Too short and too weak

[spert]

It would help of our forwards lead to the ball instead of playing behind their direct opponents. King did this early then started playing from behind as did all our small forwards. If you are coming down the field with the ball and no one is leading to you, then you naturally try and kick it long, or find a team mate sideways. I'm not impressed with our forward system and I think the forward coach has work to do here. The Melbourne forwards generally lead to the oncoming player and created goal kicking opportunities.

[magnifisaint]

What about too slow and too unskilful?

[Otiman]

Melbourne exploited our mosquito fleet of forwards, I'm not sure every team can.

Team structure is pretty important.

[Yorkeys]

Agree Otiman. Delivery was perfect for Dees defenders ad nauseum. Our smalls only need a sniff but didn't get many. It hard to see such poor delivery in the future. And by delivery I mean gift wrapped to taller defenders, no low passes/ground balls.

[B.M]

Any team that holds their back six will be challenging

[Ghost Like]

Any team that holds their back six will be challenging

That is why we may be better to drop one of the three small forwards and include a 2nd mid size, leading, marking forward such as Wood.

When Marshall returns, he's CHF & King FF.

Add Membrey & Wood as mid size forwards with ideally (in form) Butler & Higgins as the smalls.

LIf we are to go with three smalls then my choice is Butler, Higgins and Billings / Gresham resting forward. This allows for an extra mid.

[Yorkeys]

Apropos of the topic title: gear arrived from Saints shop; very disappointed. T shirt does not look as good on me as it does Ben Long and hoody looks much better on Rohan Marshall. Don't understand. May discuss false advertising with office after Easter depending on how much shape changing over Easter festivities.

[samoht]

Melbourne exploited our mosquito fleet of forwards, I'm not sure every team can.

Team structure is pretty important.

I agree.
Against Melbourne, we had too many small forwards.
It's important that we select the right side according to who our opponents are and how they are likely to line up.

[B.M]

Most good teams have three small forwards

[samoht]

Most good teams have three small forwards

But we had 4 small forwards vs Melbourne, and 2 or more of them were not quicker or more agile than their bigger, direct opponents - and if you line up against equally agile or more agile opponents who are also taller, quicker and stronger - then you have a big problem.

So, it's horses (or ponies in our case) for courses - it should be, anyway.

[samuraisaint]

Melbourne exploited our mosquito fleet of forwards, I'm not sure every team can.

Team structure is pretty important.

Spot on - and once they are back, how many matches will we play without 2 out of 3 of Ryder, Marshall and Carlisle?

Then it will be a very different story.

[Ghost Like]

Most good teams have three small forwards

Most good teams would not tolerate the output of their 3 small forwards that ours produced last week.

[skeptic]

The small forward strategy works when you win the midfield battle and have a lot of fast f50 entries

It doesn’t work as well if your mids aren’t on top and kick to a crowded forward line.

The problem with our mosquito fleet in Higgins, Butler and Lonie...
they’re not ball winners generally and they don’t have the attributes to be targets going into 50m

They rely on the ball to come out towards them and swooping on it.

They capitalise on opportunity... they don’t create it

A style of haphazard entry into a crowded forward line isn’t going to work and it’s silly to pick all three and play a style that doesn’t suit them

[B.M]

It was only 7 days prior when they kicked 5 goals between them
And Lonie’s goal from the boundary broke the back of GWS

Melbourne beat us last year, because of the way they defended us
And did the same last week

Geelong will do the same

[Ghost Like]

Melbourne beat us because of the dominance of their ruck. I'd look at that glaring hole rather than pump up an effort against an insipid GWS.

[B.M]

So it wasn’t because of the small forwards?

Of course Max Gawn dominated, that was a given

1/ he is a 6’10” triple AA ruckman who is one of the ‘big 3G’ ruckmen in the AFL
2/ We had both our ruckmen out, and a bloke from the SANFL 6 weeks ago put on the list was our #1 ruck

[Ghost Like]

Which excuse do you want more? No rucks or poor small forwards. Conditions against GWS were perfect for them, the ruck battle even. Conditions against the Demons were perfect for everyone. We got murdered in the ruck and our smalls offered nothing, no chase, no tackles, no goals when we did get the ball in there.

Their ruck had positioned and was unaccountable. We had no CHF so the times the ball did hit the ground we needed our small forwards to impact. Not a yelp. They need to be better as do our rucks. Sadly we did not have our first choice rucks but we did have our first choice smalls.

[samoht]

Gawn dominated the hitouts ... but we equalled them in clearances.
So much for his extra 50 hitouts and his 6 foot 10 inches!

What a waste.

[Ghost Like]

Gawn dominated the hitouts ... but we equalled them in clearances.
So much for his extra 50 hitouts and his 6 foot 10 inches!

What a waste.

What was the waste? Gawn's hit outs or our clearances?