Play Jack Viney forward

[Lil_red_fire_engine 11,234]

Jack should play as high half forward to in the right games pushes to the stoppage as an additional midfielder. That aside he would be one of the best pressure specialists in the game and would maximise our inside 50 containment. It also minimises impact on his body for second half of year and shorter turnarounds. This to me is a fab 2020 idea as all 4 horseman will be needed once we get back to standard quarter lengths in 2021.

 

[DeeZee 7,445]

I don’t see it a such a big deal.

We have four very good mids in Viney , Petracca, Oliver and Brayshaw.

All we have to do is start one forward and rotate them all through that position.

They are all very capable of kicking goals.

Edited August 11, 2020 by DeeZee

[PaulRB 6,411]

I think this is a "problem" (i.e. too many similar mids) for 2018 only, due to the 16 min quarters of this years games.  Next year, I assume it goes back to 20 min quarters and our stable of Mids works more seamlessly. Also given the contested nature of the game and our game style in particular, may be that when we have we have fewer young players needing rest time, our mids rotate off the pine, rather than another position on the ground.

That said, I think all the mids should have preferred second position on the ground, and it make sense that Viney's second position is up forward (same as Petracca). A side questions is where are Oliver's and Brayshaw's secondary positions..? 

Also, there appears to be an undue amount of "long term" thinking being derived from our efforts against the two worst teams in the comp, especially re- Viney Vs Brayshaw, which I don't believe to be a large enough and reliable enough dataset to make such long term decisions from.

As always, in Goody I trust.

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,765]

7 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Some really well constructed arguments above.  It was terrific to read.

However, this is still how I feel about it, even with the opening few posts taken into account:

Jack Viney is terrific in the guts.  Yes, he might be a little one eyed in how he goes about it (see ball, get ball), but when he is on, he is just the sort of player who can turn a quarter for us, or help to will us over the line.  Oliver and Trac are starting to develop those traits on a consistent basis, but I think our issue is more to do with how we run players through the middle, than playing Viney forward.

However, I see the benefit in playing Viney forward for resting purposes.  Why can't he play 7-10 minutes there a term, putting on pressure (and with Jack down there much of it will be implied pressure - just having him there will have oppo defenders worried!) and hitting the scoreboard?  He can rotate a little with Trac, or even Clarry, to do this as I see the benefits it will bring.

But I still lay the issue at the feet of all our midfielders and our coaching group.  Why can't we look at ways to make all four of our premium mids (Trac, Oliver, Gus and Viney) co-exist on a more consistent basis?  We do have the capacity to rotate players in different positions more - three of the above can play forward, although I worry for someone like Gus as I don't really think he can play anywhere but in the midfield.

Some good points to consider, though.  Bringing Viney back into the side should make us better, not take anything away from the three guys who were in there for most of the game against North.  Very interested to see how we go over the next few weeks, but I don't think sending Viney forward for the majority of the game is the answer.

Good post and I agree with pretty much everything you've said. 

However, I still think it's glossing over a difficult decision a little. 

Just throwing midfielders forward to help rotations sounds easy enough but it has knock on effects for our forward setup, not to mention we have no evidence to suggest any of those mids can play forward, other than Petracca.

It would be experimental, at best, and would need to happen incrementally to work out who is capable of what.

Gee, I wish we had another 1-2 genuine small forwards. It really feels to me like this is the missing ingredient that would have the ball living in our front half. Get that right and how many kicks Brayshaw and Harmes get, won't matter a pinch!

[Wiseblood 24,637]

1 minute ago, Cheesy D. Pun said:

Good post and I agree with pretty much everything you've said. 

However, I still think it's glossing over a difficult decision a little. 

Just throwing midfielders forward to help rotations sounds easy enough but it has knock on effects for our forward setup, not to mention we have no evidence to suggest any of those mids can play forward, other than Petracca.

It would be experimental, at best, and would need to happen incrementally to work out who is capable of what.

Gee, I wish we had another 1-2 genuine small forwards. It really feels to me like this is the missing ingredient that would have the ball living in our front half. Get that right and how many kicks Brayshaw and Harmes get, won't matter a pinch!

Good point there.

The only thing I will say is that, on occasion, we have put Oliver forward and he hasn't done too badly.  He is deceptively good above his head.  However, he would play the role different to what we would want of Viney, which might be a problem.  I see no issue rotating one through the interchange either to give them a rest and allowing the other three a run at it through the middle of the ground.  

It's a good conundrum to have, though.  At least the discussion is around how we fit these terrific mids in together, and not looking at recruiting more or asking questions why we play average players through there.

[Demon trucker 1,800]

I was thinking the same, Viney rest up forward, Bradshaw in the middle, second half against Adelaide showed they both can play in the same team. Viney could easily become the next lethal, they are both strong and tough and hard  to match up on.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

34 minutes ago, DeeZee said:

I don’t see it a such a big deal.

We have four very good mids in Viney , Petracca, Oliver and Brayshaw.

All we have to do is start one forward and rotate them all through that position.

They are all very capable of kicking goals.

Spot on. All 4 of them give us a different kind of look up forward and have shown themselves capable of kicking goals.

It's also a pretty handy way for one of them to break a tag as needed.

[grazman 7,451]

Viney is first and foremost a midfielder, but one of the problems with the game plan is that we still lack enough defensive fotwards to continually lock the ball in the forward line. 

Viney is ranked as elite for stoppage clearances, contested possessions and goal assists. If it helps balance the side for him to spend more time forward it's worth a go.

[nosoupforme 3,085]

2 hours ago, Ham said:

I rate the idea of trying him up forward.
Our midfield benefits with Brayshaw in and under.
Viney can and needs to used elsewhere. 

Viney can play in the middle when needed depending on the type of opposition we play. With the better midfield teams you need someone to combat the better type mid. However he can be rotated through the forward line  and could become an advantage point.

Lets see how we go when playing the much better sides.

[Axis of Bob 11,853]

I think it's probably more about playing him more often in the forward line, than making him a forward. He's a proud player who has won B&Fs and just lost the captaincy. The last thing you want to do is give him implied reinforcement that his value is diminishing in the club.

He usually plays lower minutes than most midfielders, so I would be telling him that we want to have him on the ground for longer, so he's going to do more minutes up forward, especially during the condensed fixture and given his importance once finals come around. He'll have success up forward so you'll be able to play him more up forward as the numbers show his quality up there. 

He's also a player that you want around the footy in big games and at big moments. His power and aggression in stoppages and around the ground is really, really valuable in finals. He was the leading contested ball winner in two of our finals in 2018 (on both teams) and he plays well when the pressure steps up.

I'd play him as a 50/50 mid/forward. But in big games he still plays mainly midfield for mine. His power and aggression around the contest wins finals.

[Ham 741]

28 minutes ago, nosoupforme said:

Viney can play in the middle when needed depending on the type of opposition we play. With the better midfield teams you need someone to combat the better type mid. However he can be rotated through the forward line  and could become an advantage point.

Lets see how we go when playing the much better sides.

I agree, but Viney this year has proven that he can adapt, when his disposal was poor out of the middle, he fixed it.

Brayshaw has been tried in another position and has proven he CANNOT do it, he needs to be in and under. 

As many have pointed out, 2018 we had a lack of Viney, meanwhile Brayshaw was exceptional and finished 3rd in the brownlow.

The writing is very clearly on the wall. 

[Fat Tony 5,272]

My view is that they all need to rotate through the forward line and/or wing. I would also add James Harmes into the mix here, as I don't think he is really suited to half back and is better suited to forward, mid and wing.

The mix could look something like this:

Petracca 55% mid, 25% forward

Brayshaw 60% mid, 15% wing

Viney 60% mid, 15% forward

Oliver 70% mid, 5% forward

Harmes 55% mid, 15% forward, 10% wing

Langdon 90% wing

VDB (or other wing) 85% wing

The advantages of this are 1) we get fresher legs in the midfield; and 2) our players can hopefully develop second roles.

The other option is to play Petracca as a midfielder in the centre bounce but then swing him forward almost straight away. This is what the Tigers do with Dusty and seems to work for them.

[dl4e 5,851]

You need 4 midfielders. Oliver, Brayshaw, Viney and TRAC. One on the bench or at worst rotate Viney and TRAC down forward. There will come the ugly time of injuries as well.

[old55 23,705]

Maybe 50-50 forward-mid is the right compromise. On the weekend we had Oliver 85% game-time, Petracca 83% (and some of that can be forward) and Brayshaw 80% - that still leaves 50% midfield game-time to be filled.

[Grr-owl 1,253]

I like the idea. Doing it helps solve the Brayshaw dilemma. There’s a new Robert Ludlum novel in that....

[Bay Riffin 1,480]

I would have Viney forward and rotating with Oliver, so we always have one of them in the guts. Increase Brayshaws minutes in the middle, potentially Petraccas as well and Harmes more midfield minutes and get him back to run with roles.

A forward line with Viney/Oliver,  Kossie, Bennell, Melksham, Fritsch, Hannan to add to the talls should do some serious damage.

 

This team should be doing more but Goodwin has to change things up a bit.

Edited August 11, 2020 by Bay Riffin

[Dr. Gonzo 24,305]

3 hours ago, Cheesy D. Pun said:

I don't mind this.

We really only have 3 plausible choices here:

1. Play Viney forward

2. Trade Viney

3. Continue to play Brayshaw out of position

You can see why the coaching staff have gone the way they have - it's a very tough call.

Also, number 1 is a chance of causing number 2.

We will never trade Viney and he will never walk in FA. I can't believe some think it is a genuine possibility, he is red and blue through and through.

[Adam The God 30,421]

2 hours ago, grazman said:

Viney is first and foremost a midfielder, but one of the problems with the game plan is that we still lack enough defensive fotwards to continually lock the ball in the forward line. 

Viney is ranked as elite for stoppage clearances, contested possessions and goal assists. If it helps balance the side for him to spend more time forward it's worth a go.

Agreed, but Viney also has no gear shift. It's on the whole time and it means he's always going first in for the ball when it isn't always prudent to do so.

Jack's a good midfielder, but he's nowhere near as clean or clever as Oliver (or Petracca for that matter). That's what it comes down to for me. 

[Adam The God 30,421]

52 minutes ago, Pollyanna said:

Maybe 50-50 forward-mid is the right compromise. On the weekend we had Oliver 85% game-time, Petracca 83% (and some of that can be forward) and Brayshaw 80% - that still leaves 50% midfield game-time to be filled.

The balance is someone like Sparrow too, which is why I'm mystified by his continued inclusion and I'm not sure he's offering much, despite what people have been saying. Does he play again or does he make way for Jack?

Goodwin sounded awkward and avoidant when asked about when Jack's 'concussion' was sustained. I reckon they wanted to try a system without Jack, so it suited to throw him forward in the 4th against Adelaide and then rest him against North.

I reckon there's a strong chance we get our wish this week or next and we start playing Viney forward.

[Pates 9,660]

4 hours ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

Behind Oliver and Petracca (going early on Trac), Viney probably rates as our third best mid of the last 20 years (and possibly longer). He's severely underrated by many on here. He's currently sitting 12th in the AFL coaches votes and on track for yet another top 5 finish in the Bluey. That said, we clearly need to find a way to boost Brayshaw's midfield minutes. 

Viney sharks the odd goal and has great defensive attributes, but I suspect he lacks the creativity, vision and skills overhead that good forwards have.

Happy to see him spend a bit more time in the forwardline to accommodate Brayshaw, but I think Viney will always play his best footy in the middle.

 

When he slows down he actually makes very good decisions, as for overhead he his actually a surprisingly good overhead mark. Against a player of similar size he rarely gets beaten and then like a cat tends to land on his feet. 

I think playing his in the HF area could definitely be something to consider, the only issue is does it upset the mix in the forward line? If we’re assuming right now that Weid, Jacko, Pickett, Melksham, and Fritta are walk up starts right now and we throw in Viney with AvB and Hannan who misses? The selection committee have already shown they really like AvB but I don’t know if you can have both him and Viney in the forward line. 

I am definitely of the thought that we should try Viney in a forward position though. 

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

5 hours ago, Pollyanna said:

I'm officially starting the #PlayJackVineyforward campaign. @A F and I have been banging on this drum for 2 years and I think now is the time to pull the trigger.

As everyone here knows, I'm a big Simon Goodwin fan and a big Jack Viney fan. 

Jack has been having a very good year in the midfield but the honest facts are that he's behind Christian Petracca and Clayton Oliver in the pecking order and he's very similar to Oliver in focus on first possession.  As has been widely discussed, the shorter quarters and season is providing less scope for midfield rotations and 3 starting mids instead of 4 is the current core requirement.  I think that Angus Brayshaw provides more of a point of difference in there and that Petracca, Oliver and Brayshaw is the go-to combination - another factor in this is that Angus has shown his breakaway from the stoppages delivers tremendous metres gained and he struggles to be effective elsewhere.

The facts are we're a developing team that's currently middle of the road and we need to make a quantum step to mix it with the best teams - the key problem has been our connection with the forward line but that has been improving with Weed's establishment.  Viney has all the attributes to make a real difference to converting our chances, locking it in and causing defender chaos balls if it does come back out.  He is incredible in the contest and has the rare ability to beat a couple of opponents that is required when outnumbered down there.  I laugh when I hear opposition supporters say he is slow - he is lightning over the first 3 metres, his tackling is legendary and opposition defenders will be crying themselves to sleep the night before playing us because if Jack doesn't get you, Kossie will and if you happen to escape the back 50 you'll run into Vanders.

Jack might see his move from the midfield as a demotion and might play angry - look out!  But the small forward role is glamour - I know he's a different type of player but think Robbie Gray. Toby Green and Cyril.  He can be a legend down there.

Come on Simon, you know it makes sense.

I'm all in on this.  About 70/30 feels right.

Would provide a hard edge needed up forward and might help pressure/lock the ball in a little more.

The odd goal or two wouldn't hurt either.

About 30% burst time in the middle to relieve Clarry/Tracc.  Sparrow to add a rotation assist to those two as well.  Melk plays the Gus role when he's resting.  Tracc can replace Viney's role when he comes in to the middle sometimes.

Keeps the opp guessing and we are giving them plenty of different looks and headaches.

[Axis of Bob 11,853]

 

10 minutes ago, A F said:

The balance is someone like Sparrow too, which is why I'm mystified by his continued inclusion and I'm not sure he's offering much, despite what people have been saying.

I think what Sparrow does is provide the counterbalance as a defensive minded mid. He lacks polish but not power and he's an excellent tackler. It's similar to what Harmes would do a few years ago. You need players like this to stop the opposition being able to take the ball unpressured out of the front of a stoppage. 

[Adam The God 30,421]

15 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

 

I think what Sparrow does is provide the counterbalance as a defensive minded mid. He lacks polish but not power and he's an excellent tackler. It's similar to what Harmes would do a few years ago. You need players like this to stop the opposition being able to take the ball unpressured out of the front of a stoppage. 

Fair enough. Sparrow laid 4 tackles against North, 2 tackles against Adelaide, 2 tackles against Port. If that's his role, I'd want a bit more out of him, ie higher tackle counts.

What I fail to understand is why Harmes couldn't play this position instead? He was elite at it.

[grazman 7,451]

46 minutes ago, A F said:

Agreed, but Viney also has no gear shift. It's on the whole time and it means he's always going first in for the ball when it isn't always prudent to do so.

Jack's a good midfielder, but he's nowhere near as clean or clever as Oliver (or Petracca for that matter). That's what it comes down to for me. 

Yeah sorry i was mentioning those stats not in a mdfield sense, but to demonstrate why Viney going forward would help the game plan.

Edited August 11, 2020 by grazman

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

25 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

 

I think what Sparrow does is provide the counterbalance as a defensive minded mid. He lacks polish but not power and he's an excellent tackler. It's similar to what Harmes would do a few years ago. You need players like this to stop the opposition being able to take the ball unpressured out of the front of a stoppage. 

I forgot to add... Harmes could and probably should be part of the mid/forward rotation combo of ....Viney / Tracc, Harmes & Melk.  Imagine the opp trying to counter those 4 very different style of player both through the middle, out of congestion and time spent forward.  This is the sort of headache you don't want as an opposing coach.