TEAM 4 RND 1

[Roger Mellie 4,025]

Match ups anyone?

Martin will get Hale

Bartram and one of Cheney/Bennell will get the 2 speedy midget forwards, with Bennell more suited

Bartram or Dunn will get Harvey

Anyone know where Petrie will play?

[dee-luded 2,959]

Here's how I make the mix:-

....B: BRUCE, MARTIN, RIVERS

..HB: GRIMES, WARNOCK, GARLAND

....C: BUCKLEY, MCLEAN, MORTON

...HF: GREEN, MILLER, DAVEY

.....F: NEWTON, BATE, WONAEAMIRRI,

FOLL: JOHNSON, MCDONALD, JONES

...IC: SPENCER, MOLONEY, DUNN, CHENEY,

EMERG: = FRAWLEY, SYLVIA, JETTA, PETTERD, BARTRAM

OK, I'll explain why I've picked the side this way, with Bruce & Rivers back pockets & Garland flank with Buckley wing.

I think the footy dept stated that they want the team to be more offensive with run & carry, this starts from the backs & mostly with class on the H/Bs.

Imo Warnock is being groomed as the CHB who has balance speed & foot skill.

Beside him young guns with composure vision & speed/run & footskills to deliver to the forwards. (Grimes/Garland)

Full backline has the emerging Martin, with Rivers dropping back beside him to add experience & plugging the gaps that emerge.

Whelan is injured & therefore underdone & IMO won't play for a few games. Cheney will get a go in the pocket soon, but I needed to find an onfield role for Bruce. Not in the mids for him as he doesn't move the ball quick enough thru traffic, nor pass well enough.

Don't think Buckley has the composure & class to mind his opponent (hbf), & also run off him to deliver forward, so he's in space on the wing pushing back to help out the defence.

The forwards are mostly self explanitory, although I think the Russians injury has changed things a little bit, so Spencer plays from the bench with PJ rucking instead of starting in the pocket.

Now is the time to give Newton some time forward whilst Robbo gets some condition back into his legs & sheds some kilo's.

Sylvia (whilst I'd like him in the side) must earn his spot back thru Casey.

[JJJ 1,285]

I understand what you're saying, but for balance Martin misses. Martin hasn't trialled in the forward-line all season, so they're not about to pick him as a forward in Rd 1, and nor should they. He'll get his opportunities.

And don't give me the 'fair line'. It's not about 'fair'. Every player reckons they deserve a spot. And there's a small matter of a game to win.

I agree, Martin would get nothing out of playing forward for us. He will learn more playing as a KP defender with Casey as he is still learning the finer points of defending.

[Little Goffy 14,546]

F: Dunn Bate Wonaeamirri

HF: Davey Miller Sylvia

C: Morton Bruce Petterd

HB: Grimes Martin Green

B: Bartram Warnock Garland

FOLL: Johnson Mclean McDonald

INT: Spencer Rivers Moloney Jones

Emerg: Frawley, Meesen(!) Buckley

Noting that it has been confirmed now that Jamar is on the Long term Injury list and Spencer promoted.

Emergencies selected for position coverage in Meesen's case, recognition of performance in Frawley's case, and a bit of both for Buckley.

Dunn is playing specifically to shut down rebounds and see if the opportunity to gain turnover goals sparks up his counter-attack.

If Wona can't play then basically everyone in the right column except Garland move one 'forward' and Buckley comes in.

Bate and Miller will alternate a bit, but damn, what I wouldn't give for a star quality goal-kicking CHF some time soon...

The fifteen goals we need to win will come from - Bate 3, Wonaeamirri, Dunn and Sylvia 2, Davey, Miller, Morton. Petterd, Mclean and Johnson 1.

Last I heard the Kangaroos were 'full strength' so the specific initial match-ups are looking to me like;

Simpson - McDonald

Harvey - Grimes(!)

Watt - Dunn

C. Jones - Bruce

Hale - Warnock

Wells - Bartram

Petrie - Johnson

McIntosh - Spencer

What a shame Nathan Thompson and Shannon Grant have retired and cut about a third off the 'Roos attacking options.

[Hannabal 4]

Consider this, the Kangaroos have Hale (201 cm) who will most probably start up forward for them and also Petrie (197 cm) who is CHF/FF material. After Martin (198 cm) our next tallest defender is Frawley (193 cm). If you don't see a need for Martin in this game then I don't think you are looking hard enough.

It's a very good point and footy is all about matchups, but the way the game is now played banging long to a contest is a last resort. That said, Bailey will strongly consider Martin for the reasons you mention. It's been reported that Frawley has grown to 195cms, and he and Cheney have been the two pre-season standouts, so I don't see either missing. Whilst I'm not a huge fan of Bartram I reckon he'll play to shut down one of Thomas or Campbell. Cheney will get the other.

Can Frawley, Warnock, Rivers and Garland handle Petrie and Hale down forward, or does Martin have to play as he's a logical matchup ? And when I say Garland, sure he won't take either, but he's effective as a third tall spoiler when considering the North duo.

It will be an interesting selection meeting.

[Al`s DEMONS 0]

moloney needs to start in guts with brock. Jones/Junior not attacking enough. before beamers injury he launched many forward thusts from the bounce. not always finding a target but he movedd it quickly. i thought i read that bailey said bate will play full forward all year. leave aussie and flash crumbing , lets utilise what we have to work with

[JJJ 1,285]

Consider this, the Kangaroos have Hale (201 cm) who will most probably start up forward for them and also Petrie (197 cm) who is CHF/FF material. After Martin (198 cm) our next tallest defender is Frawley (193 cm). If you don't see a need for Martin in this game then I don't think you are looking hard enough.

Also the Kangas have some nimble small forwards in Campbell (174 cm) and Thomas (181 cm). Cheney (184 cm) is looking like a good match up for one of these two so I agree with you there.

As far as Rivers is concerned I think they would be mad to throw him straight into a CHB roll after just one full practice game. To a greater extent it could be argued that Rivers is more suited to a third tall roll across half back to help spoil. This would also preserve his footy career IMO and possible releive Green from his roll where he has to come back to assist the defenders from time to time. As fantastic a player Rivers is, we have to remember that the guy is human and at 192 cm it can quite often be a huge task for him to dominate tall opponents. I think Martin at 198 cm is tailor made to take on a permanent roll at CHB rotating with FB depending on opposition teams.

I am happy for Warnock to go at Hale, even with the difference in height. Petrie is taller than Frawley but I think you will find that Chip has grown to be over 195cm these days. Once again his form warrants selection and Petrie will have his hands full trying to out run Frawley. Add to this Rivers and his ability to leave his man to help and I think we can cover their talls.

Martin in my eyes would be unlucky to miss but I think he will have at least 18 games or so to prove his worth with the big boys, just not in round 1.

How the Kangas rotate their smalls is of more concern to me. Jones, Campbell, Thomas, Harvey and co will trouble us I think.

[rpfc 28,431]

I am reticient to split up our backline and with that in mind Garland, Martin, and Rivers - who have all had supporters claim they can play forward - must stay back.

Garland and Frawley can play small. Warnock and Rivers are very smart, selfless workers, they play a similar role so it depends if there is a match up for Warnock as Rivers will always play the extra man if fit. Martin plays on the 'gorillas' and the resting ruckman, something the Kangas exploit very well with Petrie and Hale.

They may go with ruckmen and quick smalls which makes it difficult for match-ups.

Harding - Petrie - Thomas

Grimes - Warnock - Garland

Campbell - McIntosh/Hale - Jones

Cheney - Martin - Rivers

That was tougher than I thought, Frawley may miss because Jones and Edwards are both on the outer with Laidley. Can't see both playing.

[1858 285]

It's a very good point and footy is all about matchups, but the way the game is now played banging long to a contest is a last resort. That said, Bailey will strongly consider Martin for the reasons you mention. It's been reported that Frawley has grown to 195cms, and he and Cheney have been the two pre-season standouts, so I don't see either missing. Whilst I'm not a huge fan of Bartram I reckon he'll play to shut down one of Thomas or Campbell. Cheney will get the other.

If there is one team in the competition who bang the ball long it is the Kangaroos and their tall timber forward line is testiment to that. It is quite funny actually because when I watched the Kangas play the other night the commentators (not that they are gospel or anything) were all saying how the Kangas play a traditional game plan and kick long but have done it very well and that is what has won them matches.

The beauty of putting Martin on Hale is that Hale is a ruckman. Unlike say Buddy Franklin, Hale is nowhere near as mobile and this plays into Martin's hands. Martin has quite a strong body, at 198 cm he is by no means lanky and the more big players he plays on the better he will become. Obviously you wouldn't give him the big players all season as you would burn him out but at this time of year I think it is worth a shot. In the second half of last year Martin played on a few big players and did alright IIRC.

Bartram seems a logical option to take the other small like you say, my only query is pace. I guess we have to go with him but Bennell sounds like a good future option for this type of roll.

Good to hear about Frawley btw this makes him some what of a versatile commodity at 195 cm - they should update the MFC website lol.

Can Frawley, Warnock, Rivers and Garland handle Petrie and Hale down forward, or does Martin have to play as he's a logical matchup ? And when I say Garland, sure he won't take either, but he's effective as a third tall spoiler when considering the North duo.

I think either Frawley (or Warnock to a lesser extent) could handle Hail with the assistance of either Rivers or Garland as an extra spoiler but I suspect Rivers will be rotated heavily in the early parts of this season. The thing you have to remember is that in many ways there is no absolute right or wrong line up to use. We could be really settled through out the game or different defenders could be being moved all over the place because the North forwards are taking us to the cleaners. IMO the key is to have redundancy in a game where you can make changes if you have to and given that the Kangas have two forwards 197 cm or taller we would be mad to not at least match one of them up with a 198 cm defender. If Martin gets killed then we at least have a plan B with say Warnock, Rivers and Frawley. So the real question is "should we take our chances with just Frawley, Warnock, Rivers and Garland? or do we go with the percentages and start with Martin and then replace him if required" Martin surely must play.

It will be an interesting selection meeting.

Agree with that, we are starting to find ourselves with options here.

[1858 285]

Martin in my eyes would be unlucky to miss but I think he will have at least 18 games or so to prove his worth with the big boys, just not in round 1.

We will have to agree to disagree I guess. Why is round 1 any different to 18 other games? Martin is fresh, he wouldn't get towelled up (theoretically) compared to being on say Brown or Franklin or a class player like that. I don't understand your logic tbh, we have an up and coming 198 cm defender so why not use him? Spencer hasn't even played a senior match but people are (rightly) expecting him to play in the ruck round 1 and he is 3 years younger than Martin. Martin turns 23 this year, now is not the time to put him on the backburner - we just need to give him spells when his body starts to feel it.

How the Kangas rotate their smalls is of more concern to me. Jones, Campbell, Thomas, Harvey and co will trouble us I think.

Yeah, those guys are going to be a real pain for us - apparently Thomas will be used a bit more this year in the midfield for the Roos but I won't expect it this early unfortunately.

[JJJ 1,285]

We will have to agree to disagree I guess. Why is round 1 any different to 18 other games? Martin is fresh, he wouldn't get towelled up (theoretically) compared to being on say Brown or Franklin or a class player like that. I don't understand your logic tbh, we have an up and coming 198 cm defender so why not use him? Spencer hasn't even played a senior match but people are (rightly) expecting him to play in the ruck round 1 and he is 3 years younger than Martin. Martin turns 23 this year, now is not the time to put him on the backburner - we just need to give him spells when his body starts to feel it.

The difference for me is form, ability and team balance.

Frawley has had a dream preseason and deserves a go on form.

Warnock has not put a foot wrong and established himself as a legit key defender last year so he plays.

Rivers has class and pedigree and is a required player.

Garland has the ability to swing from talls to smalls and would allow the other talls to rotate if trouble was brewing.

Martin misses out due to the need for runners in the team to rotate through the midfield. Other teams have players who are better match ups for Martin. eg: Fevola, Roughead, Lynch, Hall, Tippett, Lloyd etc etc etc. He is good and will play, I just think the others are pushing themselves further up in the coaches eyes. Ultimately if Martin plays i would be extremely confident in his ability to shut down a forward.

[1858 285]

The difference for me is form, ability and team balance.

Frawley has had a dream preseason and deserves a go on form.

Warnock has not put a foot wrong and established himself as a legit key defender last year so he plays.

Rivers has class and pedigree and is a required player.

Garland has the ability to swing from talls to smalls and would allow the other talls to rotate if trouble was brewing.

form, ability and team balance you say? ...based on some pre-season games. Howabout common sence as well?

Form: Going by a few pre-season games some players have impressed (especially Frawley) fair enough, but does that mean they are an automatic starter on a 201 cm forward? At the end of the day Martin has been in reasonable form anyway.

Ability: I would have thought that being 198 cm would improve your ability to spoil a 201 cm forward relative to someone of the height of a Frawley or Warnock.

Balance: What does this have to do with respect to marking tall forwards? So if Hale takes the shorter defenders to the cleaners (if we don't play Martin) it will be alright because we have "balance" in the side will it? Actually the more I think about it, I would have thought that we would have more balance with Martin in the side. Warnock (192 cm), Rivers (192 cm) and Garland (191) are all interchangable being similar height. I thought the definition of balance was covering your bases in the different height steaks.

You are leaving too much to chance with your setup. Think back to the last 30 seconds of the pre-season game against Hawthorn. In the dying seconds a Hawthorn player bangs the ball on the boot and Roughhead takes the mark about 20 meters out even though not one, but two defenders could not spoil him. Form, ability and balance counted for sfa - Roughead took the mark due to his height advantage (when you incorporate his big leap I should stipulate). Hale, being a stay at home forward will be a similar prospect and is much taller than Roughead.

Martin misses out due to the need for runners in the team to rotate through the midfield.

We have enough "runners in the team to rotate through the midfield" as you put it that we don't need to leave a 201 cm forward to his own devices - Martin is one player, hardly going to suck the life out of our running stocks.

Rivers may have class and be a pedigree player but I doubt Bailey will use him too much in the early stages, he has had one full practice game as is my understanding. TBH I wouldn't be terribly worried if he started from the bench.

We face two of the tallest opposition forwards in the comp (as a combination), if Martin is not a candidate for this week then I am stuffed as to why we would even have him on our list if we go by your rationale.

Other teams have players who are better match ups for Martin. eg: Fevola, Roughead, Lynch, Hall, Tippett, Lloyd etc etc etc.

I don't understand this point, so because these players are more agile Martin for some reason is better for them but not a stay at home 201 cm forward? If anything, players like Tippett and Hall would be better suited to a more mobile defender like Frawley or Warnock - I think you have this all back to front.

In isolation your individual points (about our defenders) are not too bad but I think you are letting that cloud the big picture. Perhaps Bailey will indeed opt to leave out Martin for reasons similar to yours but IMO it is a hell of a risk.

[JJJ 1,285]

form, ability and team balance you say? ...based on some pre-season games. Howabout common sence as well?

I am using common sense. We can't carry too many talls every week. It's just not feasible. Someone has to miss out, so I nominated the player who has the least amount of flexibility in his playing style and someone who is a below average kick.

You are making too much out of 2 players height and over compensating. Warnock can easily cover Hale. He has taken taller players before and done the job. Also, Hale is hardly a big power athlete at 201cm (like Roughead is) so he doesnt present the same problems for shorter defenders.

At the end of the day Martin has been in reasonable form anyway.

I agree.

I thought the definition of balance was covering your bases in the different height steaks.

Exactly. I believe the Roos talls can be taken by Rivers, Warnock, Frawley with Garland offering relief. This leaves us with more options to choose from to defend the dangerous small/medium forwards and perhaps play another midfielder.

You are leaving too much to chance with your setup. Think back to the last 30 seconds of the pre-season game against Hawthorn. In the dying seconds a Hawthorn player bangs the ball on the boot and Roughhead takes the mark about 20 meters out even though not one, but two defenders could not spoil him.

Where was Martin in that marking contest? He played didnt he? What are you saying here? That defenders arent successful all the time? This doesn't support your arguement.

Form, ability and balance counted for sfa - Roughead took the mark due to his height advantage (when you incorporate his big leap I should stipulate). Hale, being a stay at home forward will be a similar prospect and is much taller than Roughead.

Form, ability and balance make up a huge part of the selection process, especially early on in the season.

Roughead took the mark because he made better position, used his girth to advantage and in the end is a top 5 talent among the key forwards these days. Pretty simple.

We have enough "runners in the team to rotate through the midfield" as you put it that we don't need to leave a 201 cm forward to his own devices - Martin is one player, hardly going to suck the life out of our running stocks.

Do we? Coaching panels spend hours trying to get the balance of players correct and most say they could always use more midfielders. With the workload for modern midfielders growing the need for fresh runners is vitale. Anyone who watched us on Saturday can attest to that.

We face two of the tallest opposition forwards in the comp (as a combination), if Martin is not a candidate for this week then I am stuffed as to why we would even have him on our list if we go by your rationale.

Thats a bit over the top. We need him and he will play a lot of footy. As I have said, Petrie and Hale do not represent a significant challenge to our backmen, like playing against Hawthorn, Geelong, StKilda etc. Petrie is a worker, a runner and a great leader but he and Hale, like all forwards rely on supply. It is this point that leads me to go with an extra runner than having a surplus of defenders.

I don't understand this point, so because these players are more agile Martin for some reason is better for them but not a stay at home 201 cm forward? If anything, players like Tippett and Hall would be better suited to a more mobile defender like Frawley or Warnock - I think you have this all back to front.

What is a stay at home forward these days? If he plays a majority of his time in the forward 50 then I would imagine that the need for a defender the same size is limited. He will be surrounded by players from both sides with little room to operate most of the time. If the Roos do bomb it long to him that plays into the hands of a modern day defensive group.

Also, Martins mobility and lateral movement are first class for a player his size. He is only missing out because I feel we can do the job without him and I think we will take running players.

Perhaps Bailey will indeed opt to leave out Martin for reasons similar to yours but IMO it is a hell of a risk.

It is equally risky to take a tall team into a game where runners are at a premium.

As I have said, if Martin plays I will be neither surprised nor disappointed. I actually think we have a pretty good chance of winning this game, well a better chance than we were last year.

[Hannabal 4]

We face two of the tallest opposition forwards in the comp (as a combination), if Martin is not a candidate for this week then I am stuffed as to why we would even have him on our list if we go by your rationale.

Ultimately do we pick arguably the best matchup for Hale in Martin, or the (presently) better footballers that are in better form ? Frawley, Warnock, and Garland have had better form in the preseason and are ahead in development. I can't imagine that trio not playing. Is Rivers a little underdone for Rd 1 ? Possibly. But for me Frawley, Martin, Warnock, Garland and Rivers don't all fit into the team.

[titan_uranus 25,020]

Last I heard the Kangaroos were 'full strength' so the specific initial match-ups are looking to me like;

Simpson - McDonald

Harvey - Grimes(!)

Watt - Dunn

C. Jones - Bruce

Hale - Warnock

Wells - Bartram

Petrie - Johnson

McIntosh - Spencer

Jones and Harris are on the outer with Laidley. The are very unlikely to play Roudn 1, which is kinda good for us because Jones has done some pretty good things against us.

Ultimately do we pick arguably the best matchup for Hale in Martin, or the (presently) better footballers that are in better form ? Frawley, Warnock, and Garland have had better form in the preseason and are ahead in development. I can't imagine that trio not playing. Is Rivers a little underdone for Rd 1 ? Possibly. But for me Frawley, Martin, Warnock, Garland and Rivers don't all fit into the team.

Imagine if all those talls were forwards. Then we'd be saying we're top-heavy. I agree, we probably can't have that many tall defenders in the team. We've run out of legs in 2 matches so far this year. We need extra running capability. Having said that, I can't decide which player misses out.

[jacey 333]

Imagine if all those talls were forwards. Then we'd be saying we're top-heavy. I agree, we probably can't have that many tall defenders in the team. We've run out of legs in 2 matches so far this year. We need extra running capability. Having said that, I can't decide which player misses out.

For ppl who went to the practice matches, I'm wondering how the 5 KPP defenders worked it? Did they always have one on the extended bench and rotate or were all 5 on the ground at the same time?

I see Martin as the odd one out too unfortunately.

[H.B.K 0]

B: Garland, Warnock, Frawley

HB: Grimes, Rivers, Bruce

C: Morton, McLean, McDonald

HF: Green, Miller, Sylvia

F: Wonaeamirrri, Bate, Davey

R: Johnson, Moloney, Jones

I: Buckley, Bartram, Spencer, Cheney

E: Petterd, Newton, Martin, Dunn

Would prefer Martin to play, so he could take either Hale or Petrie, but I can't fit him in at the moment.

Dunn, Petterd & Newton are all unlucky. Am expecting Cheney to play and fill Whelan's spot in the backline. Buckley & Bartram are on shaky ground and could all be replaced by the three I have mentioned. Ideally I wouldn't have Newton but think he will get picked as we need a forward, no matter how average..

I don't consider the backline top heavy as Garland can take a small, but I think he will play on Jones, who always carves us up.

Cheney & Grimes will take Thomas and Campbell.

Warnock & Frawley - Hale and Petrie

Rivers whoever.

In the midfield I would put Bartram on Harvey as he has good running ability, otherwise I would go with Junior.

[mo64 5,874]

B: Garland, Warnock, Frawley

HB: Grimes, Rivers, Bruce

C: Morton, McLean, McDonald

HF: Green, Miller, Sylvia

F: Wonaeamirrri, Bate, Davey

R: Johnson, Moloney, Jones

I: Buckley, Bartram, Spencer, Cheney

E: Petterd, Newton, Martin, Dunn

I think you're pretty close to the mark HBK, but I've got my doubts about Wona playing round 1 after doing a hammy. I think that Petterd will replace him from your selected side.

As for match-ups, I think that Bartram and Garland will take Thomas and Campbell, leaving Warnock and Frawley to take their talls. This will leave Rivers as a floater. McDonald to take Harvey.

Structurely, I'd rather see Miller and Green playing deep in the forward line, with Sylvia and Bate as the lead up forwards from CHF.

[Stigga 25]

Martin will definitely play. How could you leave him out with Petrie and Hale up forward?

[titan_uranus 25,020]

As for match-ups, I think that Bartram and Garland will take Thomas and Campbell, leaving Warnock and Frawley to take their talls. This will leave Rivers as a floater. McDonald to take Harvey.

Structurely, I'd rather see Miller and Green playing deep in the forward line, with Sylvia and Bate as the lead up forwards from CHF.

I can't see Garland playing on Campbell or Thomas. Bartram, should he play, could take one. Petterd could take another. So could Cheney.

Is McDonald fast enough to take Harvey? I'm not so sure. Maybe Bartram's a better bet here.

I like the idea of Green deep with Sylvia and Bate further up. But I think Miller's best work has been further up the ground, as a lead up CHF.

[mo64 5,874]

But I think Miller's best work has been further up the ground, as a lead up CHF.

For mine, Miller is ineffectual when he leads up from CHF because he's too slow in moving the ball on.

[H_T 3,047]

For mine, Miller is ineffectual when he leads up from CHF because he's too slow in moving the ball on.

Definitely needs to be more spontaneous with the pill.

[montasaurus 0]

For ppl who went to the practice matches, I'm wondering how the 5 KPP defenders worked it? Did they always have one on the extended bench and rotate or were all 5 on the ground at the same time?

I see Martin as the odd one out too unfortunately.

Frawley and Garland can both play small as well. That leave rivers, martin and warnock. Being nth are likely to be tallish up forward there should be room for all.

Out of the the 3 KPB warnock or rivers would miss ATM. Martins Preseason form has been great. Rivers is underdone so maybe he could be the unlucky one if balance is an issue. i have always been one for playing the best 22 regardless of "balance". If they are good enough there will be a spot somewhere (forward) I would suspect.

[montasaurus 0]

not neccisarily. garland hasnt played here all pre season and has hardly spent any time up there. he is a really really good defender. you dont see matt scarlett and dustin fletcher at chf too often.

D.Schwarz and D.Nietz both spent time at CHB as well.

Correct me if I am wrong (I am talking about 18yrs of age for both) but I think Schwarz started as a CHB before being moved forward 1-2 yrs later & Neitz started as a CHF, then went back for several years and then went deep forward. Things can change, its a matter of where they are of most value.

[1858 285]

I am using common sense. We can't carry too many talls every week. It's just not feasible. Someone has to miss out, so I nominated the player who has the least amount of flexibility in his playing style and someone who is a below average kick.

I am not arguing that we add Martin to what people are callling an already tall defence, obviously we can't have 5 talls in the back line (at the same time anyway). Rivers will be used sparingly I think. I too beleive it is not feasible to have too many talls. Consider this though, we have 4 defenders ranging from 191 cm to 193/195 cm and not one of them matches up in height with either tall Roos forward. Is it not playing the percentages to at least replace one of them or at least use one off the bench (Rivers) to sure up at least one of the talls with Martin? It is a hard choice but Martin's height easily counters what you refer to as "least amount of flexibility" simply because he is on a tall forward who is not too mobile.

You are making too much out of 2 players height and over compensating. Warnock can easily cover Hale. He has taken taller players before and done the job. Also, Hale is hardly a big power athlete at 201cm (like Roughead is) so he doesnt present the same problems for shorter defenders.

This is where you are not looking at this clinically. Warnock has had a great pre-season and deserves to play but that doesn't mean that he can easily cover Hale who is nearly 10 cm taller. I agree, Warnock has handled taller players before but Hale is close to the tallest. Your comment on Hale not being a power athlete is what I eluded to in my 2nd post and is why Martin is a perfect match up. Unlike say a Roughead, Hale will not give someone like Martin the runaround and Martin can play body on body and compete in the air better. Just because Hale is not very mobile doesn't mean that Warnock can pick him up any easier. The Kangas are going to put the ball in a spot to Hale's advantage because they know where he will be. They will use Hale as a long kick option (ideally one out in the goal square) not a leading forward getting it lace out on the chest in the forward pocket.

Where was Martin in that marking contest? He played didnt he? What are you saying here? That defenders arent successful all the time? This doesn't support your arguement.

IIRC Martin was not in the marking contest (if he was then my mistake but I'm pretty sure he wasn't) which actually does support my arguement immensely. I don't know if he was on the ground or not but it was Warnock going back with the flight of the ball as the extra spoiler and the other player who was going with Roughead escapes me (possibly Frawley but not 100% sure). Suffice to say they were at their limits and Hale being 8 cm taller (than Roughy) with a ruckmans leap will be far from an easy task for Warnock. Roughead used his experience to get into position but (when you include his big leap) our defenders were done for height. Warnock actually made it back to the contest but couldn't get a fist on it, Martin in either roll would have made an impact. I make reference to this mark (unlike the others Roughead took) not because it broke our hearts but because it is the exact same type of leaping mark Hale will be going for close to goal.

Roughead took the mark because he made better position, used his girth to advantage and in the end is a top 5 talent among the key forwards these days. Pretty simple.

You are missing the point again. Key forwards do that, it's called football. Roughead is not the first nor the last forward to use his body. He quite simply had space to take a leaping mark up front and our defenders had no hope of spoiling once he was air born. Hale has a ruckmans leap, once he is airborn we're gone if we don't have the height.

Coaching panels spend hours trying to get the balance of players correct and most say they could always use more midfielders. With the workload for modern midfielders growing the need for fresh runners is vitale. Anyone who watched us on Saturday can attest to that.

Yes, I understand all that, if Martin replaces one of the other talls this is not an issue though (or at least one of the other talls rotates off the bench).

Thats a bit over the top. We need him and he will play a lot of footy. As I have said, Petrie and Hale do not represent a significant challenge to our backmen, like playing against Hawthorn, Geelong, StKilda etc. Petrie is a worker, a runner and a great leader but he and Hale, like all forwards rely on supply. It is this point that leads me to go with an extra runner than having a surplus of defenders.

Again, if Martin plays instead of one of the other talls it will keep this aspect in check with extra runners.

What is a stay at home forward these days? If he plays a majority of his time in the forward 50 then I would imagine that the need for a defender the same size is limited. He will be surrounded by players from both sides with little room to operate most of the time. If the Roos do bomb it long to him that plays into the hands of a modern day defensive group.

A stay at home forward is not as obvious a roll as it once was I suppose but in general you can use it to describe a key forward who does not move far from thier starting position or from goal. Hale for example will not roam around the park like say Petrie will. What this suggests is that regardless of whether the defence is clearing or the offence is moving the ball in from the middle, Hale will remain IMHO in the same dangerous area close to the goals. Perhaps no more than 30m out. If we are running the ball out and there is a turnover, the Kangas have an option of kicking long to a one out tall forward - good luck Frawley/Warnock is all I will say on that one. If Hale was more mobile then the other defenders come into play a little more in assists - but I concede this can vary depending on the play. Very rarely do two key forwards both roam outside forward 50. With their small forwards, the Kangas will be able to mix it up a bit so they won't predictably go to Hale all the time. This actually makes things harder because we can't automatically double team him with say a Warnock and Frawley or Garland. One thing we do know is that when they do use Hale it will be probably a long kick to his advantage, and if they see it as a mismatch then they may try to exploit it.

It is equally risky to take a tall team into a game where runners are at a premium.

Obviously we will have to make a hard decision on who to leave out. I am not saying we should cram the defence with talls, I am saying that of the talls we play I think Martin should be one of them.

You will no doubt reply to all of this but you don't have to point out the advantages of more runners (I agree) or reinforce our defenders ability to hold Hale (agree to disagree). Which ever way we go I have confidence that our defence is on the up and will give it a good shake.

_______________________________________

On a seperate issue, even though Miller was reasonably good last year I think I prefer him closer to goal like some others have said. Bate and Green at HF could be damaging for us with their penetrating kicks. Although Bate is a little slower than Green, he is strong and is quite adept at breaking tackles and moving play. Miller has been a bit suspect any more than 40m out so far and he has proven before he can take decent marks in/near the goal square if he attacks the ball and gets a decent leap.