Depth

[benny_furs]

A quick question, where was Deledio playing the second half of the Melbourne game last year in Round 22?

That was the best half of football I have ever seen from Brett, and I have a feeling it was from CHF.

What'd he kick, 5 goals?

 

[Dyer Disciple]

A quick question, where was Deledio playing the second half of the Melbourne game last year in Round 22?

That was the best half of football I have ever seen from Brett, and I have a feeling it was from CHF.

What'd he kick, 5 goals?

Perhaps there is just one word of your post you need to dwell on a little more. >

 

[benny_furs]

Perhaps there is just one word of your post you need to dwell on a little more. >

That is true, but off memory he played the first half around the midfield.

I like the 60% midfield, 40% forward approach. He can turn a game in any crucial position on the ground, so I want us to continue making use of that. If we made him a pure midfielder or a pure forward, we would be missing out on what has been his best asset since before the draft - versatility.

It's just a case of determining how long he spends in each part of the ground.

 

[Phar Ace]

From my living memory, all great CHF (excluding Hart) relished one thing - body contact (Carey a little more than others ). While Lids could play CHF, I wouldn;t want him there by design. That's a role for Reiwoldt in my view - one for him to grow into of course - but he relishes contact (relative to his stage of development).

As for Murphy, not sure he played CHF in 2008, think that was more Mitch Hahn's role - again a guy who relishes physical contact. Murph had a greater commission to roam it seemed in 2008.

On the Melbourne game, don't think there was too much in MFC's backline to get concerned about - still some handy players, but no one to monster Lids, if he did play CHF at all. Probably more commission to roam ala what I mentioned for Murph.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Bit off topic, but What is CHF these days & who plays there anyway?

The days of a FF, CHF, 2 HFF's & 2 Pockets are eons in the past.

Leysy is always quite bemused when people roll out there teams & who should play what position when that role maybe mostly redundant in todays football.

It's a fair point you make daisy and we are all guilty of it to various extents.
However you've still got to use some positional layman's term to describe players positions on the field otherwise it gets too confusing for most.
The game at the elite level has become far more scientific in terms of positional setups for sure but 98% of us are not AFL coaches familiar with zones, clusters, paddocks, triangles etc. and just by watching would struggle to work out what structures the coaches have in play most games.

Whilst the AFL are still listing traditional team sheets in the newspaper, it will be the way the majority of punters address the way sides are set up as fictional as it might be.
I mean seriously when was the last time a team ran out as named in terms of structure or setups?
Just doesn't happen and hasn't for years.

I agree with you that the terminology is largely redundant too. 'Ruck/rover, wingers'? lol
How relevant is naming guys on the bench too when they are often switched out or changed after 40 seconds?

I understand many love the tradition of the team sheet but think the game needs a revamp in this respect and have for some time.
IMO team sheets should be named more like this.

Ruckmen

Midfielders

Defenders
(talls)
(flankers)

Forwards
(Talls)
(flankers)

Probably could be tweaked a bit further but that should be the direction it heads.

 

[Phar Ace]

As for Murphy, not sure he played CHF in 2008, think that was more Mitch Hahn's role - again a guy who relishes physical contact. Murph had a greater commission to roam it seemed in 2008.

Re-checked a few teamlists for last season and Murph was consistently named as HFF with Hahn in at CHF - for what these listings are worth - it at least indicates certain intentions. Have enjoyed watching the Doggies over the years and they certainly play Hahn as a CHF when fit to do so.

 

[Leysy Days]

Fair call Leysy,

No way is CHF played the way WE used to play it. 8)

People still say you need a good spine to succeed and maybe so, but the day's of corridor footy are just about gone.

EVERY single player on the ground is a key target or dare i say it...A key position player!

Yeah you still need structure & enough big guys, especially up forward to provide a target & a contest & to "straighten you up".

BUT CHF for instance, Murphy has played closer to that traditional role for the Dogs, certainly far more than Mitch Hahn who rarely leaves the forward 50, which the "old" CHF regularly did. Murphy provides the outlet & pathway between defence/midfield & the deep forwards which the traditional CHF always did.

The same as Kayne Pettifer did for us in 06' & 07'. Funny as it may seem, he was our closest to a CHF in those years.

Be interested to see who the PRE folk class as CHF's of today. Most Power forwards a role far closer to goal & more akin to a traditional fullforward ILO.

 

[Leysy Days]

It's a fair point you make daisy and we are all guilty of it to various extents.
However you've still got to use some positional layman's term to describe players positions on the field otherwise it gets too confusing for most.
The game at the elite level has become far more scientific in terms of positional setups for sure but 98% of us are not AFL coaches familiar with zones, clusters, paddocks, triangles etc. and just by watching would struggle to work out what structures the coaches have in play most games.

Whilst the AFL are still listing traditional team sheets in the newspaper, it will be the way the majority of punters address the way sides are set up as fictional as it might be.
I mean seriously when was the last time a team ran out as named in terms of structure or setups?
Just doesn't happen and hasn't for years.

I agree with you that the terminology is largely redundant too. 'Ruck/rover, wingers'? lol
How relevant is naming guys on the bench too when they are often switched out or changed after 40 seconds?

I understand many love the tradition of the team sheet but think the game needs a revamp in this respect and have for some time.
IMO team sheets should be named more like this.

Ruckmen

Midfielders

Defenders
(talls)
(flankers)

Forwards
(Talls)
(flankers)

Probably could be tweaked a bit further but that should be the direction it heads.

Yeah well said ToO.

No real issue with the way teams are named, as its easy enough to read. But it relates more to the modern game to have it displayed more like you've got there.

As leysy said it just bemuses him when we try & pigoen hole a position like CHF when there really isn't that role anymore. At least not as its been known the past 5 or so years. As leysy said Pettifer has been our pseudo CHF in 06' & 07'. Reiwoldt is likely to play that role in coming seasons.

Hit-up forwards, Power forward, lead-up forwards from the square, crumbers.

No coach recruits a guy to be a HFF or a FP these days. His specific role & the setup behind it is far different.

 

[TOT70]

Yeah well said ToO.

No real issue with the way teams are named, as its easy enough to read. But it relates more to the modern game to have it displayed more like you've got there.

As leysy said it just bemuses him when we try & pigoen hole a position like CHF when there really isn't that role anymore. At least not as its been known the past 5 or so years. As leysy said Pettifer has been our pseudo CHF in 06' & 07'. Reiwoldt is likely to play that role in coming seasons.

Hit-up forwards, Power forward, lead-up forwards from the square, crumbers.

No coach recruits a guy to be a HFF or a FP these days. His specific role & the setup behind it is far different.

Yeah, agree with both of these posts.

From my observation, every AFL team tries to set up with 7 defenders, 7 mids and 4 forwards. The main exception is at centre bounces when they try to use various set plays and pre-arranged structures. As soon as the ball is cleared from the bounce, they immediately revert to the 7-7-4 structure.

Pettifer was our centre half forward for at least two years, just like Ryan O'Keeffe has been Sydney's for about 6 years now.

 

[the claw]

Bit off topic, but What is CHF these days & who plays there anyway?

The days of a FF, CHF, 2 HFF's & 2 Pockets are eons in the past.

Leysy is always quite bemused when people roll out there teams & who should play what position when that role maybe mostly redundant in todays football.

Not having a go at anyone on this thread BTW, just a general observation of punters on here.

call them what you like but most sides have big blokes in key posts. mits called structure and has been proven you must have it.

someone mentioned the dogs imo they lack kpfs and not from a lack of trying.they had traded for mcdougall and welsh in an attempt to fix this problem they have also drafted plenty of kids and tried to convert defenders into forwards all to no avail yet.they have resorted to playing minson forward a lot to. the reasons why hahn and murphy play in key positions is need not choice.

imo they are hoping like hell youngsters in bouman everitt grant and oshea cordy jones all step up i reckon there hoping skipper can show something as well. until one or two of them do it seems they are stuck with hahn welsh and murphy.they have taken an awful lot of talls in recent times it seems to me they recognise the need to find genuine kpfs.
their back half structurally looks good. harris 195/104 williams 196/101 wight 200/97 morris 190 /90 hargrave 190/85 gives them lots of height and size if they need to use it down back.

 

[Leysy Days]

Yeah, agree with both of these posts.

From my observation, every AFL team tries to set up with 7 defenders, 7 mids and 4 forwards. The main exception is at centre bounces when they try to use various set plays and pre-arranged structures. As soon as the ball is cleared from the bounce, they immediately revert to the 7-7-4 structure.

Pettifer was our centre half forward for at least two years, just like Ryan O'Keeffe has been Sydney's for about 6 years now.

Correct there TOT, Generally 7-7-4 from what leysy views as well. Sometimes 7-6-5. Pretty rare to see less than 7 guys playing in defence.

 

[Dyer Disciple]

call them what you like but most sides have big blokes in key posts. mits called structure and has been proven you must have it.

someone mentioned the dogs imo they lack kpfs and not from a lack of trying.they had traded for mcdougall and welsh in an attempt to fix this problem they have also drafted plenty of kids and tried to convert defenders into forwards all to no avail yet.they have resorted to playing minson forward a lot to. the reasons why hahn and murphy play in key positions is need not choice.

imo they are hoping like hell youngsters in bouman everitt grant and oshea cordy jones all step up i reckon there hoping skipper can show something as well. until one or two of them do it seems they are stuck with hahn welsh and murphy.they have taken an awful lot of talls in recent times it seems to me they recognise the need to find genuine kpfs.
their back half structurally looks good. harris 195/104 williams 196/101 wight 200/97 morris 190 /90 hargrave 190/85 gives them lots of height and size if they need to use it down back.

Agree.

Look also at Geelong, Egan goes down, the club promptly go and pick Harry Taylor a pick that suprised some, solely as a replacement I believe to Egan. If anyone could get away without the big key positions it would be Geelong.

 

[craig]

Tigers are getting closer to ideal numbers re Talls KPP and Rucks ............... Problem remains a dire lack of quality amongst quantity.

Schulz, Pattison, Graham and McGuane are not stand out long termers with deficiencies imo and upgrades for all 4 will be requisite.

Hughes is on a knife edge, Polak is most likely finished, whilst Post Vickery, Brown, Jack and Rance promise alot.

Tigers need to upgrade so that quality will compliment quality as the quality is still questionable in regard to at least 5- 6 of em.

 

[Brettstigers]

I'll be honest - I think playing Lids up forward is absolute rubbish that will win us games against mediocre sides.

Your best player must be in the middle where he can get the ball. Forget all the science for a second. Its a fact of life that class will out. The team's best player, and make no mistake - for RFC for 2009 that is Delidio, has to take responsibility to repeatedly get hold of the ball when everyone else is struggling against their opposite number.

I thought the "Lids up forward" thing was because he couldn't handle a tag. When is he going to learn how if he is always up forward or has the forward line as an out when a good tagger starts giving him a hiding?

I must admit I would prefer that Wallace allow him 0% of the time up forward for 2009. Delidio at this stage in his physical development should be ready to spend 100% of his time in the midfield or be on the bench resting. Cotchin by comparison should only be doing short bursts in the midfield then be floating around the HFF using his class to get hold of the ball.

Time to dedicate himself entirely to the middle of the ground. Be the matchwinner.

 

[RedanTiger]

Craig I accept you'll still want a lot of players cut at the end of the year, however the realistic idea is that we will only cut the usual five, particularly given the limitation on age of draftees.

If you take out Polak, Pettifer, Johnson and probably Coughlan and Bowden you have reached the figure without cutting any younger ones.

IMO of the younger ones you would look at JON, Collins and Graham before looking at players who have regularly played seniors, like Pattison, Polo, Jackson, Raines and King.

 

[the claw]

Agree.

Look also at Geelong, Egan goes down, the club promptly go and pick Harry Taylor a pick that suprised some, solely as a replacement I believe to Egan. If anyone could get away without the big key positions it would be Geelong.

ive said this before even without egan geelong still have size in their kpd.

harley 193/ 95 scarlett 192/95 taylor 193/91 and getting bigger.then theres rooke 189 /93 milburn 189/92 mackie 192 /88 who dont play kp or not often they fill in if injury hits during a game.compare these blokes to our regular 3 tall backs. mcguane thursfield and moore all around 190/ 85 geelong have both height and size if rance makes the grade and he gets around the 95kg we will have one kpd who has both size and height.
and yeah egan will be missed ideal weight and size and mobile enough to take on the jon browns clokes roccas roughheads easily.