Not sure if this has already been touched on. Apologies if it has. But, I couldn't help but be impressed with the versatility of Frawley & MacDonald. I've always considered Frawley to be a big, KPP. But, if I understand it correctly (only having seen the game on TV), apparently Frawley played on Medhurst pretty much entire game. I'd think Medhurst would be considered "small, crumbing forward". Yet, our big man completely blanketed him, and pretty much kept him out of the game. Not bad for what I'm sure many would consider a mis-match that Medhurst would be expected to win.

Wha's more, Joel MacDonald was on Leigh Brown for much of the game. In his case, he gave up several cms and considerable bulk, and yet outpointed the big man on many occasions.

With Garland to return, also reknowned for his ability to play both small & tall, me thinks we should be pretty happy with that part of the ground. (Not forgetting Rivers & Warnock...)

Joel Mac played a fair portion of the game on Cloke and held him pretty well. He's considerably smaller at 188cm, so a very good effort. Frawley I was surprised to see is listed as 193cm on the clubs site. I would have thought he was smaller. We seem to have found a number of very mobile talls in the last few years who can mark up on the big forwards and also keep pace with the smalls. Frawley, Martin and Morton have all played defensive games where mobility was just as important as height and done well.

Frawley spent most of last year on the dangerous marking smalls - Medhurst, LeCras, Porplyzia to name a few. I want to give him a chance to take the big guns but Warnock can only really play tall and both of them are ideally suited to the full back line. MacDonald actually played primarily on Cloke and whilst Cloke did snag a couple of marks he didn't get out of hand. Bruce also played on Leigh Brown, John/Jack Anthony, Cloke and others.

Garland is probably more amazing because he has shown he can play on Jeff Farmer up to Buddy Franklin. Grimes can certainly play a little above his size as well.

The important thing is we keep giving the appropriate midfield cover, because then with whatever choice of defender we have we can structure a strong backline. Also for the future small blokes to develop - Bennell and Strauss will most likely take over from someone like Bartram (who is a great defender but just lets himself down too often) - they need to play on suitable opponents. I really don't believe getting a young player "Zac Dawsoned" does them any good.

MacDonald played on Cloke and did very well.

Frawley did well defending on Medhurst, but I wasn't happy with his ball-handling. Nothing big to worry about though.

Warnock finally got his act together in the second half.

I completely agree.

We have 4-5 key defenders, all with versitility and different strengths. It bodes well for the future.

Garland and Frawley in particular will be great weapons.

When playing on tall forwards they are quick enough to rebound off them, and still complete in the air. When taking smalls they are quick enough to stay with them on the lead, but tall enough to completely dominate them in the air.

Frawley is a perfect match up for Dangerfield next week

I would think that Joel MacDonald will be the benchmark Garland has to pass before he comes back into the side after the long layoff. Garland can fill that role, while also having half a dozen extra centimetres.

Which is good, because it means MacDonald will be playing knowing he has to keep it up.

The other one is Rivers - if everyone out there this week continues to perform, who comes out for Rivers to come in?

The only worry is the small, speedy defender. Even though Medhurst was held very well by Frawley, it would be great to see one of Bartram, Bell, Bennell, Jetta or Bail step up to be an absolute first-rate small defender for locking down the dangerous crumber. I've not included Strauss as I'm thinking more of that lock-down than the attacking defender role I expect will dominate Strauss' career.

Not to mention Macdonald, played very well. I think he will be our Campbell Brown

Not to mention Macdonald, played very well. I think he will be our Campbell Brown

Ugh! Don't mention that man. I hate him with every fibre of my being.

Ugh! Don't mention that man. I hate him with every fibre of my being.

haha, im quite the opposite. He's a Scotchy, and a very very good player, wears his heart on his sleave

The only worry is the small, speedy defender. Even though Medhurst was held very well by Frawley, it would be great to see one of Bartram, Bell, Bennell, Jetta or Bail step up to be an absolute first-rate small defender for locking down the dangerous crumber. I've not included Strauss as I'm thinking more of that lock-down than the attacking defender role I expect will dominate Strauss' career.

Our best small defender is Garland. He just happens to be 191cm tall as well though which is the bonus.

The way the boys took the ball out of defense on Saturday was noting like I have seen in years, you could just see the confidence oozing out of the boys

Ugh! Don't mention that man. I hate him with every fibre of my being.

Me too! In fact, I hate Hawthorn - they cost us flags in the 80's. Astroholes.

The only worry is the small, speedy defender. Even though Medhurst was held very well by Frawley, it would be great to see one of Bartram, Bell, Bennell, Jetta or Bail step up to be an absolute first-rate small defender for locking down the dangerous crumber. I've not included Strauss as I'm thinking more of that lock-down than the attacking defender role I expect will dominate Strauss' career.

Can probably add Cheney to that list, too...

I've not included Strauss as I'm thinking more of that lock-down than the attacking defender role I expect will dominate Strauss' career.

he has some weapons old straussy.. does anyone remember late in the game when the pressure was really on, the ball was in dispute with several players at our CHB, Straussy just did this little flick of the arm, that forced a little bounce pass that sat up perfectly for someone (Grimes?) who was running past. It was totally deliberate and showed brains and composure beyond his years. He has made some terrible blues in both matches but some fantastic things also, bit like Scully

I'm not not sure when Garland is ready to play but would you play him as a forward?

As we have a heaps of good key position backs fit and firing how would Garland get a game.

Frwaley smashed Medhurst. He beat and then literally smashed him in a couple of tackles. I am really liking his attack on the ball. The beauty about Frawley is that they are setting him to be our main defender, by the amount of size he is putting on and the jobs he gets. I think in the long run he will play on the #1 forwards.

Also like how he attacks the game, trying to run the lines and carry the ball out of defense. I know he made some handling errors last week, but they will improve with more confidence and experience from him and the team.

That being said, I think our version of Presty, Warnock will be the one to eventually miss out, just my opinion though. He is just a good, honest defender who pretty much gives us nothing in an attacking sense.

We all know Garland can play tall or small and so can MacDonald. I am not sure of the animosity towards him from some people, but I rate him. He shows experience and calmness back there, which we need amongst the young players. I would ratherhim down there than Bruce to be hnest as he is more reliable, is a better defender and I am not sure about Bruce's disposal/decision making.

In terms of small defenders I hope we can develop people like Cheney, Bennell, Bail, Strauss to be flexible enought to play all over the ground and on specific match ups, such as the weekend gone.

That being said, I think our version of Presty, Warnock will be the one to eventually miss out, just my opinion though. He is just a good, honest defender who pretty much gives us nothing in an attacking sense.

I thought that too until the weekend, but I made him a focus of my attention and was surprised at the number of defensive 50 clearances he was involved in. Not just "clearances," but productive, creative, goal scoring rebounds. For me, it was actually Frawley who surprised me by his rock-solid defensiveness.

I thought that too until the weekend, but I made him a focus of my attention and was surprised at the number of defensive 50 clearances he was involved in. Not just "clearances," but productive, creative, goal scoring rebounds. For me, it was actually Frawley who surprised me by his rock-solid defensiveness.

unfortunately one of those defensive 50 clearances was a handball to Leon Davis which cost us the game

unfortunately one of those defensive 50 clearances was a handball to Leon Davis which cost us the game

I thought Matthew Bate cost us the game. Or maybe it was Bail. Or Bailey. Or the umpires. Or Bennell. Or Bruce. Or McDonald. Or Jamar. Or . . .

A hundred things happen in a game of footy. Why pick out the bad things a person does at the end of a game when they did so many good things earlier? And this goes for everyone.

And besides, I don't count a handball over the 50 metre line to the opposition as a "clearance" anyway. If you gained anything by getting it out of scoring range, you almost immediately lose it by giving the ball straight back to your opponents so they can set it up again or waste time. That's why I really judge people harshly if they're inaccurate when kicking for goal. If you kick a behind, you essentially cost your team a goal that they worked so hard to set up, and you give the ball straight to your opposition so that they can get it out of your dangerous area and set up their own attack. Sometimes, it can cost your team 11 points (5 for the goal you missed and 6 for the goal your opponent might score on the rebound). I'd much rather hang on to the ball if at all possible. But of course then you risk losing possession for no reward.

Edited April 6, 201015 yr by Chook