steinberg. Not good solutions any of them.
I agree with you for the most part. Carlisle needs a few weeks out of the spot light to practice his forward play and maybe get some confidence.
I think Steinberg could be ok as a replacement for a few weeks if we have him and Ambrose playing there. But It would only be for a few and we would need belly to come in soon, especially as we might need to rest Joe for a week soon.
Ultimately though non of this is a solution, Carlsile needs to step up, and to do that he needs to stop having hissy fits and worrying about where he thinks he should play and just go out there and smash packs. Don't worry about the finer points just hit the footy a full pace and start a body count, it's certainly one way to get you team going when you not hitting the scoreboard.