Tom Boyd 2016

[The Underdog]

He only got 5 tap outs, it was the mids that got the clearances. We need Tom at FF - get another ruck in there Bevo.

And what do we do with the 2nd ruck when he's not in the middle?

[Mantis]

And what do we do with the 2nd ruck when he's not in the middle?

Yep, that's the problem.

[bornadog]

And what do we do with the 2nd ruck when he's not in the middle?

What did Hawthorn do? They took three big marks in the forward line with the resting rucks and goaled. If it is good enough for them, it is good enough for us. When Tom was in the ruck, often we had just Stringer as the tall in the Forward line.

I would bring Campbell in and lose one running mid.

[Ozza]

I think the hitout stats of Boyd are a bit misleading. He might not have got 1st hand on the ball often, but he was crashing in, and we got momentum in the 3rd quarter in the period he was in there. He also got a couple of clearances himself and was quite good around the ground.

Our ruckmen simply don't play well enough as forwards to have another one in there. If we were to bring in another tall, I think Redpath is the best option. But I wouldn't even be doing that right now.

Its not really about 'well Hawthorn do it, so we should' - we are a team who relies on forward pressure to get repeat entries, and controlling the game in our half. A really pleasing aspect of yesterday's game, was that even though we weren't able to make it a 'run and gun' type of game - we were still able to adapt, (dare I say) crack in, and give ourselves a great chance of winning.

[G-Mo77]

We've always had the issue of playing that extra big. Maybe with the 4th bench spot we might be able to use that 2nd ruck a little more but I'm still reluctant.

[Sedat]

The ruck combo of Roughy and Boyd is the least of our worries. It is easily the best combination for us with the lower rotations. McEvoy clunked a couple but we murdered them at the centre clearances and overall clearances.

[Mantis]

What did Hawthorn do? They took three big marks in the forward line with the resting rucks and goaled. If it is good enough for them, it is good enough for us. When Tom was in the ruck, often we had just Stringer as the tall in the Forward line.

I would bring Campbell in and lose one running mid.

We had Boyd & Roughy, they had McEvoy & Ceglar... Can't see the difference here.

They also had Schoenmakers as a KPF, but he was a complete non-factor.

And which running mid goes?

[bornadog]

We had Boyd & Roughy, they had McEvoy & Ceglar... Can't see the difference here.

They also had Schoenmakers as a KPF, but he was a complete non-factor.

And which running mid goes?

They had Shoenmaker and Gunston, both over 193cm. McEvoy clunked two cont. marks and Segler one and all three were goals.

Well I guess Jong was almost a non factor (except one third man up to Wallis for a goal), so maybe we could have had Campbell in and Jong out. For starters, could have made Frawley and Gibbo more accountable instead of roaming around picking up possessions at will.

I don't think we took one cont. mark in the forward line?

[soupman]

They had Shoenmaker and Gunston, both over 193cm.

And we had Stringer, meanng Shoenmakers was the only extra tal lforward they had.

I don't think we took one cont. mark in the forward line?

Not sure either Campbell or Minson fix that.

For starters, could have made Frawley and Gibbo more accountable instead of roaming around picking up possessions at will.

Or they could have been witches hats for them to run off of. Neither Frawley or Gibson were particularly damaging up the field from memory. That extra small forward/mid rotation we get by sacrificing no big key forward for half the match adds much more to our press and run. It's just a shame that Jong struggled to impact the game at all.

[Cyberdoggie]

I think the hitout stats of Boyd are a bit misleading. He might not have got 1st hand on the ball often, but he was crashing in, and we got momentum in the 3rd quarter in the period he was in there. He also got a couple of clearances himself and was quite good around the ground.

Our ruckmen simply don't play well enough as forwards to have another one in there. If we were to bring in another tall, I think Redpath is the best option. But I wouldn't even be doing that right now.

Its not really about 'well Hawthorn do it, so we should' - we are a team who relies on forward pressure to get repeat entries, and controlling the game in our half. A really pleasing aspect of yesterday's game, was that even though we weren't able to make it a 'run and gun' type of game - we were still able to adapt, (dare I say) crack in, and give ourselves a great chance of winning.

We should of won the game it's as simple as that. If we had of then people would look at our example and say let's go an extra mid perhaps.

I do think though in these really big high pressure games where you just don't get easy free lead up marks or possessions, you see a lot of bombing to packs in the forward line. We certainly weren't as effective in taking forward line contested marks as they were and another tall marking option may be the answer. Do we have one is another question.

[Eastdog]

T Boyd was good yesterday. Once his confidence improves with his goal kicking he'll be fine.

[Eastdog]

We should of won the game it's as simple as that. If we had of then people would look at our example and say let's go an extra mid perhaps.

I do think though in these really big high pressure games where you just don't get easy free lead up marks or possessions, you see a lot of bombing to packs in the forward line. We certainly weren't as effective in taking forward line contested marks as they were and another tall marking option may be the answer. Do we have one is another question.

Jack Redpath? Could he be an option up there. Can T Boyd and Repath play together.

[Stefcep]

We should of won the game it's as simple as that. If we had of then people would look at our example and say let's go an extra mid perhaps.

I do think though in these really big high pressure games where you just don't get easy free lead up marks or possessions, you see a lot of bombing to packs in the forward line. We certainly weren't as effective in taking forward line contested marks as they were and another tall marking option may be the answer. Do we have one is another question.

i think we put as much pressure on them, but we bombed the ball far more than they did. In this regards not having Dickson and Crameri as targets really was the difference in terms of us just bombing it or looking to hit a target instead.

[GVGjr]

I've watched the replay and I think I know why his set shots at goal aren't working. He simply does not line up aiming for the centre of the goals and his run up just before he kicks reflects that.

I'd like to think this could be fixed quickly.

[Greystache]

I've watched the replay and I think I know why his set shots at goal aren't working. He simply does not line up aiming for the centre of the goals and his run up just before he kicks reflects that.

I'd like to think this could be fixed quickly.

But will we work on it?