Always Right Match Committee Round 12 v Geelong at Marvel on Friday Night

[boydogs]

Unfortunately, Sweet can only contribute at the stoppage and this represents a liability when he is playing second fiddle to English.

If he could develop to be any threat forward this would change.

With rotations we can't really afford to have a player limited to contributing for about 20-25% game time.

When our tall forwards are just blocking and dummy leading for Naughton, and bringing the ball to ground, picking one who can be a strong forward line ruck and give a significant chopout to English whilst giving us an advantage when the 2nd rucks are in, makes sense to me

The MC see it differently, but then they picked the side that lost the GF due to clean centre clearances from the opposition's 2nd ruck. Under 6-6-6, makeshift rucks are too risky

[jeemak]

When our tall forwards are just blocking and dummy leading for Naughton, and bringing the ball to ground, picking one who can be a strong forward line ruck and give a significant chopout to English whilst giving us an advantage when the 2nd rucks are in, makes sense to me

The MC see it differently, but then they picked the side that lost the GF due to clean centre clearances from the opposition's 2nd ruck. Under 6-6-6, makeshift rucks are too risky

If you re-watched the Grand Final and thought anything that happened during that perverted mess could have been fixed by having Jordan Sweet on the field then.........I actually don't know how to finish that sentence.

I really don't get the passion one way or another on this particular selection area, when it's clear that if we rock up and play a committed game and our midfielders don't phone in effort, and our forwards run both ways we can compete better than most.

The ruck situation is a side show.

[jeemak]

And by side show I mean it's the easiest of easy things to point to when we are looking for an excuse as to why things aren't going as we might like, and the most ambiguous to measure in terms of impact on a result.

It's perfect forum fodder, and that's fine. But it's off the mark.

We have the talent across the ground to compete. We have players rotating through the middle who if they play for each other we can do better than compete. Our forwards if they run each way and pressure to lock the ball into our scoring zone will get opportunities and we can compete. Doing that and creating dirty ball for opposition forwards brings our backline into the game rather than defending it, and they can compete.

It's simple, and it's effort and mindset based. Whoever is the second ruck is irrelevant, mostly, just like Jackson would have been in the Grand Final if our midfielders had the right mindset and competed the right way.

[GVGjr]

Joke, absolute joke. Who backs up ruck now? A guy who has played a handful of games? Bont again? Why are people so accepting of this? It's ridiculous!!

Bevo gets a bit of a pass from so many of our supporters because of injury considerations (Bruce) and then he gets some pats on the back because he is seen as a creative problem solver. It's all by design and not that it was necessarily a last resort option.

The Bont, Naughton and Hannan type chop outs and now potentially Khamis just aren't good options. I get that Cordy isn't a good enough forward and Schache is a laconic type that might frustrate the MC but surely it's preferable to have one of them giving English a chop out and doing a defensive role up forward?

[whythelongface]

Bevo gets a bit of a pass from so many of our supporters because of injury considerations (Bruce) and then he gets some pats on the back because he is seen as a creative problem solver. It's all by design and not that it was necessarily a last resort option.

The Bont, Naughton and Hannan type chop outs and now potentially Khamis just aren't good options. I get that Cordy isn't a good enough forward and Schache is a laconic type that might frustrate the MC but surely it's preferable to have one of them giving English a chop out and doing a defensive role up forward?

But that is one of the beauties about Bevo is that he tries the unexpected. This creativity has a) won us a GF and b)got us into another GF. Sure there have been patches in between that have been horrible and clearly not worked. There are also reasons, unbeknownst to us, as to why he hasn’t chased hard after another experienced ruck (apart from Martin). He obviously has faith in our midfield where the game is clearly won or lost and therefore may see a 2nd ruck (unless they are similar to English around the ground eg. Jackson) as a liability.

Whilst I personally would like to see Schache back in there are attributes that he has that Bevo clearly thinks are lacking in this area. As for Zaine well we all know what the outcry would be if he was selected as our 2nd ruck. Thus happy to go with one of the other options to see how they work whether it be Buku or Gardner.

Think Jeemak has summed it up well.

[comrade]

But that is one of the beauties about Bevo is that he tries the unexpected. This creativity has a) won us a GF and b)got us into another GF. Sure there have been patches in between that have been horrible and clearly not worked. There are also reasons, unbeknownst to us, as to why he hasn’t chased hard after another experienced ruck (apart from Martin). He obviously has faith in our midfield where the game is clearly won or lost and therefore may see a 2nd ruck (unless they are similar to English around the ground eg. Jackson) as a liability.

Whilst I personally would like to see Schache back in there are attributes that he has that Bevo clearly thinks are lacking in this area. As for Zaine well we all know what the outcry would be if he was selected as our 2nd ruck. Thus happy to go with one of the other options to see how they work whether it be Buku or Gardner.

Think Jeemak has summed it up well.

We’ll obviously always be eternally grateful for 2016 (which funnily enough, featured a genuine 2nd ruck/forward option who ended up being the difference…go figure!).

But we’ve never ended a home and away season entrenched as a top 4 side (obviously last year it should have happened but for some late season implosion) and have been too boom or bust for my liking. It’s bloody great when it works and things are going our way (there’s a reason Bevo has coached 25% of the club’s 100 point wins - we feast on poor teams where our overall talent is significantly better), but why haven’t we consistently won enough games to finish at the really pointy end during H&A under Bevo?

I’d love to have some data to back me up but a) I suck at quantitative analysis, b) the numbers may actually prove me wrong and c) I barely have time to watch us at the moment, let alone scour through stats just to convince some other lunatics on a footy forum that I am right….BUT

I believe our lack of a proper ‘footy structure’ or our preference for a less traditional team make up has been a significant factor in it. Too many mids to fit in, not enough height and marking power in defence, lack of genuine forward talent (is this why our conversion rate is so poor?), a complete disregard for the ruck role.

You can only play what’s on your list of course, but these issues have been present for years.

Yes, work rate is a non-negotiable, yes, the game is generally won by the better, hard working midfield. But the differences between the best teams are small and proper structure (basically, what I consider the right type of players in the right positions) matters and can give you an edge. Structure hedges risk and helps you compete and have a better chance of winning when it isn’t all going our way. I’d happily take smaller, more boring wins against crap teams if it meant we won more games overall.

[The Underdog]

Rohan back for the Cats.

Dogs win.

Who are we playing after the bye?

Up to the crowd to create a finals like atmosphere to neutralise him.

Giants up there then Hawks at home.

You don’t want to look at what happens after that. I did and then started investigating possible top 10 draft options

[MrMahatma]

We’ll obviously always be eternally grateful for 2016 (which funnily enough, featured a genuine 2nd ruck/forward option who ended up being the difference…go figure!).

But we’ve never ended a home and away season entrenched as a top 4 side (obviously last year it should have happened but for some late season implosion) and have been too boom or bust for my liking. It’s bloody great when it works and things are going our way (there’s a reason Bevo has coached 25% of the club’s 100 point wins - we feast on poor teams where our overall talent is significantly better), but why haven’t we consistently won enough games to finish at the really pointy end during H&A under Bevo?

I’d love to have some data to back me up but a) I suck at quantitative analysis, b) the numbers may actually prove me wrong and c) I barely have time to watch us at the moment, let alone scour through stats just to convince some other lunatics on a footy forum that I am right….BUT

I believe our lack of a proper ‘footy structure’ or our preference for a less traditional team make up has been a significant factor in it. Too many mids to fit in, not enough height and marking power in defence, lack of genuine forward talent (is this why our conversion rate is so poor?), a complete disregard for the ruck role.

You can only play what’s on your list of course, but these issues have been present for years.

Yes, work rate is a non-negotiable, yes, the game is generally won by the better, hard working midfield. But the differences between the best teams are small and proper structure (basically, what I consider the right type of players in the right positions) matters and can give you an edge. Structure hedges risk and helps you compete and have a better chance of winning when it isn’t all going our way. I’d happily take smaller, more boring wins against crap teams if it meant we won more games overall.

What’s untraditional about our structure?

2 tall backs (3 if you include OBrien)
Ruck
2 tall forwards (I think we’ve certainly tried genuine talls and Buku kinda counts)

No genuine 2nd ruck is actually the only structural thing diff I guess. We do play blokes somewhat out of position (EG: Libba in the F50) but that’s not structure as I see it.

[GVGjr]

But that is one of the beauties about Bevo is that he tries the unexpected. This creativity has a) won us a GF and b)got us into another GF. Sure there have been patches in between that have been horrible and clearly not worked. There are also reasons, unbeknownst to us, as to why he hasn’t chased hard after another experienced ruck (apart from Martin). He obviously has faith in our midfield where the game is clearly won or lost and therefore may see a 2nd ruck (unless they are similar to English around the ground eg. Jackson) as a liability.

Whilst I personally would like to see Schache back in there are attributes that he has that Bevo clearly thinks are lacking in this area. As for Zaine well we all know what the outcry would be if he was selected as our 2nd ruck. Thus happy to go with one of the other options to see how they work whether it be Buku or Gardner.

Think Jeemak has summed it up well.

I don't disagree that Bevo is a good and innovative coach but having the likes of Bont, Naughton, Hannan and now potentially Gardner and Khamis as chop out options in the ruck isn't innovative when really it's a more of a reflection of how we see the position.

[Grantysghost]

We’ll obviously always be eternally grateful for 2016 (which funnily enough, featured a genuine 2nd ruck/forward option who ended up being the difference…go figure!).

But we’ve never ended a home and away season entrenched as a top 4 side (obviously last year it should have happened but for some late season implosion) and have been too boom or bust for my liking. It’s bloody great when it works and things are going our way (there’s a reason Bevo has coached 25% of the club’s 100 point wins - we feast on poor teams where our overall talent is significantly better), but why haven’t we consistently won enough games to finish at the really pointy end during H&A under Bevo?

I’d love to have some data to back me up but a) I suck at quantitative analysis, b) the numbers may actually prove me wrong and c) I barely have time to watch us at the moment, let alone scour through stats just to convince some other lunatics on a footy forum that I am right….BUT

I believe our lack of a proper ‘footy structure’ or our preference for a less traditional team make up has been a significant factor in it. Too many mids to fit in, not enough height and marking power in defence, lack of genuine forward talent (is this why our conversion rate is so poor?), a complete disregard for the ruck role.

You can only play what’s on your list of course, but these issues have been present for years.

Yes, work rate is a non-negotiable, yes, the game is generally won by the better, hard working midfield. But the differences between the best teams are small and proper structure (basically, what I consider the right type of players in the right positions) matters and can give you an edge. Structure hedges risk and helps you compete and have a better chance of winning when it isn’t all going our way. I’d happily take smaller, more boring wins against crap teams if it meant we won more games overall.

If Voss gets that Carlton side to a top 4 spot in his first year I’ll spew up!

Agree with this Comrade we have an exceptional list and you win flags from top 4. There’s no surprise only 2? have won from outside since the top 8 and we are the only ones since we changed from the old McIntyre system. (The other the crows in 98 who lost in wk1 and then won the flag from 5th!).

[bornadog]

What’s untraditional about our structure?

2 tall backs (3 if you include OBrien)
Ruck
2 tall forwards (I think we’ve certainly tried genuine talls and Buku kinda counts)

No genuine 2nd ruck is actually the only structural thing diff I guess. We do play blokes somewhat out of position (EG: Libba in the F50) but that’s not structure as I see it.

I am with you Mr M, I don't see any structural issues in the way we set up. Whether the players are good enough to go all the way is another matter.

For those thinking our backline is fragile, we are once more one of the hardest to score against (7th), and could have been better if Keath didn't miss half of the first half of the season. As for scoring, well we are the 4th highest for scoring.

As long as we are winning the clearances, who cares about the rucks, especially 2nd ruck.

[Axe Man]

If you re-watched the Grand Final and thought anything that happened during that perverted mess could have been fixed by having Jordan Sweet on the field then.........I actually don't know how to finish that sentence.

I really don't get the passion one way or another on this particular selection area, when it's clear that if we rock up and play a committed game and our midfielders don't phone in effort, and our forwards run both ways we can compete better than most.

The ruck situation is a side show.

Completely agree. I don't get the angst because to me there is no clear correct answer. There are pros and cons to playing a second ruck like Sweet or going one out with English. It is only one of a number of factors that will decide this game and I don't think it's near to top for importance.

[azabob]

I'm thinking O'Brien will be our 2nd ruck.

Khamis doesn't have the fitness base or conditioning to play second tall forward and chop out in the ruck.

Stanley and Blicavas maybe not great ruckman but they are seasoned bodies and use to the crash and bash nature of ruckwork.

[bornadog]

I'm thinking O'Brien will be our 2nd ruck.

Khamis doesn't have the fitness base or conditioning to play second tall forward and chop out in the ruck.

Stanley and Blicavas maybe not great ruckman but they are seasoned bodies and use to the crash and bash nature of ruckwork.

Has O'Brien rucked before?

[soupman]

Has O'Brien rucked before?

Yes.

2017 averaged about 5 hitouts a game topping out at 8, and the next years he spent at Hawthorn would record at least 1 in maybe half his games.