Two Talls is Surely Now Dead?

[Johnny Member]

I've always worried about Lyon's insistence on the 'two talls' thing which consistently did not work for us.

I even argued with a mate that the reason Hawthorn were battling was their reliance on 'two talls' in Roughead and Franklin.

It cost us in 2009 to a point when we tried to win the game by bombing it in to them - when everyone knew that Geelong thrive on that. They built their entire defence around the assumption that the opposition would 'bomb it in' to their talls.

It wasn't until Rouhghead went in to the ruck and then got injured, did Hawthorn suddenly find other avenues to goal and became a genuine contender again.


We saw it again today I reckon. And I think coaches must now surely put the outdated 'two talls in the forward line' thing to rest.

It was not working for Geelong. Collingwood were all over it. It wasn't until Podsiadly went off that they got on top. Infact, it happened almost immediately!

Even Collingwood, who happen to have one of the great duds of all time in Dawes as one of their 'two talls', actually rely on the smalls for their goals - contrary to popular belief.
I saw a stat that showed that they have about 6 small guys that average over 6 goals per week between them this year - but only averaged about 3 over the past month. And that's when they've started to look very vunerable.
Today was probably lower than that.



So what you do reckon? Are coaches going to finally scrap the 'two talls' thing and find more unpredictable ways to goal? I reckon this could be one of those moments in footy history where the door is ajar for someone to come along and catch the comp off guard with a new and 'outside the square' way to kick goals.

[saintsRrising]

I've always worried about Lyon's insistence on the 'two talls' thing which consistently did not work for us.

.

I though the Cats played two rucks in Ottens and West...and Hawkins and Pods?

Pods got injured...but so did Jolly.

Reid went into the game injured. Be interesting to see how Hawkins goes on a fit Reid next time. however Hawkins will still have another Premiership Medal regardless.


Question: If Cats had only played Pods their better forward today...would they still have won today without Hawkins taking all those marks in the second half?

[BushDave]

It might depend on how good the 'Two Talls' are in marking the ball and then kicking the goals?

[BigMart]

One tall....two talls....three talls....

Essendon had 4 in the 1984 premoership....merrett, dniher, vanderhaar, salmon

Doesnt matther....as long as they are good players and deliver is good

[Con Gorozidis]

Some valid points .

I reckon what u want in ur fwd line is 6 good players. The idea of having a second tall for the sake of it is dead. Especially if u have a big dud down there. But a little dud is also a dud. So - think we just need 6 good players.
But u can certainly survive with one tall.

Remember last year when roo went down we actually played great in those 10 weeks when we started finding multiple and different avenues to goal and used a smaller fwd line.

We actually played great footy then. Mids need to improve their options as well. Just bombing to a tall bloke is so easy to defend against.

[Con Gorozidis]

One tall....two talls....three talls....

Essendon had 4 in the 1984 premoership....merrett, dniher, vanderhaar, salmon

Doesnt matther....as long as they are good players and deliver is good

Well said. I just want a no passengers/no duds team rule.

[bennymac5]

2007: Cats, N Ablett and Mooney
2008: Hawks, Buddy and Roughead
2009: Cats, Mooney and Hawkins
2010: Pies, Cloke and Dawes
You can have two key forwards and a good goal spread by just not going to the talls every time.
Yes it worked for Geelong, but we are no Geelong. We do not have the goal spread that enables them to have one key forward. If we play Roo and no other talls next year we will be stuffed.

[BushDave]

What did Jack Dyer say....even when it rains the tall blokes don't get any shorter. They can still reach up with their long testicles (sic) and mark the ball.

[goodie]

Height's got nothing to do with it, it's all about delivery.

[bigcarl]

If we play Roo and no other talls next year we will be stuffed.

Yep. agree. We've got to find a way to remove the focus on him.

[OneEyedSainter77]

If we play Roo and no other talls next year we will be stuffed.

Yep. agree. We've got to find a way to remove the focus on him.

Is this where that Walsh bloke I've heard so much about on this forum comes in?

[Griggsy]

Talls are good in the forward line, but we can't afford them all to be so terrible at ground level. You can get away with 1, but if they all can not play around their feet it is hopeless. Unless Milne or Schneider were around anything on the floor was returned...given our delivery that was a lot of ball on the floor.

[dragit]

Considering nearly every side plays with at least 2 talls up forward you'd think it is pretty important. Say what you like about Kosi but he definitely takes a tall defender away from Roo.

Delivery & the quality of the talls is the important thing.

You won't find any top 4 side next year without 2 decent tall forwards I don't reckon...

[PJ]

2 good talls is definately not

2 average talls maybe

2 bad talls yes

[samoht]

Any big bodied forward (especially with core body strength) would have taken an unfit and lightly framed Reid apart yesterday.
Hawkins provided a significant mismatch.

Tarrant despite massive biceps also lacks body strength (he doesn't have big legs). Maxwell is the same.
The magpies lacked a big backman . which emphasises Nathan Brown's importance.

Taylor was also too light framed for Cloke (as we saw early on) .. but they had the bigger, stronger Lonergan to swing on to him which took Cloke right out of the game.

Dawson is similarly too light framed... Hawkins or Cloke would have taken Dawson apart too and won all the one on ones.

[Johnny Member]

Brad Scott was interviewed before the game, and he was asked about the biggest changes in the game since he played.

He said that since 05/06, the biggest change is that back then, everyone flooded back into theor backline to clog up their D50. Whereas now, everyone floods into their own F50 to clog it up and not let the ball out.

So, to 'bomb it in' to two talls, you generally want it open for them. Leave plenty of space for them, and get it in quickly.

These days, it just doesn't work. The opposition thrive on open D50's, it's where they setup their attack from.

If you clog up your own F50 with the press, then it's not open for the talls. If it's not open for the talls, then they pretty much have to outmark 15 people to take a grab and be effective.

If you don't clog up your own F50, then you leave yourself wide open to easy scoring by your opponent with the quick rebound. No one gives you a 2 on 2 in your own forward line. They'll always play a guy loose, and the Leon Davis' of the world will peel off aswell and make it a 2 on 4.


Even Cloke, who has had a great year and has been taking contested marks, takes most of them outside 50. His key, is that he can kick goals from outside 50 too.

The only time two talls will win you a game, is against a really weak defence. And the good teams don't have weak defences.

[Moods]

Remember last year when roo went down we actually played great in those 10 weeks when we started finding multiple and different avenues to goal and used a smaller fwd line.

We actually played great footy then. Mids need to improve their options as well. Just bombing to a tall bloke is so easy to defend against.

We played okay - but we slipped down the ladder once he got injured. You are delusional if you think that we would have made a GF last year without Roo. Two quality talls is definitely the best way to set up your fwd line. They need to be mobile. The days of a big lump standing there and dragging in marks are gone. You need two guys to contest the high balls coming in so that at the very least the ball is brought to the ground. Without that you need pin point passing, which, as the doggies have found in the last 5 years, just doesn't stand up under finals pressure.

[Johnny Member]

Remember last year when roo went down we actually played great in those 10 weeks when we started finding multiple and different avenues to goal and used a smaller fwd line.

We actually played great footy then. Mids need to improve their options as well. Just bombing to a tall bloke is so easy to defend against.

We played okay - but we slipped down the ladder once he got injured. You are delusional if you think that we would have made a GF last year without Roo. Two quality talls is definitely the best way to set up your fwd line. They need to be mobile. The days of a big lump standing there and dragging in marks are gone. You need two guys to contest the high balls coming in so that at the very least the ball is brought to the ground. Without that you need pin point passing, which, as the doggies have found in the last 5 years, just doesn't stand up under finals pressure.

You want them to give you a genuine option. But that's it I reckon.

Just an option. They shouldn't be used any more than your other options. You need to remain unpredictable.

People talk about delivery being the key. And obviously it's certainly a great help. But how often in modern footy do you get consistent clean ball in the midfield against good teams?

To hit a big, lumbering guy on the tit you need to be pretty precise. Against a midfield like Geelong, Collingwood, and many others these days it's pretty rare that you can rely on really being on top for more than 50-60% of the time.

So as a coach, if you sit there and blame poor delivery to big, slow lumbering forwards as the reason for not scoring, then you've got yourself to blame.
Cause unless your midfield completely dominates for 100 minutes, you're going to get very few slick pinpoint passes hitting them on the chest.


Watching Geelong prior to Podsiadly going off, was like watching us play. Every ball was going to the talls, and every contest they were horribly outnumbered. And every time it came to ground, Collingwood were all over it.

[bozza1980]

Rather odd conclusion to draw, I would suggest the opposite is true.

Both sides in the Grand Final got there on the back of two tall forwards.

Both sides in last years Grand Final got there on the back of two tall forwards.

Both sides in the 2009 Grand Final got there on the back of two tall forwards.

Just because Geelong won after one of their two talls went down, doesn't kill the formula. In fact they replaced him with another tall.

Geelong, even after J-Pod went down, spent a lot of time getting it, moving it quickly and bombing it to Tomma-Hawk, or did I imagine him tearing Ben Reid a new one??

At the end of the day, you can only work with what you have, so if you don't have two talls (ala Bulldogs 08-10) you come up with something different, but the truism that big blokes don't get any smaller is as true today as it was 50 years ago.

If anything can be drawn from Saturday's Grand Final is the importance of good key forwards, not the death of a two tall structure.

[dragit]

Watching Geelong prior to Podsiadly going off, was like watching us play. Every ball was going to the talls, and every contest they were horribly outnumbered. And every time it came to ground, Collingwood were all over it.

Pods may have kicked 5 in the 2nd half - who knows…
Hawkins had West beside him keeping a second tall defender busy… so they did have 2 talls, so that argument is pretty thin…

Two talls is hardly out-dated, considering ALL of the tops clubs have set up that way whenever they had the players to do so…

Collingwood smalls kicking so many goals may just have a bit to do with the crumbs that are created from Cloke, Dawes and Brown? Or perhaps their prolific midfield slamming it into the F50 constantly?

Geelong, Collingwood, Hawthorn, WCE, Carlton & the rest will all have at least 2 talls in the forward line next year if they have fit players, guaranteed.

One tall forward would be monstered every contest… Riewoldt looks better when Kosi is in the team, he may look even better with Hurley along side of him too.

[Johnny Member]

Rather odd conclusion to draw, I would suggest the opposite is true.

Both sides in the Grand Final got there on the back of two tall forwards.

Both sides in last years Grand Final got there on the back of two tall forwards.

Both sides in the 2009 Grand Final got there on the back of two tall forwards.

Just because Geelong won after one of their two talls went down, doesn't kill the formula. In fact they replaced him with another tall.

Geelong, even after J-Pod went down, spent a lot of time getting it, moving it quickly and bombing it to Tomma-Hawk, or did I imagine him tearing Ben Reid a new one??

At the end of the day, you can only work with what you have, so if you don't have two talls (ala Bulldogs 08-10) you come up with something different, but the truism that big blokes don't get any smaller is as true today as it was 50 years ago.

If anything can be drawn from Saturday's Grand Final is the importance of good key forwards, not the death of a two tall structure.

I disagree.

No team has got there on the back of two talls.


We probably were the only ones - and that is also why we couldn't kick more than 10 goals in a game.

Other teams had two talls of very limited ability, and were used as part of a functional forward line team.

Krakeour, Blair, Sidebottom, Beams and these guys were the ones that got Collingwood to where they are.

Bartel, Johnson, Stokes, Varcoe, Johnson are the reason Geelong are who they are.


The reason Hawkins was able to beat Reid, was because he was actually getting him one out. The reason he was getting him one out, was because the Geelong mediums/smalls were getting Maxwell and O'Brien away from him.

And if O'Brien and Maxwell did go to him as 3rd man up, Geelong were utulising their opponents. They were unpredictable. Prior to Podsiadly going off, every ball was either going to Hawkins, or Podsiadly. Collingwood knew this, and were picking them off easily.

The issue for Collingwood, was that their smalls hadven't performed over the past month and subsequently their form has dropped off.
So suddenly, they actually relied on Dawes to get a sniff himself and naturally, being the dud that he is, couldn't perform.



The 'big blokes don't get any smaller' thing is outdated. They don't get smaller, but they also don't get to play one on one footy these days. doesn't matter how big you are if you're up against a pack of 4 or 5 guys.


All of Geelong's flags have been won by their mid/small forwards kicking their goals. Hawthorn in 08 was the same, Collingwood last year was the same.

[Johnny Member]

Two talls is hardly out-dated, considering ALL of the tops clubs have set up that way whenever they had the players to do so…

Collingwood smalls kicking so many goals may just have a bit to do with the crumbs that are created from Cloke, Dawes and Brown? Or perhaps their prolific midfield slamming it into the F50 constantly?

They don't slam it in at all. They move the ball forward with precision. They also move the ball forward without predictability.

They don't go to their bug guys all the time, and they don't go their small guys all the time. If they get a forward one out, then can use them (well Cloke really cause Dawes is hopeless), but if they don't then they use the smaller guys.

That's why they score so well.

It's also why they're form dropped off over the past month. They stopped getting the 6 goals per week out of their smalls - and that came down to 2 per week. They still had the same input from their 'two talls', but overall they weren't kicking as many goals and lost the Grand Final because of it.


Having two talls is fine, but if you go to them all the time you'll get rolled.

You just won't be able to score, and your opponent will.

One tall forward would be monstered every contest… Riewoldt looks better when Kosi is in the team, he may look even better with Hurley along side of him too.

Riewoldt might look better, but do we score more?

And how many rebound 50s do our opponents get?

[dragit]

Dumbly bombing to anyone isn't going to work, doesn't mean that 2 talls is outdated by any means…

Dawes and Cloke combined for 100 goals this year, injuries aside.
Pods and Hawkins 80…
Kennedy & Lynch 90…

Carlton would have been much more dangerous with a fit Waite & Kreuzer - no doubt.

Of course the midfield has to get the ball to them, same as ever,

I'll say it again - Every top 8 side next year will set-up with at least 2 tall forwards, if they can. Are they all dumb?

[Johnny Member]

Dumbly bombing to anyone isn't going to work, doesn't mean that 2 talls is outdated by any means…

Dawes and Cloke combined for 100 goals this year, injuries aside.
Pods and Hawkins 80…
Kennedy & Lynch 90…

Carlton would have been much more dangerous with a fit Waite & Kreuzer - no doubt.

Of course the midfield has to get the ball to them, same as ever,

I'll say it again - Every top 8 side next year will set-up with at least 2 tall forwards, if they can. Are they all dumb?

So the top 4 team that had the least input from their 'two talls' won the flag.

And the other top 4 team that went within 3 points of playing the GF didn't really even have two talls at all.

[Dr Spaceman]

Dumbly bombing to anyone isn't going to work, doesn't mean that 2 talls is outdated by any means…

Dawes and Cloke combined for 100 goals this year, injuries aside.
Pods and Hawkins 80…
Kennedy & Lynch 90…

Carlton would have been much more dangerous with a fit Waite & Kreuzer - no doubt.

Of course the midfield has to get the ball to them, same as ever,

I'll say it again - Every top 8 side next year will set-up with at least 2 tall forwards, if they can. Are they all dumb?

Pods going off only leveled the playing field anyway because Dawes was hopeless.

And on Dawes, I don't know why some people are so keen to try and get him to our club. He's a reasonable player but there's just a bit too much hype about him IMO.