I think I wrote about Howes playing as the third tall in our defensive system this year, and if he plays like he did the other night, it only strengthens my view.

But my overall point here is to win the flag this year, IMV, we need to give a little more defensively (in attacking rebound) to improve our offence without going too loosey goosey at the back.

Despite our poor contest result against Sydney, we know that contest and defence are our real strengths. The problem last year was our ball movement became too predictable and easy to defend entering 50, which fails to capitalise on our contested dominance in games.

What I want to see is more experimentation with personnel at the back and I'd be playing Howes as the third tall (191cm, essentially the same height as Curnow and JVR). And use Max to defend an extra third tall if necessary. But I'd be trying to get the ball to ground, winning contest with our mids and slingshotting with the likes of Bowey, McVee and Rivers, and using the pace of Windsor on the wings and Kozzy from stoppage. 

I'd set up our defence as follows:

McVee May Lever

Bowey Howes Rivers and... Melksham

Melksham will hopefully play during the second half of the season, and his kicking could be a weapon back there. Particularly, as we have McAdam and Fritta up the other end taking his spot.

This then allows Salem to play permanent midfield with Clarry, Viney, Sparrow and large cameos from Trac and later Kozzy.

I'd be pushing Bowey as high as possible and giving McVee that freedom too. 

With the exception of playing Tomlinson (who played pretty well against ordinary key forwards), I liked the look of how we set up defensively the other night, but we were mostly having to defend slingshot or fast breaks, rather than defending our own back 50 and slingshotting out.

I'd like more data on the bigger grounds and I hope we try Howes as the third tall and drop Tomlinson at some stage and give it some time to click if need be.

I feel there'd be many Demonlanders who agree with a more attacking focus, but if not Howes as the third tall who can join in on offence with good kicking and has a strong intercept game, what other solutions are there to the problem?

Edited March 10, 20241 yr by Binmans PA

Petty, Adams, Hore?

13 hours ago, defuture15 said:

Petty, Adams, Hore?

Petty is too important in the forward half, but if we were really struggling in game, he could go back.

I like what I've seen of Adams, but I see him more replacing May or Lever. He's not really that dynamic hybrid who is fleet of foot and a good kick.

Hore is a good interceptor, but I've never really liked the rest of his game, but you're right. He could potentially play the Tomlinson role.

You lost me at Melksham

I’d play Howes on one wing, Windsor on the other. Instruct our backs to switch play more and utilize the wingers pace and dare. Run our wingers into the ground. Keep our mids fresher and ready. 

24 minutes ago, KingDingAling said:

I’d play Howes on one wing, Windsor on the other. Instruct our backs to switch play more and utilize the wingers pace and dare. Run our wingers into the ground. Keep our mids fresher and ready. 

So none of Langdon's running power, experience and discipline?

You're then taking another kicker interceptor in Howes out of the back 7, so who's replacing him?

4 hours ago, Binmans PA said:

So none of Langdon's running power, experience and discipline?

You're then taking another kicker interceptor in Howes out of the back 7, so who's replacing him?

Hore. 

21 hours ago, Binmans PA said:

But my overall point here is to win the flag this year, IMV, we need to give a little more defensively (in attacking rebound) to improve our offence without going too loosey goosey at the back.

 

I think we will and have done this but only when we have our forward line back.

To me it would be a recipe for disaster with the current line up.

We were starting to do it last year when Petty was up and about for a few games.