The Chazz

Was it us loyal fans that gave him a bronx cheer when it looked like he kicked it on the full from the centre to the southern stand wing, only to find that it hit a Hawks player on the [censored]? I only heard it on TV, and made the same cheer, until the camera showed a Hawk mark! I had the sound up really loud, so unless it was the Hawthorn supporters cheering such a well directed miss-kick, it may have been some signal interference coming from the Bald [censored] Transmitter (Brisbane, not Bruce). Was a nothing thread yesterday and it still hasn't changed.

Sadly, if he were to play Full Forward, the expectations of some supporters would be unrealistic. If I were Bailey (thank god I'm not!), I'd have a target of kicking 20 goals for the season, and I would also set a target for the small forward to kick 20 goals from direct roving off Stef's marking contests, but make both aware of each others targets. At least that way Stef will know if he is not in a position to mark (outnumbered, coming from 3 back, or whatever), he has to create a contest and get the ball on the ground for his rover. Can you imagine Aussie crumbing off contests that are 20m out from goal? Milne does it perfectly. In all honesty, it's probably the easiest job on the field, especially if you have the ability that Aussie does.

This is my point Power, but so many that have replied are failing to see (not saying you are)! I, too, predict Max will be our premiership ruckman in life after 2014. But, until then, a lot of our success over the coming 3+ years depends on Jamar. He is in AA form again, and is in the prime of his career, so we can't replace him. But at what stage do we get games in to his replacement, and how do we go about doing it? The premiership sides of every year generally have a ruckman that would be in the top 5 ruck of the league for that year. I realise that every player is different, but it too Jamar 80 games or so to start playing consistently well. If we work on that theory, we need to start pumping games in to his potential replacement now, so that by the time 2015+ comes around, and Jamar is approaching the end, we will have an experienced replacement. So, how do we get senior games in to say Max Gawn now, so that he is around that 80-game mark in 2014ish? With the new sub rule, I think we have to seriously look at playing him at deep Full Forward. I know that totally contradicts what I said in the Stef Martin thread, so maybe I readjust my thinking with Stef and get him playing at CHF this year. I still think Watts would benefit from the next 2 years on the wing, just so he learns to be more accountable, and it will also get him playing/learning the defencesive part of his game. We wil lnot win the flag this year, and we will not win the flag next year. If we fasttrack some of development in the way I suggested above, there is no reason that 2013 can't be a year where we might snag one earlier than expected.

The report said that Davis has returned to near full training I thought? Morton must come back through Casey. Then straight in for the GC game to get confidence. Are we able to rest Garland this week if we bring back MacDonald or would our match-ups not allow this? I know they have Clark as a big forward, not sure who else. I don't think you can chance taking a non-100% fit player in with the reduced pine space. If we can have a bit of injury luck over the next 2 weeks in both seniors and reserves teams, we'll almost have a fully fit list to chose from come first week back from the bye.

God help him if he puts in a substandard performance - this site will go in to meltdown (not in the "untouchables" category yet poor Stef). I can proudly put my chest out and say that I have been driving the Stef Martin bandwagon for years. My my campaign for Stef is to see him play Full Forward. People are whinging about his (in)ability to kick straight, meaning he shouldn't be a forward, but if that's his negatives, I'd rather him not kicking straight up forward rather than down back! By the way, I think this is an absolute imbecilic attitude that some people have, but each to their own. I think the new sub rule has given Stef an opportunity to play Round 1, and he hasn't let us down. As a result, he is now being picked on form rather than becuase of a rule change, good on you Stef. If the AFL decide that common sense wil lprevail and they scrap that sub rule next year, I'd like to think that Stef has landed a Full Forward position, and that we can use the new/old 4th bench spot on Gawn/Spencer/etc. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, I get very frustrated when people say that Stef should be a defender. In the correct order, our best tall defenders are Frawley, Garland and Rivers. We have a couple of kids coming through that will put pressure on Rivers in a couple of years. Where does Stef fit in to the backline? Is he better than Rivers? I'd argue that with anyone (which could be dangerous becuase half this site don't rate Rivers). With Lucas Cook a couple of years away, Fitzpatrick more of an unknown, in my opinion Stef HAS to play deep Full Forward. A forward line of Martin, Jurrah and Watts as our keys, and Petterd and hopefully Wona (providing he can get in form and stay there!), it's a bloody hard forward line to match up on - especially when Dunn has shown in recent times that he can find enough of the footy to have an impact on the scoreboard.

Think it would be a mistake bringing Morton straight in to the seniors. Has missed a lot of footy (I realise he will still have his fitness). I think playing an underdone player on the weekend in Frawley showed that nothing competes with match fitness. The next 2 weeks will determine for me just how much we have improved. These would be 2 games that we inked in (not penciled) at the start of the year. We have a history of losing the games we should win, even last year against the Weagles, so, if we have developed like I htink we have, these will be 2 wins.

My opinion is that Davey did the right thing. After working as hard as they did to get that lead, the Hawks were coming in the last 5 monutes of tha tquarter, and could have potentially gone in level at half time if play kept flowing how it was starting to. That would have deflated a lot of our players had it happened.

No, just trying to understand how you can expect a ruckman that has spent 5 years in the reserves, to come in to a team that is having a crack at a premiership, that has played minimal AFL games if any, and expect him to be capable of carrying us to win a flag as our first preference ruck.

Simple really isn't it??!! I think Macdonald can play that role quite well, especially if Tapscott is played on the other flank. JMac's disposal is no worse than Grimes'.

So, we have to wait for Jamar to lose form (not gunna happen for a while), get injured (see previous) or retire (2015) until we get to see Max or Jake again?

It's a confidence and maturity thing for most of our players, and a lack of leadership for others. Over the next fortnight, if can win both games how we would expect, playing our game plan, it will build belief in the team. geelong had one game plan for years, it nearly saw the coach sacked, but once it clicked, other teams had to change their style to try and stop them. Collingwod are the same now, and hopefully it will be our turn in 3 years. We saw what it can do against the Swans last year, and we saw what it can do against Hawthorn in the 2nd quarter. It's there, and I thknk we can thank the coach for that. It's up to the players to be able to execute it on a consistent basis. At this stage though, I think it's a very demanding plan (ie lots of running), so it we have players slightly underdone, or flat (as was the case yesterday) we get caught out.

Old fashioned.

This is my point! At what stage do YOU think we should introduce them and how should we go about it? Martin is in there now, but is he going to be our number 1 ruck when Jamar isn't? What are they waiting for? If Jamar is AA for the next 4 years, he will stay as our 1st choice. Problem is that he is going to see 1 or 2 seasons where we all will be expecting success, but then he will be gone. Do you expect a 100 game Scorpion player to come in and make an impact? Just being proactive! Where are our bigger issues? Our inexperienced midfield? Our senior players that played stood up the week before, but had a shocker yesterday? The fact we don't have a strong, tall forward? Our inability to break a defensive zone (see "inexperienced midfield" and "senior players having a shocker" points earlier)?

Yeah, the sub rule is a pain in the ass for this exact reason. That's my concern - go in thinking we can get away with playing Jamar until he retires, which will be 2014-2016 one would think, but then that is right when our window will be at its most extended. what do we do then - trade for a ready-made ruckman, or start from scratch? With all the talk of still needing a big forward, it makes reasonable sense that we look at this now, especially with the sub rule. I'd like to think that Gawn (or similar) can do a job at FF, while Jamar plays out his next 5 years. Then, they can slot straight in to the ruck after the Russian exits, and during that time, it's up to Fitzy or Lucas Cook to show that they are the real deal, and could play that bigger forward/2nd ruck role. Nb. When I say Gawn can do a job, the job I have for him in our team is to kick 15 goals for the year, learn the way the seniors play it, and relive the ruck while learning from playing against some of the best in the business.

Sorry E, thought I made my opinion of Martin clear. I don't think Martin will be the player that will be our first preference ruckman. As you said, a great back up, but I think he is of more benefit in other roles. So you believe that Martin will be Number 1 ruck, and Gawn/Spencer will play the back-up ruck when Jamar is gone? More than happy to take your opinion on board. What is it that I want? People's opinions, so you've made my day, thanks! In terms of the team, I personally want Gawn playing full forward for the rest of the year, Martin to play CHF (or defense depending on match ups), Watts on a wing, Jurrah in a pocket, Aussie in the other pocket, Dunn on a flank and Petterd on the other flank. Gawn can play 2nd ruck with Jamar resting at FF. Do this over the next 2 or 3 seasons, so then when we are a chance to challenge, we have 2 strong ruck options in Jamar and Gawn (with Gawn having 80 odd games played), Martin to make a KPF his prime spot, and Watts has provided us with run, especially while he still lighter and can do it with more ease. Jurrah will still kick our goals, and Aussie will crumb off Gawn all day. We targeted Hale in the trade period for a specific reason, but didn't get him. So does that mean we have to change our structure becuase we didn't get a certain player?

One interesting fact about Geelong, probably public knowledge to some degree, but this came from the inner sanctum at [censored] Park, in 2007 Thompson was to be sacked before the mid-season had the Cats not improved. According to wikipedia, the Club met at the end of 2006 to decide his fate, but opted to keep him for stability reasons only. So, contrary to the media reports/club announcement that he was safe for 2007, he WAS to be sacked in 2007. Obviously, as history shows, the won the flag and the rest is history. Their superdraft was 2003. So it wasn't until those players (Ablett, Bartel, Kelly, etc) were in to their 4th full season of AFL until they turned it on and become dominant. They won the preseason cup the year before that. Our superdraft is obviously the 2009 draft, where we, like geelong, drafted virtually an entire midfield core of top players in the one year. So, futher proof that we will continue to struggle over the next 2 years! I know, I know, broken record stuff, sorry to those that understand.

Absolutely agree, and has made a cracking start to the season, good on him. So do we sit and wait until Jamar is 30-ish, then find a true, full time replacement? Which would mean we are going in to the post-Russian era with a rukman that's played 20 senior games? Martin can become our Goodes-type player, if he's half as good as him that would be great! Sydney still generally play with 2 rucks + Goodes.

I mentioned this in a different thread, but believe it's worth of it's own discussion. We have one of the best Ruckman in the league. Regardless of our clearance stats, we are generally winning the hit out count, which means Jamar is getting first touch. If he can find the tap work that crippled Sydney in Round 1, he could again find himself as an AA. So, with that in mind, who will be our Premiership Ruckman? Obviously we drafted Big Max 2 years ago, and have also been developing Spencer. My concern is that when I think we are going to start to push for top 4, which will be most likely 2013+, Jamar is starting to get on a bit in age. In 2014, when we are hopefully a genuine contender, Russian will be 31 years old. This year he will play his 100th game, so roughly at the start of his AA year, he had racked up approx 80 games. Injuries have hindered his career at various stages. My question is who is going to be our premiership ruckman? Obviously if we were to win it in 2014, Jamar at 31 will probably be it. But what if it takes a couple more years than that? Collingwood traded for Jolly last year, was quite dominant, and turned 29. You would expect that they picked him up with the hope that they would get 3 years out of him (meaning he will be 32-ish at the end of his career). Also, the fact that we don't have a big bodied full forward that most, including myself, think we need, is it time that we unleash Maxy, Spencer or whoever puts their hand up, with the view that they will one day be our Premiership Ruckman, but in the mean time, provide that bigger body up forward that we dearly lack? Let's say we try Maxy. Plays his first game this year, by the time 2014 comes around, he'll have around 80 games to his name (same amount as Jamar started with last year). In this time, opposition coaches will have to use one of their taller defenders on a 208cm giant. If they don't pay him any respect (ie put a taller defender on him, which is generally their better defender), regardless of his age, he will punsih them in a one on one. To make it easier for some of us to understand, using our defenders, who would you line up on a forward line consisting of Gawn, Jurrah, Watts, Petterd, Dunn and a small (let's say Aussie for the arguement)? In 2014, Max will be 23 years old. I look at opposition teams that have gone through similar rebuilds that we have, and the obvious one is Carlton. They played Kreuzer virtually the year after he was drafted. They also paid very big dollars to get Warnock. I question why? What structure are they going to have in place to warrant having both Kreuzer and Warnock playing in the same team? 2 designated ruckman, both on big dollars. The answer is quite simple, especially with the sub rule this year - one will play full forward. Warnock is still developing, but has about 40 games to his credit, and is 24 years old. Suffered injuries most of last year, and also come from Fremantle where he was developing in Sandilands shadow. Kreuzer is 21 and has played 50+ games. When he comes back from injury, he will be in the team along with Warnock. So, am I a year too early with my thinking that we need to blood a new ruckman this year? What harm is there in playing a Gawn or Spencer this year at Full Forward, that can have exposure to the ruck work when Jamar has a rest at Full Forward? The Gold Coast have no option but to play their first/second year ruck stocks this year, but if anyone saw their game on the weekend, you can quite easily tell that they will only get better and better, and in 3 years, they look like they will have a couple of handy talls. Spencer is 22 and has played 8 games. Is it time to put him in for the rest of the year and give him every opportunity to develop as an AFL footballer? As much as we hate to admit it, 2011 still is a development year for the Club. We do have expecations that we will win more games this year than last. Would it be a step backwards by introducing this type of position now, with an eye on the future beyond 2013? What's the worst that can happen? If we go with Max, maybe his body isn't quite up for it, however it's not like he's playing no football at all. With that in mind, do we go for Spencer - his old enough and big enough, so why can't he? I'm not a fan of his, I think his skills are terrible, but if he knew he had 20 games where he had immunity, would he grow? I'd bloody hope so. If not, again, what have we lost? I am a big fan of Martin, but am unsure if he has the ability to play as our Premiership Ruckman. If he continues to improve, hell, he might just be our Premiership Full Forward while Gawn/Spencer are our Premiership Ruck.

Reality check for all the Bruce lovers... What position did he play last year and who plays in it this year? Apart from pumping our "avg games played" total, what have we lost?

There is always at least someone to kick to. they could be a player that is 20m away right on the boundary line, deep in the pocket. Opposition teams leave a bloke open there because it's in a "dead" spot on the ground (meaning they are forced wide down the wing, or have to kick back to the goal square to try and break the zone). This is my arguement with Grimes; the fact that he is incompetent at hitting this type of target on a consistent basis. These kicks, whilst under no pressure in terms of getting tackled (becuase he is kicking out), does require him to hit a relatively small target so of course there is some pressure. I cringe when he is in this situation, as I have zero confidence in his ability to do this. What I don't understand is why hasn't he improved this area of his game, considering it has been a flaw for the entire 28 of them? It has nothing to do with development from a coaching point of view. My expectation of Grimes would be extra training, which should be done in his own time, with a bag of footballs and a rubbish bin. And he should sit there for 30 mins or an hour, 2 or 3 nights a week, and practice kicking it in to the bin. I can't confirm if he does this, but I can assure you, if I knew that was a deficiency in my game, and I was a full time footballer, I'd owe it to my Employer to go out and change things. The best part, he wouldn't have to do it on his own becuase Colin Garland could easily join him. I can remember a story about Scully as a junior where spent a few hours on a Sunday arvo doing something similar. The story was that he missed a target on his wrong foot, so he went out the next day (might have even been after the game) and spent a couple of hours kicking on that footy. That's the level of commitment I want from Jack if he wants to be a future leader of this Club. Harsh? Maybe, but we're serious about being the best team of the decade. The best teams put in the extra miles.

I don't agree with this with the current board, FD, etc. They have been quite public in their expectations of the Club. we are currently in phase 2 of the process, which is the "In the Game" phase. few could argue that against Sydney and Hawthorn, we were in the game at half time. In previous years, especially against quality sides, we haven't been in the game at half time. I think yesterday, we tried so hard to be in the game at half time, that we ran out of puff. Add another preseason of weights and fitness training, we might have been still in the game at 3/4 time. This is by no means accepting that if we are in the game at half time, then our work is done. we saw what it meant to be in the game against Sydney, we held our nerve and fought back. Yesterday, we didn't. It wont be often this year where we will be 27 points up in the 2nd quarter and have out opponents dominate a half like Hawthorn did yesterday. I guess it's your perception of the targets that are made public. Win more quarters, increase our inside 50's and be in the game at half time. So far, we have got 2 out of 3, so I think we're on track so far (bit hard to tell considering it's only round 2!). But I can understand why that's not enough for some people (that's not a criticism).

Is it that they aren't presenting or is it that our kick-ins take too long and our players are manned-up on by the time Grimes (or Garland) decide to bring the ball in to play? I think his biggest problem kicking out is that he is so focused on not making a mistake, that he is missing early opportunities and as a result, the opposition set their zones and apply that forward pressure that we don't like. It's clear that Tappy is playing back because of his, becuase if there are no options, he kicks to himself, and bombs it to about 65m out. This is why the Inside 50's stat is quite misleading (to some degree). If we kick out to 55m, then the opposition spoil and punch it to 48m out, it's classed as an inside 50.

Do we know that it's not happening at our Club? Just because we don't publish it in the papers means that it's not happening? Do most of our supporters think that our entire Club accepts performances like that? What's the options, drop 8 players for being pathetic, or make required changes and give the remainder a chance to redeem themselves? The former would be making a statement for the community to see, or is not dropping players stopping the community from seeing what statements have been made behind the scenes?

Was not! In hindsight it didn't matter a toss. In the coming years, we will need to be able to do this (go defensive) if a team is gathering momentum, and reducing our lead (like Hawthorn were doing in the last 5 minutes of that quarter).

Interesting post. When Hawthorn won their flag, how old were those over 25's that you named? Add the other guys that were over 25 in that team too (ie Croad, Crawford). If we pick our best half dozen players or so, and when I say that, I mean players that could replace the ones listed above in the Hawks over 25's, how old are tehy and how long until they make an over 25's list? We have a few guys currently in that early 20's group that come 2014, will be over 25. They are Bail, Bartram, Petterd, Dunn, Frawley, Garland, Grimes, Jurrah, Martin, Sylvia, Aussie - not much midfield depth in this group compared to Hawthorn's. Out of this group, we we really need to have 3 or 4 that can step up and become an A-grader (not A+). So far, Grimes, Bail, Sylvia, Frawley and Jurrah may be them. At that stage, Scully, Trengove, Morton, Tapscott, Blease, Gysberts, Watts, they all have the potential to join that A-grade club (Scully will be A+), and will be around the 22-24 years old group. We need guys like Bennell, Jetta, and even Strauss to become very good players. I don't expect them to become A-graders, but if they can be consistently B+, that'll be fine. In 2014, Davey will be 31, Green 33, Jamar 31, Moloney 30 and Rivers 30. Based on that, we should be looking through that slightly opened window in 2014, but what an era it could be in the years after that. The one big thing I would change between now and then - bring in a 2nd ruckman ASAP (damn the stupid interchange rule changing this year). I know Martin is doing well, but I'd still rather see him at FF (or FB to keep some happy in here!). My point - Jamar will be there in 2014, but if it takes a couple more years to get there, he wont be a premiership ruckman. We saw how long it took him to develop, and in that time he played a fair bit of senior footy. I don't think Martin will ever be our Number 1 ruck, so I think it's sooner rather than later that we invest some game time in to our "Premiership Ruckman". Can we risk putting Gawn/Spencer at Full Forward to get games in to them now? Doing it now will mean by 2014 they will have 80-odd games of experience under their belt. keeping in mind, Jamar has played 90-something games to this year with injuries playing a part in his time. Look at Carlton, they played Kreuzer virtually in his first year, plus they have Hampson and Warnock both in their team now. Their window must be close to open. Thoughts...