Putting a defensive group together - Situational or???

[josie]

Absolutely. I knew I was forgetting a few players and think he can still play a meaningful role for us this season. Maybe not in the best 23 but certainly in the mix.

Yep. I?m hoping Cleary or another young player step up for Duryea, and JJ if he is injured. Father Time catching up with both Doc and JJ although latter showed last season he is still a v. good player in backline if he remains uninjured.

[GVGjr]

Yep. I?m hoping Cleary or another young player step up for Duryea, and JJ if he is injured. Father Time catching up with both Doc and JJ although latter showed last season he is still a v. good player in backline if he remains uninjured.

I'm not seeing any real issue with JJ in terms of him slowing down. He's still best 23 in my opinion.

[Uninformed]

I think only one of them CAN play unless Darcy takes one of the 2 KPD roles.

Betcha they both play though.

Do you like GVGjr's idea of playing Darcy off the bench? He can play in all three areas to rest a tall and could even rest a medium interceptor down back.

By the way is it confirmed that Coffield is 194. I was sure it was 191cm.

[GVGjr]

Do you like GVGjr's idea of playing Darcy off the bench? He can play in all three areas to rest a tall and could even rest a medium interceptor down back.

By the way is it confirmed that Coffield is 194. I was sure it was 191cm.

My guess is for that clip we saw it was with him being measured wearing his boots. 191cm perhaps 192cm but I doubt he is 194cm tall.

The challenge with Darcy off the bench and rotating through a few spots is enough where we can we get his TOG up to an acceptable level.

[josie]

Agree. He is injured a fair bit. Doc has lost a yard but JJ still quick.

[doggiesin08]

I want just the 2 talls (Jones and JOD), or if 3 then the extra has to be Buss/Darcy who are good kicks and not Keath/Gardy.

I?d be keen to go with Buku as the designated sub given his versatility to play small or tall, either directly in the backline or up forward to maintain structure if we needed to swing Naughton down back to cover a KPD injury mid game.

[bornadog]

Do you like GVGjr's idea of playing Darcy off the bench? He can play in all three areas to rest a tall and could even rest a medium interceptor down back.

By the way is it confirmed that Coffield is 194. I was sure it was 191cm.

Not according to Club website - 191cm

[mjp]

Do you like GVGjr's idea of playing Darcy off the bench? He can play in all three areas to rest a tall and could even rest a medium interceptor down back.

Yeah - but it doesn't matter where he can play. Each player on the bench will be part of a rotation and what one is Darcy going to be part of.

- It can't be forward 'cos we have Naughton, Lobb and JUH already there.
- It can't be ruck unless Tim is straight swapping to the bench.
- It can't be back because there are already 2x talls down there...

Players will constantly roll on and off during the game...the rotation 'groups' need to be pretty clear or it just wont work and that's when things will go awry...no point having a player in multiple rotation groups - because that means that when he's helping out the forwards, the backs are short and vice versa.

If anyone thinks the coaches are making the call on rotations once the game starts...they AREN'T. The rotation groups will be set and the players will roll within those groups. There will generally be a 'last 5-minutes must be on the field' list, but even that is hard to manipulate if the ball is stuck fatside...

[Uninformed]

Yeah - but it doesn't matter where he can play. Each player on the bench will be part of a rotation and what one is Darcy going to be part of.

- It can't be forward 'cos we have Naughton, Lobb and JUH already there.
- It can't be ruck unless Tim is straight swapping to the bench.
- It can't be back because there are already 2x talls down there...

Players will constantly roll on and off during the game...the rotation 'groups' need to be pretty clear or it just wont work and that's when things will go awry...no point having a player in multiple rotation groups - because that means that when he's helping out the forwards, the backs are short and vice versa.

If anyone thinks the coaches are making the call on rotations once the game starts...they AREN'T. The rotation groups will be set and the players will roll within those groups. There will generally be a 'last 5-minutes must be on the field' list, but even that is hard to manipulate if the ball is stuck fatside...

Thanks. Can see the reasoning in that.

Darcy seems too good not to be playing though. To pick one zone, I would go with the backs. Could you go with Jones and Darcy and still use JOD as one of your running backs given his athleticism and delivery? Maybe keep Coffield back and move Dale to a wing?

Massive job picking a balanced team with the right chemistry. Balance and chemistry are intangibles that only seem to reveal themselves when the team play considerably better than the sum of its parts - viz. 2016.

What appears on obvious selection or move can turn out not to be. I remember a long conversation I had with Leon Cameron when he was an assistant at our one of our family days. I was bothered about not having a marking target forward. To me the solution seemed obvious. Put Darcy (the Luke version) forward and bring the great Peter Street up from the twos to do the ruck work. I mean why did we recruit him anyway?

Leon, always the gentleman, very kindly and patiently explained that: 1. You would lose the extra work Darcy did in the mid-field to win and help the other mids. win clearances. Then 2. With our forward line the opposition would know we would always target Darcy coming in and the flankers would drop off and put him in a 3 v 1. So lose lose scenario.

Clear as day when it is explained. But obscure otherwise to such as me.

[doggiesin08]

Thanks. Can see the reasoning in that.

Darcy seems too good not to be playing though. To pick one zone, I would go with the backs. Could you go with Jones and Darcy and still use JOD as one of your running backs given his athleticism and delivery? Maybe keep Coffield back and move Dale to a wing?

Massive job picking a balanced team with the right chemistry. Balance and chemistry are intangibles that only seem to reveal themselves when the team play considerably better than the sum of its parts - viz. 2016.

What appears on obvious selection or move can turn out not to be. I remember a long conversation I had with Leon Cameron when he was an assistant at our one of our family days. I was bothered about not having a marking target forward. To me the solution seemed obvious. Put Darcy (the Luke version) forward and bring the great Peter Street up from the twos to do the ruck work. I mean why did we recruit him anyway?

Leon, always the gentleman, very kindly and patiently explained that: 1. You would lose the extra work Darcy did in the mid-field to win and help the other mids. win clearances. Then 2. With our forward line the opposition would know we would always target Darcy coming in and the flankers would drop off and put him in a 3 v 1. So lose lose scenario.

Clear as day when it is explained. But obscure otherwise to such as me.

Strange views from Cameron. Seemingly saying if you don?t have multiple marking targets you shouldn?t even bother having 1? Also you are allowed to have a marking target and not kick to them 100% of the time, especially with 2 spare forwards.

[Uninformed]

Strange views from Cameron. Seemingly saying if you don?t have multiple marking targets you shouldn?t even bother having 1? Also you are allowed to have a marking target and not kick to them 100% of the time, especially with 2 spare forwards.

Leon's view was that it would definitely help the forward line to have Darcy down there. However, what you would lose in the engine room without him there would be greater than what you would gain with him forward. He said if he had two of him one would definitely be forward, but not at the expense of losing him in the middle.

You wouldn't have such a valuable player forward as a decoy, so it would be easier for the flankers to anticipate and drop off.

[doggiesin08]

Leon's view was that it would definitely help the forward line to have Darcy down there. However, what you would lose in the engine room without him there would be greater than what you would gain with him forward. He said if he had two of him one would definitely be forward, but not at the expense of losing him in the middle.

You wouldn't have such a valuable player forward as a decoy, so it would be easier for the flankers to anticipate and drop off.

Ok, sorry I read the original explanation as being a loss for the forward line too. It does beg the question of why we traded pick 20 for Street, appreciating the market was different back then in the era of part time recruiters.

[SquirrelGrip]

This is a great discussion.

For me, you have a consistent, stable Back 7 with their set rotations (the big guys obviously with less rotations). If opposition is getting on top of one of them, then you restructure within that Back 7. They practice their options, they know how each other plays and how to support each other.

It's only where you have an injury within the game that you then slide someone else in. It could be a flexible sub who slots straight into the 7 or alternatively it's a defensive winger who moves back and the sub/forward/mid takes the wing rotations. If it's a tall/key defender who is injured, then it depends on the opposition. For example, Coffield and O'Donnell can step up on some key forwards. English and Bont can play a kick behind and provide more aerial coverage.

The best scenario is having Darcy in the 22 so he can rotate back/forward/ruck in case of injury. But I get mjp's questions on how those rotations work. We want Naughton and Marra on the field as much as possible, plus we'd love to see Tim spend a little more time forward as Lobb showed in the Geelong game he can provide a point of difference.

So my answer to your question of how to put a defensive group together is actually a question of whether we can play English/Lobb/Darcy/Naughton/Jamarra at the same time and if so, how?

[Uninformed]

Ok, sorry I read the original explanation as being a loss for the forward line too. It does beg the question of why we traded pick 20 for Street, appreciating the market was different back then in the era of part time recruiters.

Yeah, it seemed a great move at the time, but in the end we hardly played him. Perhaps even back then being a dominant tap ruckman was just not enough.

[jeemak]

The problem is - with 3x talls in your group and Jones basically never coming off and the other 2x talls rarely coming off, well...you are going to be a rotation down. So what's going to end up happening is your designated rotator (which is Coffield) is going to come on for one of JJ, Dale or Richards (who will be cooked and need a blow at least once per q. So for large parts of the game you will end up with a defensive 6 (on field) of Darcy, Jones, JOD, Coffield and 2 out of Dale/Richards/JJ. It also means those running backs are going to be on the bench A LOT. Which is not great since they are some of our best players.

Basically, I don't think that's going to work in real terms.

This is one of the challenges we have right now with JOD (and one of the challenges that saw him played on a wing last year) - we need to play him and he's probably best 22 BUT if he can't play KPD then...

I genuinely think the best structure is going to be just two x talls in that back 7. With Coffield or Willams I guess the designated 'backup' key back if we lose one of the starters...or (I guess) if Darcy is in the team (and I don't see how right now) he is moved back.

Look at our list. The recruitment team can talk all they like about the number of 200cm and KPP players NOT being a problem, but we need to PLAY some of them. Buzz needs to play, Darcy needs to play...but WHERE?

If English rucks unchanged, and Naughton/Jamarra are the KPP's with Jones/(Gardner/Keath/JOD) the KPD's...and Lobb providing forward ruck support...there are no other spots.

So - back to my original question - how do we structure this group?

I think we're well exposed with only two key defenders, when JOD is still developing and Darcy hasn't proved his body can withstand the rigours of the game.

While having two competent KPFs and a medium sized might be optimal for rotations (which I'll get to in a second) and structure in a perfect world, we only really have one battle hardened and competent KPF in Jones if we agree that both Darcy and JOD need to play for their betterment and the team's. You could argue if Keath is fit and in his best form he fits the bill as the second competent KPF, but most think we need to consider him a back up.

We have to be flexible and innovative with the way we manage our rotations. What does that look like? I don't really know but I have some queries on whether having three players who could theoretically spend 85-95% of time on the ground (assuming Darcy and JOD can) really hurts us.

Could we break the rotations into two sections of the ground rather than three? Defenders and wings, and forward and mids? Richards, Dale, Williams, JJ, Coffield, Daniel and VDM (replacing Smith in my 22) are all capable of spending time behind the ball, and equally in my view on the wing. Would that leave a simple enough equation for the forwards and mids, with two players from the bench falling into that group?

I guess I'm struggling to see how having three defenders playing large minutes doesn't provide us with more flexibility, not less......maybe that means we need a core of eight defenders and not seven. As I said, I don't know, but I don't want to be left in a situation where one of JOD and Darcy are being cooked due to inexperience/ strength/ fitness or whatever and we have no options to shift things around.