Watts has arguably the best set shot for goal in the competitio ...yet we play him as a midfielder bloody ridiculous to me...we need him to put of 5kg of muscle and work on his strut.

  On 27/07/2015 at 22:41, Clint Bizkit said:

Again, I may have mentioned this many times before, but at centre bounces why do the forwards start 30 metres out from goal, why not in the goal square?

In a perfect world, your forwards are taking marks in front of goal about 20-30 metres out on a lead. If there is a quick kick out of a centre clearance and the forwards are already 30 metres out from goal when they set up, when they lead out they will be about 40-50 metres out from goal.

I would love someone to give me a logical explanation as to why this centre bounce formation is better.

Probably because the rushed kick out of the middle, which happens more than a well directed kick, will land about 35-40 from goal, right where they are waiting. If they start in teh goal square they wont make it there in time, unless it is for the good kick coming in, which is rarer in any side.

It is a bit like the old position of playing a kick behind the play.

  On 29/07/2015 at 06:31, Chris said:

Probably because the rushed kick out of the middle, which happens more than a well directed kick, will land about 35-40 from goal, right where they are waiting. If they start in teh goal square they wont make it there in time, unless it is for the good kick coming in, which is rarer in any side.

It is a bit like the old position of playing a kick behind the play.

Yes they will.

  On 29/07/2015 at 06:00, Henrietta Lumbago said:

Watts has arguably the best set shot for goal in the competitio ...yet we play him as a midfielder bloody ridiculous to me...we need him to put of 5kg of muscle and work on his strut.

Agreed

He should be kicking 20+ goals a year with ease

  On 29/07/2015 at 06:31, Chris said:

Probably because the rushed kick out of the middle, which happens more than a well directed kick, will land about 35-40 from goal, right where they are waiting. If they start in teh goal square they wont make it there in time, unless it is for the good kick coming in, which is rarer in any side.

It is a bit like the old position of playing a kick behind the play.

You might have a point regarding clearances from the post-goal bounces, but you'll find that there are only about 26 of those per game - meaning probably only about 10 max. per side actually come straight out of the middle into the 50 (the other 6 are secondary ball-ups, one side goes backwards before going forwards etc) So therefore, it is less than one-fifth of your inside-50s come directly from a centre bounce. Even so, the distance from the hotspot to the centre is about 75 metres, so it pretty much demands one extra possession in there, meaning there is ample time to get from the goalsquare to the hotspot even from a quick centre circle clearance. I'm a nerd aren't I.

Your forward setup would be incredibly easy to defend I feel, the opposition would quickly work out where the hotspot Hogan is supposed to be leading to is and fill the hole with a spare or simply implement a zone inside D50 effectively leaving us with no leading avenues and a bunch of players forming a wall on or just outside the 50m arc taking potshots from further out. I like the idea of using Howe and perhaps Hogan as well (if he can) as contested marking specialists inside forward 50 and having him roam around about 30-45m from goal waiting for a teammate to sit a ball on top of his opponents head once he's isolated one out with somebody where he can use that incredible leap to take marks over the top and have set shots from his range of about 35-45 out. I think our most effective forward structure is when the forward line is empty and we have Garlett sprinting towards goal with the ball coming in over the top of the defense.

  On 29/07/2015 at 06:00, Henrietta Lumbago said:

Watts has arguably the best set shot for goal in the competitio ...yet we play him as a midfielder bloody ridiculous to me...we need him to put of 5kg of muscle and work on his strut.

Not to mention he's not bad on the run either. He's been pretty good through the middle although his disposals were as untidy as they've ever been last week. He should at least be positioned inside 50 more. He's only playing 75-80% game time which suggests he's always going off rather than resting forward

  On 29/07/2015 at 07:38, Je Roos Salem said:

Not to mention he's not bad on the run either. He's been pretty good through the middle although his disposals were as untidy as they've ever been last week. He should at least be positioned inside 50 more. He's only playing 75-80% game time which suggests he's always going off rather than resting forward

Fair bit of head scratching going on as to why it hasnt worked having him up forward..as our midfield develops i would like to see him up forward because with his set shot he should be able to kick a bag of goals.

  On 29/07/2015 at 07:31, leucopogon said:

Your forward setup would be incredibly easy to defend I feel, the opposition would quickly work out where the hotspot Hogan is supposed to be leading to is and fill the hole with a spare or simply implement a zone inside D50 effectively leaving us with no leading avenues and a bunch of players forming a wall on or just outside the 50m arc taking potshots from further out. I like the idea of using Howe and perhaps Hogan as well (if he can) as contested marking specialists inside forward 50 and having him roam around about 30-45m from goal waiting for a teammate to sit a ball on top of his opponents head once he's isolated one out with somebody where he can use that incredible leap to take marks over the top and have set shots from his range of about 35-45 out. I think our most effective forward structure is when the forward line is empty and we have Garlett sprinting towards goal with the ball coming in over the top of the defense.

There's more than one forward other than Hogan. If teams drop numbers back you just match it so they don't play loose (see the Geelong game).

  On 29/07/2015 at 07:31, leucopogon said:

Your forward setup would be incredibly easy to defend I feel, the opposition would quickly work out where the hotspot Hogan is supposed to be leading to is and fill the hole with a spare or simply implement a zone inside D50 effectively leaving us with no leading avenues and a bunch of players forming a wall on or just outside the 50m arc taking potshots from further out. I like the idea of using Howe and perhaps Hogan as well (if he can) as contested marking specialists inside forward 50 and having him roam around about 30-45m from goal waiting for a teammate to sit a ball on top of his opponents head once he's isolated one out with somebody where he can use that incredible leap to take marks over the top and have set shots from his range of about 35-45 out. I think our most effective forward structure is when the forward line is empty and we have Garlett sprinting towards goal with the ball coming in over the top of the defense.

It really is a touch annoying to have to point out multiple times in one thread that somebody's point has already been mentioned in the OP, exposing the fact they didn't even read it.

I already covered this point. You say it is 'simple' to defend for them, well as I've already pointed out, when you put a loose man in the backline you don't get to pull a 19th man off the bench. If they drop a man in front of Hogan, that means somebody, somewhere else is free. Anticipate that they WILL make this counter and immediately double-counter it by swinging into plan 'B' - whereby we utilise this free man as a loose attacker.. if they have gone to a 5-man forwardline then bring the free defender up the field to HF, thereby our defense is now 5-on-5. We can engineer it (by shuffling) so the loose attacker is someone with good skills who doesn't mind a ping, say Tyson, Watts or Vince, then in theory he should be all by himself around CHF while his man is double-teaming Jesse. If there is a 2-on-1 for Jesse then there is a 2-on-1 on the HF line somewhere in our favour.

If you talk about them making a 'zone' in there all you are saying is they are not only double teaming but 3 or 4 teaming Jesse, meaning they are leaving even more of our half-forwards unmanned and free to do as they please with the ball around 50 - the enemy can't afford to do this, do you really think you would see 4 or more defenders inside 50 minding Garlett and Hogan while we have 2 or more spare players running around upfield doing as they please? If that is their strategic response, then please, by all means, let them do this because we will just be streaming in under no pressure from the 40-50 metre out region all day.

edit: also, your second chunk of words seems to desribe exactly what I am trying to achieve which is to give Hogan and Garlett space to do their thing - yet apparently you are disagreeing with me?

  On 29/07/2015 at 07:46, Henrietta Lumbago said:

Fair bit of head scratching going on as to why it hasnt worked having him up forward..as our midfield develops i would like to see him up forward because with his set shot he should be able to kick a bag of goals.

Probably because we have an "elephant in the 50" who wants their paycheck to be honoured.

  On 29/07/2015 at 07:13, Curry & Beer said:

You might have a point regarding clearances from the post-goal bounces, but you'll find that there are only about 26 of those per game - meaning probably only about 10 max. per side actually come straight out of the middle into the 50 (the other 6 are secondary ball-ups, one side goes backwards before going forwards etc) So therefore, it is less than one-fifth of your inside-50s come directly from a centre bounce. Even so, the distance from the hotspot to the centre is about 75 metres, so it pretty much demands one extra possession in there, meaning there is ample time to get from the goalsquare to the hotspot even from a quick centre circle clearance. I'm a nerd aren't I.

The comment I replied to was talking about centre bounces. Hence the reply. Otherwise I agree, they should be further back.

Watts isn't a strong mark. Particularly, on a leader under pressure. He's better on a wing. He's just started playing good, consistent footy and people want to move him again. He's a great decision maker, with excellent skills. Allow him to create across the wings.