Interesting on SEN this morning MM commented on what a great performance Carrazzo put in. This was not prompted with a question about Carrazzo, he mentioned 2-3 names off the cuff, Curnow was another.
He also said that it was not likely that Hendo and waite would combine up front and he actually mentioned that Waite would be some chance to play down back as they need a relief ruck and neither Waite nor Hendo can perform that role.
Can't believe he won't combine Henderson and Waite up forward. Geelong, Hawthown,and Sydney, 3 top sides, play two ruck and two key forwards. He did it himself at Collingwood with Cloke, Dawes and Brown. Waite's a running, mobile type, not like your traditional key forward. Can be just as easily played as a running, marking 3rd tall. Why not make your forward like as potent as possible. Not sure what Malthouse is thinking of there.
Waite does too many dumb things to be played in defence. Been great up forward though.
Ive been thinking about how to make sense of his comments re this forward setup, and then I remembered who we are talking about here. Its Mick Malthouse. The king of misinformation via the media.
Why formulate a plan that would take everyone by surprise and then spruik it on the radio?
If he wasn't asked to Ruck such a large portion of the game, it wouldn't be an issue. Warnock and Kreuzer rotating in the ruck and Casboult and Henderson up forward? Lacks a rotation, but you can always activate a midfielder as a sub if it becomes an issue.
Me thinks Big Nockers will come in to take on the Bohemoth.
Can't see either Rowe or Casboult having any impact against Sandilands & Clarke. And it would be nice to go into a game with a full array of key position players.
I like the idea, but it would be a change from how the team has been selected in recent weeks.
Knockers cant go with Sandilands. Too slight. Would rather we go with a combination of Kreuzer, Casboult and Rowe.
On Casboult vs Rowe, based on the way both have gone about it, its clear to me that you go with the one that is currently travelling better. Its line ball between them as neither is dominant and both have varying ability to contribute across the position they play but largely if one is a bit fatigued or one is carrying a niggle you go the other way. One might be a bit flat mentally the other might be chomping at the bit. You go the other way.
I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate Charlie Dixon on a career-best game tomorrow; assuming he's got Jamo on him......
Surely you havent given up on Jammo? Has lowered his colours lately but is still probably among the elite key position defenders in the afl, he is just out of form, and has had some massive tasks over the last month and a bit. To me his issue is confidence. An opponent gets a hold of him and it seems to effect him.
He only did it because there is a imminent report due from the French government naming some 70 cyclist and he is one of them. It has nothing to do about coming clean or being honest
One thing you can state about the cycling dopers is that at least the playing field appears level. Not condoning it, but these guys were pretty much all doing it, so unlike other performance enhancers, it sort of balances out to a "fair" win.
Of course it has crippled the sport and shame on them for having over a decade of question marks on the sport.
As per usual, its got nothing to do with us, but the shoe is on the other foot. A young talented side, has just picked a big scalp, and has the opportunity to go back to back, and is about to run into a side that has been quietly going about its business, building some momentum. Quite a few of our players have had a point to prove, and after getting over a narrow one last week, i think we may turn the corner. I remember a couple of years back, the Hawks had an ordinary start to the season, and were looking like they were going to struggle till they faced us. They were being smashed every week till they played Richmond and limped over the line, and then they belted the living bejeesus out of us a week later.
This time its our turn. GC wont know what hit them, Im predicting a ten goal win as a minimum and I see percentage booster on the table.
For joseph or gibbs? I rember early 2010 or 2011 maybe? we beat the cats by 6 goals at the g with setanta kicking a bag, joseph got ablett that day and kept him to a modest number. Mclean was good that day also.
Out of the six or seven times joseph has run with ablett its worked twice. IMHO its 5-2 abletts favour. After the second scalping they started belting him (which wont be a problem against GC), and later they figured out a better plan which was run him into the back line and kick it to joseph. He is no good in marking contests and this has been the way to beat joseph ever since. You know you have been found out when richmond start taking advantage of this fact.
Its almost a myth that joseph has abletts number. Bit like Gibbs on Goodes. Got him once and Goodes has pulled his pants down six times since.
I know the Watson torp got us a goal but just looked at it again and if it wasn'tfor two North defenders horribly misjudging the flight of the ball I think it would have backfired yet again.
I'd rather not see it done unless the opposition has stuffed their zone.
thats the idea mate. this is what the cause of this act does. It forces an opponent to stuff up their zone.
The idea of it is to make your opposition second guess what can occur tactically. If you do the same thing frequently you allow your opponent to figure out how to setup. This goal may have prevented North from squeazing up and locking us in. Do it twice, then next time run it out and all of a sudden your oppoisition is unsure on how to setup.
Especially if you start kicking to secondary targets coming out like a medium forward.
It doesn't cause them to stuff their zone though. It only works if their zone is stuffed to begin with (ie. no one is covering the centre - and seeing as that is the most dangerous part of the ground and the area which is going to cost you the most damage, that is where most of the focus usually goes into protecting as opposed to say the pockets where zones will happily let you kick to) or someone makes a big cock up.
That's what happened on the weekend. They had the kick covered, two players had it covered actually but they somehow managed to both misjudge the flight of the kick and run under the ball. One player gets a fist on that ball and it costs you a goal.
Sorry mate, I can't agree. We had a heap of smalls (Armfield, Garlett and Betts) surrounding Henderson who was being minded by Thompson and one other (think it was Grima).
I was under the impression that you setup to stop the marking targets, and defend a line behind where you expect the kick to go, leaving a defender with the key forward and one loose player behind everyone to mop up any streaming forward and ensure an easy contested mark is not taken secondary to the kick.
Reason why they stuffed it, was solely because the length was longer than expected, so instead of being able to run up at the ball coming in and spoil it, they had to initially go back, and then go forward again to get to the ball drop. Misjudge that, and your result is what we got. Add to the fact that all of a sudden they were spoiling Hendo's ability to mark. The subsequent kick, North HAVE to setup a further ten metres back, and push up when it becomes clear that the barrel is not coming. All of a sudden, you have bred uncertainty in your opponents defense on where they can and cannot setup.
This kick cannot be underestimated in terms of what thoughts it would implant into your opposition. All of a sudden when Watson is not taking the kick, they need to defend the pocket (rather than leaving it free like you suggest) as all of a sudden we can be inside forward 50 within two kicks. One to Watson, the next one a barrel from the pocket.
Our secondary forward targets from a kick in (read Henderson) need to be manned up, as the bomb could go to him. Would also allow our rucks to get a more even one on one contest on a flank to get out. Then the other option of running it out.
Not everyone has a Matthew Watson kick in the team. I would even favour going this route 2 in every 6 kickouts with the others being a mix of short kicks and longish kicks. Would absolutely screw your opposition in terms of where do they setup.
You could even do it every time your opponents behinds hit a multiple of 5, and that could be the signal of when to setup for it.
Everyone is focussed on port. I reckon if we get in we will get in at Collingwood or richmonds expense instead. Port are not that good and could lose to a few sides that we think they should beat but Richmond and Collingwood have tough runs hime and I can see them both dropping more than they win.
I know the Watson torp got us a goal but just looked at it again and if it wasn'tfor two North defenders horribly misjudging the flight of the ball I think it would have backfired yet again.
I'd rather not see it done unless the opposition has stuffed their zone.
thats the idea mate. this is what the cause of this act does. It forces an opponent to stuff up their zone.
The idea of it is to make your opposition second guess what can occur tactically. If you do the same thing frequently you allow your opponent to figure out how to setup. This goal may have prevented North from squeazing up and locking us in. Do it twice, then next time run it out and all of a sudden your oppoisition is unsure on how to setup.
Especially if you start kicking to secondary targets coming out like a medium forward.
That last over commitment you mention Raydan is the reason why we coughed up many easy goals. Too ball focussed and not playimg the percentages. Win the contest or lose the contest. It seems that our players dont realise that stalemate is an option nor do they understand the benefit of a tactical retreat. Petrie taking marks 60+ out from goal is a mini win.
