Four-headed monster

[Go_Dogs]

Would we dare?

Naughton. Lobb. Jamarra. Darcy.

With a splash of Chilli.

I wonder if we’ll see the four-headed monster deployed this year? A lot of it of course depends on roles and form and opposition and weather etc etc. I’d like to see a bit more of Naughton up the field, Jamarra has wheels and can play a few different roles, Lobb is comfortable leading up around the 50m line and Darce has shown he can pluck a mark deep.

Naughton and Jamarra are (perhaps I’ve proved and one in theory) good enough at ground level to apply pressure and help out with team defence too.

Thoughts?

[GVGjr]

Re: Four-headed monster

It will happen GD. It might even include Bruce.
If Darcy keeps improving it could create a lot of match-up challenges for the opposition teams.

If we can develop a crumbing forward they could hit the scoreboard regularly.

[jeemak]

Re: Four-headed monster

Would we dare?

Naughton. Lobb. Jamarra. Darcy.

With a splash of Chilli.

I wonder if we’ll see the four-headed monster deployed this year? A lot of it of course depends on roles and form and opposition and weather etc etc. I’d like to see a bit more of Naughton up the field, Jamarra has wheels and can play a few different roles, Lobb is comfortable leading up around the 50m line and Darce has shown he can pluck a mark deep.

Naughton and Jamarra are (perhaps I’ve proved and one in theory) good enough at ground level to apply pressure and help out with team defence too.

Thoughts?

If we do I don't reckon James Brayshaw will be able to contain himself.

However, I feel we'll be spared that indecency and will see Darcy played back when both he and Marra/ Bruce are in the team.

The most intriguing thing for me is what we do with Bruce, and whether his inclusion in the side will have an impact forward, back or both.

[F'scary]

Re: Four-headed monster

I would be worried that it backfires in that the marks are not forthcoming for various reasons and the other team rebounds with greater ease. We will watch their backs run away from our talls laughing as they take extra bounces.

[mjp]

Re: Four-headed monster

Would we dare?

Naughton. Lobb. Jamarra. Darcy.

So...that's a one-headed monster (Naughton) isn't it? I don't think Jamarra and Darcy are close to monster status just yet, and Lobb...

I am so unconvinced that this = successful forward setup...I truly hope there is a plan there somewhere!

[Mantis]

Re: Four-headed monster

So...that's a one-headed monster (Naughton) isn't it? I don't think Jamarra and Darcy are close to monster status just yet, and Lobb...

I am so unconvinced that this = successful forward setup...I truly hope there is a plan there somewhere!

The plan for the past 5-6 years has been to kick bombs to the hot spot and hope Naughts sits on someone's head... we've added more talls now so I guess that gives us a better chance of marking it, doesn't it?

[The Doctor]

Re: Four-headed monster

The plan for the past 5-6 years has been to kick bombs to the hot spot and hope Naughts sits on someone's head... we've added more talls now so I guess that gives us a better chance of marking it, doesn't it?

Who's going to mop up the spillage when they don't clunk it?

[Mofra]

Re: Four-headed monster

I think we can carry one guy in the F50 who isn't super agile on the deck (Lobb, Bruce or Darcy). Only one.
If Darcy gets a gig as an intercepting defender this year, he can always pinch hit forward when Lobb is giving Chilli a chop-out in the ruck.

The Crows years ago could manage a 4-tall set-up but they had Jenkins and Tom Lynch who were amazing runners, and two absolute gun small forwards (Cameron and Betts) to complement them. That's probably the only time it's worked, isn't it?

[Bornadog]

Re: Four-headed monster

The plan for the past 5-6 years has been to kick bombs to the hot spot and hope Naughts sits on someone's head... we've added more talls now so I guess that gives us a better chance of marking it, doesn't it?

Last year we were number one for marks inside 50. This year we dropped to 4th - but only 3 less average per game v Geelong.

Who's going to mop up the spillage when they don't clunk it?

Marking is not the issue, it is when it hits the ground - can we stop the ball coming out of inside 50 and going all the way up the other end.

Dunkley and Naughton were our best tacklers inside 50 and top 10 in AFL - we need others to step up

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Four-headed monster

It will happen GD. It might even include Bruce.
If Darcy keeps improving it could create a lot of match-up challenges for the opposition teams.

If we can develop a crumbing forward they could hit the scoreboard regularly.

I can’t believe I left Bruce off…!

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Four-headed monster

So...that's a one-headed monster (Naughton) isn't it? I don't think Jamarra and Darcy are close to monster status just yet, and Lobb...

I am so unconvinced that this = successful forward setup...I truly hope there is a plan there somewhere!

Isn’t this where the roles come into and who plays high up to the wings, who stays deep, who do we clear space for, who applies the blocks or dummy leads and all the other complexities I don’t understand etc etc?


There has been lots of talk about needing a crumbers, however I assume even as a baseline not having defenders intercept mark every time is a better proposition. We might not have the capability in our small forwards (or small forwards for that matter) other sides do, but at least the ball hitting the ground is better than being out marked (I think).

[mjp]

Re: Four-headed monster

We've added more talls now so I guess that gives us a better chance of marking it, doesn't it?

:-)

I know you think it doesn't and I know you know that I know that you think it doesn't.

[jeemak]

Re: Four-headed monster

Last year we were number one for marks inside 50. This year we dropped to 4th - but only 3 less average per game v Geelong.



Marking is not the issue, it is when it hits the ground - can we stop the ball coming out of inside 50 and going all the way up the other end.

Dunkley and Naughton were our best tacklers inside 50 and top 10 in AFL - we need others to step up

It's also when it doesn't hit the ground and we don't mark it.

We've got to get better at using the ball laterally quickly when going forward and things aren't going perfectly for us, rather than doubling down on our possession and handball game and bombing the footy to the opposition interceptors. We've also just got to get better at competing with opposition interceptors. Hopefully having the tall timber we do can help with the latter.

[Rocco Jones]

Re: Four-headed monster

Being tall doesn't automatically make you immobile and being small doesn't automatically make you mobile.

Of the 4 we would probably go with:
- Naughts his pressure definitely good enough, lots of i50 tackles. Not great with the ball once it hits the ground but more 'mobile' than most of our small forwards
- Mara had a pleasing season development wise. He is still young though and will have quiet patches/games. Can be great with bursts of pressure. If he can consistently have a presence, it'll be easier to carry him as an 'extra' tall.
- Lobb he is a lead and mark guy. Not a dinosaur but we pay a price mobility wise to have him in there.

Then...
Juice or Darcy

Juice is a pretty old school-ish KPF even when up and going. Definitely pay a price mobility wise.

Darcy at this stage is a bit mark or nothing. Can have glimpses of brilliance of the deck but can also go missing for ages, which isn't a concern as he is still a kid.

Four tall forwards CAN work but not when one is a R2/fwd type, one is developing into a consistent KPF (who can definitely be the extra type over time) and the third is either a brilliant but raw kid or a mark, kick, goal or nothing guy.

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Four-headed monster

Surely it is the responsibility of the coaches to develop a system that maximises the strengths of the playing group.

Anything could work but we need them creating space for each other and providing clear targets for the delivery inside 50.

IF we could actually get that happening we would be very difficult to beat.