Why no CHF - it's not basketball.

[Tigers of Old]

ashley hansen is an example of whati have been saying nothing special but he has played an important role for the eagles in recent yrs he has done a particular job for them.he doesnt and hasnt won grand finals for them but he is a part of an overall structure for them. and for what its worth lynch is a good solid citizen nothing more but without him in 2005 they lost a gf they should have won because his absence threw their structre out.
tooheys i dont think i have ever sang hansens praises other than to say he was an important part of the eagles set up. for me he has never been up to standard in one of the most important areas for a big man and that is overhead.

Ok, fair enough, you've never been a massive wrap for Hansen individually but you have always suggested he was a crucial part of the Weagles forward line of Staker and Lynch..

..and that's fine but in the wake of the Weagles rapid demise, I find it particularly interesting that you were so forgiving and supportive of a W.C. KPF in Hansen (despite his obvious shortcomings), yet have been more than ready to drop the boot into a much younger, developing Richmond KP player in Jay Schulz, this despite the fact that our midfield was obviously far inferior to WCs over the early part of his career.

At this early stage of the season, it seems to me Richmond's resurgent midfield has been vital in our minor awakening and as a consequence, Schulz(a KPP who's ironically always been good overhead ) has suddenly become vital to Richmond's structure.. :headscratch

You well know I was always an advocate that Jay would have been an extremely effective forward at the Weagles on the end of their midfield delivery of Judd and Cousins. This season when our midfield is finally taking shape, Schulz (despite playing a predominantly defensive role) is having a much better season even offensively than Ashley Hansen. Why is that do you think?

Schulz is a far better player than you've give him credit for but I'll admit like Mmmbop Hansen, Jay is no doubt capitalising on our improved midfield performance and that's what the gist of this thread is all about.

I have argued with you all along that the Weagles midfield was everything to that outfit and without those guns they have come back to the pack, even more spectacularly than anyone could realise.

http://www.puntroadend.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=29880.msg678414#msg678414

The Eagles with Judd & Cousins were great. Not anymore I guess.
Sure you need good players across the paddock but the midfield is king.

No coincidence that the two top sides this season also have the two best midfields.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

I have argued with you all along that the Weagles midfield was everything to that outfit and without those guns they have come back to the pack, even more spectacularly than anyone could realise.

http://www.puntroadend.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=29880.msg678414#msg678414

The Eagles with Judd & Cousins were great. Not anymore I guess.
Sure you need good players across the paddock but the midfield is king.

No coincidence that the two top sides this season also have the two best midfields. (The Hawks have a couple of handy keys up forward too)

If the midfield is everything West Coast should not have needed KPF then? Why no series of dominance ala Bris? Could it be that their failure to capitalise on their midfield dominance was because they failed to recruit the necessary big guys up forward? You slot a Lynch/Brown combo in and you have the Bris Lions mark 2. You only have to watch Essendon to see what the absence of your KP forwards does. Same with the Bulldogs, they have had some quality midfields but have always struggled at the business end without genuine KP forwards. The Murphy/Johnson combo is high on quality but low on size and I know plenty of bulldog supporters who bemoan the fact they have lacked genuine KPP for quite some time - Grant probably the only genuine KPP there for the last 10 years? Lake has become a qualtiy FB recently also. Like the way the bulldogs play but feel their lack of a genuine spine will be their downfall come finals time.

I think we are on the same page really, agree that our improvement has been from a better midfield performance but would like to think we don't ignore our lack of genuine quality talls in future drafts at the expense of going after midfielders.

IMO Carlton has a better midfield than Dawks now that Judd looks to be getting back to his best.

 

[TigerMain]

Ryan O'Keefe is the type of player we need as he is a genuine marking mobile target to suit the game plan Wallace is basing his coaching tenure upon.

The players i have previously mentioned just aren't up as the are to easily diposed of in a marking situation, considering our delivery into the forward line often doesn't allow them to have a opportunity at an uncontested mark.

If you are at the game on Sunday keep an eye on our forward structure and the targets that are available when we have the ball is in transition from our backline.

It may also been beneficial for future discussion to note the amount of turnovers that result from our inability to take either contested/uncontested marks at CHF.

I'd love to beat the Hawks, its like Beatlemania with Franklin discussions dominating every forum/talkback radio.

 

[pahoffm]

I believe it's a misapprehension, some people have, that the CHF has gone out of the upper levels of footy.

It's my impression that a winning HF line is just as important now as it was 50 years ago. It is just as important now for a team to take clean possession of the football inside 50m now as it was half a century ago. In fact one of the RFC's recent failings is that it is one of the worst teams for inside 50s in the AFL. This is a clear indicator that one of the contributing factors to our lack of success is our inability to dominate at HF.

I believe that some of this misunderstanding has been created by our stereotyping of the CHF. Too many times we have imagined that a CHF is a 195+cm strong type who takes the big contested mark at CHF and either kicks big goals or handballs to passing rovers. This type was epitomised by David Cloke in his first tenure at Tigerland but it's not the norm. Another image that we have is the Pagan's paddock with Wayne Carey having the whole forward arc to himself. Again this was more the exception than the rule.

Generally, in AFL, we see that the most successful CHFs are the mobile type that constantly move up and down the ground, often as far as the wings and sometimes pushing forward for a shot at goal. Royce was a great example of this. Walls was another example too. In more contemporary footy, we've seen Langdon of Westcoast, O'Keefe of Sydney, Embley also of Westcoast, and an early Tredrea of Port play similar roles. In this case, the height of the CHF is not crucial, though today over 190cm might be favoured, but he needs to be highly mobile, great overhead, and a damaging kick.

There are other details too but work calls. Have a nice day everyone!

 

[Leysy Days]

If the midfield is everything West Coast should not have needed KPF then? Why no series of dominance ala Bris? Could it be that their failure to capitalise on their midfield dominance was because they failed to recruit the necessary big guys up forward? You slot a Lynch/Brown combo in and you have the Bris Lions mark 2. You only have to watch Essendon to see what the absence of your KP forwards does. Same with the Bulldogs, they have had some quality midfields but have always struggled at the business end without genuine KP forwards. The Murphy/Johnson combo is high on quality but low on size and I know plenty of bulldog supporters who bemoan the fact they have lacked genuine KPP for quite some time - Grant probably the only genuine KPP there for the last 10 years? Lake has become a qualtiy FB recently also. Like the way the bulldogs play but feel their lack of a genuine spine will be their downfall come finals time.

I think we are on the same page really, agree that our improvement has been from a better midfield performance but would like to think we don't ignore our lack of genuine quality talls in future drafts at the expense of going after midfielders.

IMO Carlton has a better midfield than Dawks now that Judd looks to be getting back to his best.

Neither ToO nor myself have ever advocated the midfield "is everything" Thylacine, It is the most important thing though.

None of us are far from each other as to what we thinks needed to be a flag contender. We all believe you need the required number of competent talls both forward & back.

Just that tooheys & leysy believe its fine to have an "OK" standard of talls but you definately need the ELITE (or very close to it) midfield in the land to have a chance.

BTW good thread.

 

[Dyer'ere]

Just that tooheys & leysy believe its fine to have an "OK" standard of talls but you definately need the ELITE (or very close to it) midfield in the land to have a chance.

Richmond 2001 anybody?

 

[Leysy Days]

Richmond 2001 anybody?

We were a long way off, beaten by 70 & 68 pts respectively in our two defeats Jack the Ripper

 

[GoodOne]

big cat lover bought up kf combinations from 1990 for the premiers after you said we should ignore history and you were projecting to the future. you then went back into history useing geelong as an example. saying geelongs kpf dont kick goals. i have rightly pointed out to you that geelong regularly play with 8 or more 190cm plus players and they have several around the 189cm as well.

I went back to Geelong as an example of the new future (ie last year). I am not arguing that you don't need mobile talls, in fact he kids are getting taller and 188-190 is more the norm these days. But they are highly athletic mobile players rather than your traditional CHF-FF combination.

 

[Dyer'ere]

We were a long way off, beaten by 70 & 68 pts respectively in our two defeats Jack the Ripper

Three All Australians in the spine, Leyser. Another who would later be named AA (at CHB) then playing on a flank. Three of the top five contested marks (statistically) in the comp that year IIRC. Three of the top ten marks overall.

How many of our mids got a kick in the finals?

I reckon Richmond 2001 bore out the need for world class smalls in the middle.

 

[TOT70]

Three All Australians in the spine, Leyser. Another who would later be named AA (at CHB) then playing on a flank. Three of the top five contested marks (statistically) in the comp that year IIRC. Three of the top ten marks overall.

How many of our mids got a kick in the finals?

I reckon Richmond 2001 bore out the need for world class smalls in the middle.

That is exactly right.

That 2001 team was characterised by a "Land of the Giants" forward line with Richardson in close to career best form, Ottens playing full-forward and relief ruck to Gale who went forward in most games, Holland and Hall all taking plenty of marks on the forward line. The impetus came in the second half of the season when Holland moved to CHB and played the best 12 consecutive games of his career. Throw in Gaspar also in career-best form and you had a spine that was very, very strong.

The midfield was ho-hum. Campbell, Rogers, an out-of-favour Daffy, an aging Broderick, "Arnie" King and Sziller. Hilton, Bowden and a young Tivendale usually completed the rotations. Chaffey and Biddiscombe were the small defenders and the Kellaways did their thing around the ground but mainly in defence. Dunc had many tagging jobs that season.

The problem with the midfield group was the general lack of finishing skills so Tivendale would run around to the back of each pack waiting for the receive. This was effective only until the other sides worked out that the right side of his body was only there so the kiddies wouldn't be scared when they saw the "amazing half-man."

The other problem came post season, when a combination of Spud and salary cap limitations prevented the club from replenishing their big man stocks.

 

[Dyer'ere]

We forgot Andy who kicked 20 odd, went AA and won the B&F from a pocket/flank.

The thing about that year IMO was that yes, there was a lack of class finishing going down.

But when our mids met elite mids they couldn't get a kick. Finishing skills were hypothetical.

The knee to Kellaway hurt us a lot. He was the bloke who could beat any opponent. Knights couldn't. Campbell couldn't Daffy? Pfft. In fact they couldn't even get close to square.

Brodders, who'd suffered the same sort of fate in 95, was playing in the forward pocket. And mighty well usually but was chopped up on the rebound against the best. Should mention Holland's knee too. He was still winning contests when we were getting flogged in the finals. Another who didn't come up from the one knee.

The knees killed us as much as anything else (contracts etc) the next year. But the real problem was the failure to recognise and address the weakness of the midfield IMO. Any footy dept folks who couldn't see the supply disasters were in the wrong caper IMO.

Clinton King was prominent in our midfield rotations in 01.

 

[TOT70]

On the CHF question, which is what this thread is about, I seriously doubt that physical size is as important as mobility. Over the years, many of the top class CHFs have not been traditional talls. Of the best three that I have watched, Royce Hart was about 187cm, Brereton was 188 and Carey was a taller 194cm. Only Carey would be considered a "gorilla." (In his case, in more ways than one).

They were all fantastic marks, both overhead and on the lead, they were all very quick, esp over the first 10 meters or so, were reliable kicks and had clean, crisp ball-handling.

The main role of the CHF is to present a mobile, marking target in the wasteland between the middle of the ground and the goal square, the area where most of the forward thrusts that break down are repelled. Goal-kicking is not necessarily important, winning possession and creating opportunities for the other forwards are the critical areas. The better CHFs lead to the wings, taking half the backline with them and opening up space behind them for their less mobile tall team-mates.

If it was all about size only, most teams would play their biggest ruckman at CHF. can you imagine what a botch players like Sandilands, Spider Burton and Trent Knobel would make of CHF? Slow, poor marks, poorly skilled, dodgy kicking.

To paraphrase Tina Turner: "What's size got to do with it?"

 

[davidrodan]

It's not the size of the wand, it's how the wizard waves it

 

[the claw]

Ok, fair enough, you've never been a massive wrap for Hansen individually but you have always suggested he was a crucial part of the Weagles forward line of Staker and Lynch..

yep ive always been big on structure something we have not had for so long. again the blokes you have dont have to be world beaters must be able to kick and perform specific roles.

..and that's fine but in the wake of the Weagles rapid demise, I find it particularly interesting that you were so forgiving and supportive of a W.C. KPF in Hansen (despite his obvious shortcomings), yet have been more than ready to drop the boot into a much younger, developing Richmond KP player in Jay Schulz, this despite the fact that our midfield was obviously far inferior to WCs over the early part of his career.

hansen performed a role at the eagles.thats why hes been left alone hes no longer performing for whatever reason. like a lot of our players i have believed the eagles could upgrade on hansen and i think theywill. also your having a go at me for not ripping into hansen hes generally performed his role until this yr.
in 2005 2006 most games hansen missed thru injury and he missed a few the eagles lost.
schulz unlike hansen has never performed a specific role or performed apart from the odd game. i have never rated him from junior days. imo he has chronic deficiencies in his make up and they have not improved that much. until this yr when hes been played in defence. if he makes it as a key defender great but like hansen i have no doubts we should be looking for an upgrade. you know here we are with schulz in his 6th or 7th yr and you are comparing schulz to hansen who you think a dud. yet hansen has played an important role in wce structure and done a job hansens overall overall performance far out weighs any thing schulz has done.in fact as far as kpf goes hansen would be an upgrade on schulz.
anyway i suppose at the end of the day if you dont rate em you dont rate em.

At this early stage of the season, it seems to me Richmond's resurgent midfield has been vital in our minor awakening and as a consequence, Schulz(a KPP who's ironically always been good overhead ) has suddenly become vital to Richmond's structure.. :headscratch

so you dont think our resurgence has anything to do with the axing of unaccountable soft footballers or the fact we have gone to a more traditional structure ie 8 talls instead of 4 or 5.
you talk about resurgent midfields but really its the same players we have had last yr the things that have changed is the amount of soft *smile* we play and our structure.

You well know I was always an advocate that Jay would have been an extremely effective forward at the Weagles on the end of their midfield delivery of Judd and Cousins. This season when our midfield is finally taking shape, Schulz (despite playing a predominantly defensive role) is having a much better season even offensively than Ashley Hansen. Why is that do you think?

Schulz is a far better player than you've give him credit for but I'll admit like Mmmbop Hansen, Jay is no doubt capitalising on our improved midfield performance and that's what the gist of this thread is all about.

schulz would not be an effective forward at any club he has failed miserably as a kpf he is on his last chance playing as a kpd.schulz in your opinion is a good player im afraid in mine hes ordinary. has he improved and will he maintain any improvement well i guess time will tell.
oh i thought this thread was about the need for a chf ff or put in another way 2 genuine kpfs. it seems some people think we dont need either.

I have argued with you all along that the Weagles midfield was everything to that outfit and without those guns they have come back to the pack, even more spectacularly than anyone could realise.

No coincidence that the two top sides this season also have the two best midfields.

its also no coincidence that they have solid defences solid ruckmen and solid kpfs.its also no coincidence that both clubs have gone out of their way to aquire kpps. structure and player type along with enough quality tooheys is what its about.

[/quote]

 

[Jason King]

Clinton King was that skinny long haired short bugger from collingwood right ?

 

[Dyer'ere]

Clinton King was that skinny long haired short bugger from collingwood right ?

That's him, Jason.

He was part of the Aaron Fiora deal in his way IIRC. Along with Danny Roach. ;D

I guess my point about the Tiges 01 was that we were fully stocked with talented KPPs, maybe even over structured. But with inadequate mids you can't get withing 10 goals of the side that finishes second. Even though the structure took you to third.

Now iffen I aint mistaken Collingwood and North have plenty of structure. Go alright in 07?

Anyways, great thread.