2010 forward line??

[Auntie.Gerald]

new to the forum so hoping you wont shoot the messenger ie starting a thread that could have been discussed massively already !

Now that we have had the change of the guard up front and have lost Hally and Mick I would like to see us push for what has worked well for the Dogs and the Pies etc ie slightly more agile forwards where possible.......I feel the big older guys was a coach killer the last season especially but that was obvious......there was loyalty, current contracts, respect and many other factors involved for two of our heroes staying on.........but boy did they struggle to defend against the counter attack of small backs which led to a few too many opposition teams being able to push into space one on none.......and yes the smalls of Saints, Dogs and Pies are another class above.......but lets put our lads in a red hot go of pressuring the ball which is the blood of their footy style.......

My starting 2010 so far with a long way to go....conservative despite my dreamy rant

F: Moore, White, Hannebery
HF: Ryan O, Goodes, Ablett


GREETINGS !!

[staple]

Looks good! BUT CAREFUL!!!! You can't put Ablett in any thread on here without the wolves coming out to play......

My forward line (a little out there):

FF: Veszpremi, White, Jack (our new crumber thinly based on a couple of goals last year!)
HF: Hannebery, Goodes, Smith

[UglyDuckling]

Why waste hanners in the forward line? He is a pure midfielder with delicious skills he is the bloke you want kicking inside 50.

I personally think a couple of talls up forward is key to create a contest and if they dont mark it make sure it spills for the crumbers to get front and center.

Goodes counts as a tall and a small because he is as quick and agile as anyone so defenders cant really run off him.

HF Meredith Goodes Vezpresident
FF Johnston White Moore

Look at the way adelaide do it with Tippet Burton Hentchel and sometimes Walker then the smalls around them with Danger Knights and the porpoise They have a good mix of talls and smalls with multiple targets making them very effective.

[Robbo]

I like Moore in the forward line. He's got a football brain and with the plethora of midfielders we have now I think a forward pocket is where he should be.

[Jeffers1984]

HF: Hannebery Goodes Johnston
F: White Currie Veszpremi

I'm hoping this is how we end up next year. Bit adventurous but i really hope Currie is used as our FF. Also hoping like hell Johnston can get straight into it.

4 marking forwards with Vesz doing the crumbing and also playing as a medium leading forward.
Hanners in there purely on rotation. Could easily have Moore, Meredith and hmm possibly Ablett there.

Could use a pure crumber there so maybe get one late in the draft or if we're really keen, get Lewis Jetta in there.

[SimonH]

You can't play 12 guys in the midfield (even though we pick about 12 midfielders each game), and so some of them have to start in the forward line. Less important than the starting 6, then, is identifying the permanent forwards, and those who'll rotate through the forward line during the game.

So, my wishlist (not engaging in wishful thinking re Johnston until he's actually shown an ability to stay on the park, and solid form, a la White in Canberra 2009):
HF ROK/McVeigh rotational/alternative spot (i.e. if one of these isn't in the forward line, then most of the time the other one should be), Goodes semi-permanent spot, JBolt/Bird/Meredith/Hannebery/McGlynn etc rotational spot
FF Veszpremi permanent spot, White permanent spot, Moore (and/or Laidlaw if he survives and stays fit) permanent spot.

I maintain that while CBolt is still standing and LRT is doing his thing (and especially once Teddy is running around again), Grundy is needed more in the forward line than the backline. Having a great mark up front hurts the opposition more than down back (last 20 seconds of the 2005 GF notwithstanding), and he's a better kick for goal than he is a field kick. However, the club has made its intentions for him very clear, and so there's no point flogging that particular lost cause.

The disadvantage with the above plan, is that it's a fairly short-arse forward line. This is not a real disadvantage in SCG games where only 2 (or 2 1/2 if you count ROK) marking forwards are needed. In games on larger grounds, especially if either White or Goodes are struggling, we would need to throw Richards, Barlow (if he makes our best 22), or Grundy (see above) forward to provide a 3rd option. Or, wildly unlikely, Playfair gets retained, earns a spot and stays on the park. Even then, I couldn't see a use for Playfair at the SCG.

One thing about Adam Goodes is he can surprise, and rip the heart out of an opponent at stoppages, when he's 'on'. We would waste that by camping him in the forward line 100% of the time. So while we need him most up forward structurally, our coaches have to maintain the flexibility to read the game situation and throw him into the middle, or another role, when the time is right. Ideally Barlow, if playing to his best, would be able to come off the bench and be the virtual Goodes up forward while Goodes was being the real thing in the clinches.

One of the advantages to the proposed set-up is it maintains our flexibility to continue endless rotations of 'resting' midfielders through the forward line, while giving us two specialist small forwards. Ever since Sydney, largely unsuccessfully, tried to remake Schneider into a midfielder/utility, 'specialist small forward' seems to be a dirty word around the joint. But I reckon that if Veszpremi and Moore are given the security of being up around the sticks, and around White's feet, more or less the whole game, week-in, week-out, they could do wonders, and the 3 of them could form an exceedingly dangerous little unit.

Today's fun trivia fact: Ben McGlynn's 44 games for 28 goals places him near enough to McVeigh (123:88) in the goals-per-game stakes, and miles ahead of any of JBolt (233:110), Kirk (217:84), NOG (133:39) or the dear departed Buchanan (116:57). The other good news is that in 2009 his free kick count was an unbelievable 34 for: 10 against, for a career total of 77:40. That's an even better record than our #1-by-a-long-way free kick milker JBolt, whose career record is 335:212.

The bad news is that in 2009 he kicked 9.16. Ouch.

[Nico]

Why waste hanners in the forward line? He is a pure midfielder with delicious skills he is the bloke you want kicking inside 50.

I personally think a couple of talls up forward is key to create a contest and if they dont mark it make sure it spills for the crumbers to get front and center.

Goodes counts as a tall and a small because he is as quick and agile as anyone so defenders cant really run off him.

HF Meredith Goodes Vezpresident
FF Johnston White Moore

Look at the way adelaide do it with Tippet Burton Hentchel and sometimes Walker then the smalls around them with Danger Knights and the porpoise They have a good mix of talls and smalls with multiple targets making them very effective.

Goodes counts as a tall because he is tall, but can't be a small because he isn't short and is anything but small. Some people say a short can play as a tall, and this could be argued if they have a fantastic leap. But the confusing thing is some people on RWO said that Crouch was a short who could play tall, but he didn't take an overhead mark in his career let alone take a specci.

The only way I can see how a tall could play short is if he specialised in taking diving chest marks. This is a possibility when playing with the Swans, because many times we see a tall diving for a mark as we have a propensity to kick the ball short.

[Nico]

Hey SimonH, a couple of years ago RWO had every Swans player playing off the wing. I haven't been able to work out whether that was one wing or 2 wings. Anything is possible and a week is a long time in footy.

[liz]

The only way I can see how a tall could play short is if he specialised in taking diving chest marks. This is a possibility when playing with the Swans, because many times we see a tall diving for a mark as we have a propensity to kick the ball short.

I think the description of a tall playing "small" is as often as not an insult - it refering to a player who has height but no decent extension, no leap and little propensity to take overhead marks.

If you're looking for an example where it is a compliment, you probably can't go much past our own MickyO who, despite being the same height as many key forwards, was fantastic at ground level (as well as being decent overhead).

[laughingnome]

The way I see it, there are three ways a forward can get the ball: mark overhead, mark chest/infront, and on the bounce. If you wanted to fit that into the "tall/small forward", tall forwards would take overhead and chest marks, small forwards taking chest marks and crumbing.

A "tall" playing "small" to me means a player who has height but is preferring to get to the ball on the bounce, either because they fancy their agility and leg speed over their opponent or they've lost all confidence/can't take an overhead mark/can't beat their opponent in the air.

[UglyDuckling]

Goodes counts as a tall because he is tall, but can't be a small because he isn't short and is anything but small. Some people say a short can play as a tall, and this could be argued if they have a fantastic leap. But the confusing thing is some people on RWO said that Crouch was a short who could play tall, but he didn't take an overhead mark in his career let alone take a specci.

The only way I can see how a tall could play short is if he specialised in taking diving chest marks. This is a possibility when playing with the Swans, because many times we see a tall diving for a mark as we have a propensity to kick the ball short.

If you read the first post it talks about having a short forward line so that opposition can't run off us. My point simply is that because of his speed and agility his opponent will not be able to run off him as they would other tall forwards. So when constructing your forward line you can think of Adam like a small forward in that sense.

And yes he could easily play as a small if required or if you rather play a role that is generally reserved for a small man. For example Adam could easily play as a crumbing forward, this is a role generally played by a small man. Adam would thus if you will be playing 'small'.

[BSA5]

Goodes counts as a tall because he is tall, but can't be a small because he isn't short and is anything but small. Some people say a short can play as a tall, and this could be argued if they have a fantastic leap. But the confusing thing is some people on RWO said that Crouch was a short who could play tall, but he didn't take an overhead mark in his career let alone take a specci.

The only way I can see how a tall could play short is if he specialised in taking diving chest marks. This is a possibility when playing with the Swans, because many times we see a tall diving for a mark as we have a propensity to kick the ball short.

Nico, often I disagree with you, but rarely do I think you're stupid. But that's just what this post is. Seriously, a short is defined by taking diving chest marks? A tall can play short when they are good with the ball at ground level, are a one-touch player, are agile and don't rely on aerial contests.

Adam Goodes is the perfect example of a tall playing short. Goodes is KP height, but often plays as a midfielder. He has been known to play as a forward pocket. In these cases, he focuses on winning the ball at ground level and relying on pace, agility and reading the play more than physical stature. That is playing short. He also often uses his height and strenght to advantage. That's playing tall. It's quite simple, really.

[Legs Akimbo]

I would argue that Barry Hall is a tall who plays small. I struggle to recall Hall taking a contested overhead mark. He is good on the lead, in the later part of his Sydney days, a lot of his leads were to the pockets or further up the field. In fact, a lot of his goals were from snaps and contested possessions with Hall bullocking his way through other players. Of course, a typical crumber a la Schnieder, Milne etc tends to weave throughpacks and around packs when the ball hits the deck, rather than scatter them with brute strength, but...

[Darren Thomson]

I don't think we actually pick any more than two stay at home forwards, and they are yr KPP, the rest of them go into rotations through the nidfield. Thats the way of modern footy, the back six are realtivly settled, the rest of the team is mostly midfielders, barring the two forwards, but the midfielders are broken down into two teams, the toughnut inside hardball gets, and the outside running mids, ala ROK(who is no softie either). This is the area we need to pump up, Hannebaerry looks the goods and will take a year or two more to fully develop, by then hopefully, our two first rounf draft picks from this year, who must be quick midfielders, should be just about ready top step in for B1, NOG etc. I expect Kirk to be wheeled out in a wheelchair for his last game, sometimes toughness is all you need, and replacing him as a leader will prove the most difficult task of all.

[Bas]

Tall or short?
Fat of the ground or thin?

As far as a forward goes, in the last minutes of the final quarter, tall players don't get and shorter whereas shorter players don't get any taller.

Confusing. Not at all.

Now can someone explain inside vs outside midfielder please?

Rugby league was never this confusing. 1,2,3,4,5,kick,run tackle man with coconut.