From a couple of supporters and I'm not sure that the MC will treat their contribution all that seriously
When it was a bit of a toss-up between Tom and Pitto last year some commentators (David King, Gerard Healy ) were suggesting DeKoning should be tried in defence. The club decided otherwise... Given his ruck form this year it's an unliklely move. It's an out of the box move. An unpredictable one. Sometimes the unpredictable is a good option. But it takes courage because it can just as easily backfire. And it's even more of a risk when something is working well...so probably not.
The question of who comes into the defence is of more interest. I will be surprised if it's Young.
People should know my background on the matter, but.... TDK is finally doing what we want him to do, consistently, after years of 'almosts'.....why the hell would we wanna rock the boat now just to bring Pitto in because he had a good game in the VFL.
I said all along i don't care who the hell it is, but we only need 1 ruck in the side. Shoehorning TDK into a defensive role is not fooling anyone, its still 2 rucks.
We know your thoughts Kruds You've mentioned them before
I've no idea whether two rucks vs Freo would be a good idea. I've no idea whether Tom could hold down a KPD defensive position I'll leave that to the MC There a bit more knowledgable than me when it comes to these things.
But I suspect there will be some games during the season when both play. It will be a case of best match-ups and 'horses for courses'.
If it doesn't happen then I think Pittonet would (and should) be looking at a move at the end of the year.
I can't see us bringing Pitto back (Freo rucks Jackson and Treacy) or swapping a tall defender for a small/medium defender. Cincotta has put his hand up, and he would probably be a good match up for Frederick, but I think Williams and Boyd have done enough to stay in the 22.
Never say never. Pittonet was very good in the VFL at the weekend. There's been some suggestions about TDK playing back. Could be an interesting selection meeting.
I suspect this win might not get the merit it deserves, because I actually thought the opposition wasn't too bad. North are a young side with a bit of talent coming through. They moved the ball really well at times, but just lacked a bit of polish and discipline....yet we've beaten them by nearly ten goals. There was a point in the game around the middle of the third where we started to get a bit 'lairy' and they kicked a couple of goals. It was good to see that checked. Clarkson actually talked us up in his presser (probably as a bit of a deflection) but he said.... Coming off the bye they were "just so fresh and strong, they're a strong side anyway". He also made mention of our pressure which he said was "supreme".
Kemp was used as a key forward and key defender but was unable to win a place in the firsts in either of those roles. In his own words:
"I was, and still am, open to my strengths of being able to play multiple positions.
Vossy and I, we sat down last year and pieced together what we wanted to go after. We always wanted to keep the prospect of me being able to play multiple positions or play forward up our sleeve, but we just all agreed that we wanted to go after one role and being really clear on that.
I still like the idea of being able to play multiple positions, depending on what happens in a game or if there are areas I need to fill. But the continuity of just locking in one role and really going after that, it was good for me. It just gave me that clarity that I needed, in terms of what I wanted to go after."
The club could change his focus to key forward with the ability to go back but I suspect that his attributes lend themselves more to playing in defence.
Noticed him playing a bit forward today. Kicked 1-1
My only problem with pigeonholing Kemp as a defender is that unless we try another option for him we'll never know. I just think he's too good a player not to be playing senior football.
So much goes unnoticed...but it is valued and noticed by the folks who count. So if a player seems to be getting games when a more flashy player is missing out...consider that there is probably a very good reason.
I did remember what you said about the preliminary final side. I think that it also had a bit to do with expectations. I thought our race was run, we'd done well but that it was a bridge too far on a foreign field, and that ended up being the case. I kind of remember you had the opposite view and even posted that you couldn't see why we couldn't go all the way. Was it team selection...or did we just run out of steam. We'll never know. We both have different opinions as to why we lost.
I also recognised that now you have elevated Tom above Pittonet. Bias can be positive or negative, strong or weak and that's my perception of where we're at at the moment. You still haven't completely warmed to Tom, but for now consider him a better option than Pittonet. On the other hand I probably have a 'postitive' bias and maybe see him as our standout number one going forward...but yep still with some improvement to come.
I really can't see Pittonet playing a lot of senior football this year and in that respect your one ruck plus back-up is probably how we'll play most of the season. But if Pittonet starts dominating and Tom get's injured or drops off considerably who knows what the end of season games will look like.
