Yes, having Chugga in the midfield mix usually means Cripps will play well.Even Walsh resting forward would be a plus over the current SFs, I've no doubt Walsh will get front and square at the feet of the pack without hesitation, and despite some patchy form nobody is out marking Charlie or BigH.
What hurt Cripps last game was making Kennedy sub, because Cerra and Walsh largely played an outside run type game, and Hewett was tagging. Cripps got no chop out and the Filth knew he was the only Mid working predictably on the inside.
When Kennedy came on he replaced a forward, they should have put Kennedy into the Midfield and let Cerra rest forward to turn the heat back onto the Filth and make them think twice about who the double team.
Even when Cripps draws 2 or 3 opponents leaving us with extra numbers, in recent weeks we haven't gain an advantage because our ball use has been poor.
once again we need to make Lever /may accountable dont let them zone off take easy marks with the stupid long bombs ,How smart are our Fwd line players.
once again we need to make Lever /may accountable dont let them zone off take easy marks with the stupid long bombs ,How smart are our Fwd line players.
wait, wait, wait … just watched the Sunday Footy Show highlighting how they blocked Cripps at every centre bounce.
I mean, COME ON. If that sort of treatment doesn’t warrant a rule change I don’t know what does.
So the ball is NOT in play, there’s NO actual contest yet, in some instances the location was more than 10 metres away from where the ball was about to be bounced, and the opposing player did NOT have eyes for the ball.
So if you take your eyes off the ball and look at your opponent for a split second in a marking contest it’s a free every single time.
Also an instant free for “blocking” if the player’s path to a marking contest is impeded.
Why is that treated differently?
Of course, nothing new here - has been happening for years, and not just to Cripps. McCrae is portrayed as the good guy but I think this belies his Sheedy- or Clarkson-like approach to pushing things to the limit. He was even astute enough to make Pendlebury the blocker knowing he’s an ump favourite who has the footballing IQ to disguise the blocks.
Which brings me to Pendelbury’s last centre clearance - did he or did he not head straight for the boundary line?
Great observation from one commentator that doing that is win/win. If the ump pings him for “insufficient intent” it gives them time to set up behind the ball. If the ump is too gutless to make the call it’s a throw in just far enough away from goal.
We have been sending Cripps forward, and quite effectively too.Skipper is a big fan of having Pitto to rove too.....not necesarily 2 rucks.
It really shouldn’t matter if the opposition sets out to limit Crippa’s influence. Our other mids, and rucks, should take up the slack and allow him to play a little more as an outside mid. His work as a link up player is invaluable and he can do that without having to get first hands to the ball at every contest.
It would be nice to see our rucks and other mids putting more pressure on Crippa’s opponents too.
The skipper is a big fan of the two rucks and I don’t think that he’d accept that one quieter game from him is any reason to change.
Just for something different....
Stop Cripps.
Stop Carlton.
OK, maybe.
What do we do when Cripps is getting beaten? Send him forward.
However, we already have Charlie, Harry and now TDK forward....can we afford to have Cripps there as well? Probably not.
So who is the weak link in that chain?
Yep, going back to the 1 ruck debate.
1 less ruck in the team means an extra midfielder and more flexibility/versatility with making moves.
I've been against it, but maybe its time to try TDK as a key back? We have extra talls good enough to play 1's, but running out of spots to play them all.....yet we have a big opening at CHB that we can't nail down. Why not TDK?