We have struggled since Hayes injury.

[Saints58]

I really think that with hays in the side it took a lot of pressure off king and membery.
When we have had the third tall king is freed up more and gets into space like he did when Hayes or Marshal were in the forward line.
I see 2 options 1 is we play Marshall as a forward and play Campbell and Ryder as the rucks.
The reason for this is that Marshall is the best forward of the 3 he would be a huge matchup and with his athleticism and strength and marking ability would be able to navigate the forward line with King. He would also not take the best defender which would allow him to hopefully monster the next guy.
I know with Campbell and Ryder as well as king and Marshall we are tall but all our bigs are mobile and this makes them very difficult to play on and allows us to be flexible with rucking.
Option 2 is we play Sharman great mark and athletic not as big a unit as Marshall but gets to the contest all the time he would be easier to match up on for the defenders being 193cm as apposed to 201cm of Marshall. Sharman is not as strong as Hayes was but plays a different game style.
I would prefer the Marshall option as he gives us more flexibility.

[Devilhead]

Hello Sharman

[meher baba]

Hayes is a reasonable utility player. The word “overrate” doesn’t quite catch the write-up he gets from some on here.

“Delusional” is closer to the mark

[bigcarl]

I really think that with hays in the side it took a lot of pressure off king and membery.
When we have had the third tall king is freed up more and gets into space like he did when Hayes or Marshal were in the forward line.
I see 2 options 1 is we play Marshall as a forward and play Campbell and Ryder as the rucks.
The reason for this is that Marshall is the best forward of the 3 he would be a huge matchup and with his athleticism and strength and marking ability would be able to navigate the forward line with King. He would also not take the best defender which would allow him to hopefully monster the next guy.
I know with Campbell and Ryder as well as king and Marshall we are tall but all our bigs are mobile and this makes them very difficult to play on and allows us to be flexible with rucking.
Option 2 is we play Sharman great mark and athletic not as big a unit as Marshall but gets to the contest all the time he would be easier to match up on for the defenders being 193cm as apposed to 201cm of Marshall. Sharman is not as strong as Hayes was but plays a different game style.
I would prefer the Marshall option as he gives us more flexibility.

Good ideas. Either would be worth a try. I doubt Ratts would go for option 1 as he would consider it too tall and not enough run.

Hayes is no superstar, but his importance to structure shouldn’t be underestimated. You need a good player on him and you can be guaranteed a tough contest for every ball.

Personally I’d prefer two genuine key forwards, which you don’t quite get with King, Membrey, Sharman.

[Finna]

Hayes is a reasonable utility player. The word “overrate” doesn’t quite catch the write-up he gets from some on here.

“Delusional” is closer to the mark

Delusional is correct. A depth player at best.

[Banger9798]

Time to play Sharman
Last year wasn't a fluke, he is a genuine forward
Smart and skilful
Draws heat away from Max and allows Membrey to be third tall.

[saynta]

No, disagree. Depth players don't get to be your best in any game played. He was our best player against the filth.

[SunnyErnie]

I really think that with hays in the side it took a lot of pressure off king and membery.
When we have had the third tall king is freed up more and gets into space like he did when Hayes or Marshal were in the forward line.
I see 2 options 1 is we play Marshall as a forward and play Campbell and Ryder as the rucks.
The reason for this is that Marshall is the best forward of the 3 he would be a huge matchup and with his athleticism and strength and marking ability would be able to navigate the forward line with King. He would also not take the best defender which would allow him to hopefully monster the next guy.
I know with Campbell and Ryder as well as king and Marshall we are tall but all our bigs are mobile and this makes them very difficult to play on and allows us to be flexible with rucking.
Option 2 is we play Sharman great mark and athletic not as big a unit as Marshall but gets to the contest all the time he would be easier to match up on for the defenders being 193cm as apposed to 201cm of Marshall. Sharman is not as strong as Hayes was but plays a different game style.
I would prefer the Marshall option as he gives us more flexibility.

Forget about Campbell. He is just backup if one of Marshall or Ryder is unavailable

[saynta]

Time to play Sharman
Last year wasn't a fluke, he is a genuine forward
Smart and skilful
Draws heat away from Max and allows Membrey to be third tall.

Maybe a week away from a recall.

[st.byron]

Time to play Sharman
Last year wasn't a fluke, he is a genuine forward
Smart and skilful
Draws heat away from Max and allows Membrey to be third tall.

Maybe a week away from a recall.

The question is who would he replace. Butler if he's injured?

[Banger9798]

Butler or Wood if Billings is back to play the wing role.

[Banger9798]

Higgins King Membrey

Billings Sharman Gresham

Hill Jones Sinclair

D Mac Battle Webster

Wilkie Howard Leinert

Ryder, Steele, Crouch

NWM, Marshall Ross, Long

[perfectionist]

I think it is a fair point. Jack Hayes was a bit of revelation. A really good pick. He may not have been a star, but he didn't make mistakes. He made opponents earn contested marks. He could not be easily moved aside. And, he is a leader - that is invaluable.

[stkfc1]

Higgins King Membrey

Billings Sharman Gresham

Hill Jones Sinclair

D Mac Battle Webster

Wilkie Howard Leinert

Ryder, Steele, Crouch

NWM, Marshall Ross, Long

Agree with most of this except I'd have Webster out before Paton and NWM needs a rest in the 2's. Not enough output. I'd be putting Byrnes in as his replacement.

[spert]

Higgins King Membrey

Billings Sharman Gresham

Hill Jones Sinclair

D Mac Battle Webster

Wilkie Howard Leinert

Ryder, Steele, Crouch

NWM, Marshall Ross, Long

Agree with most of this except I'd have Webster out before Paton and NWM needs a rest in the 2's. Not enough output. I'd be putting Byrnes in as his replacement.

Sounds about right.

[Yorkeys]

So where are our goals going to come from now teams know if you double/triple team Max and pressure the ball carrier we come up short?

Yesterday: Marshall 2, King 2 (Dees would have settled for that at coin toss) then a string of singles. Higgins' single when it was all but over, from a free. One from the medi-sub. I guess Tim should have got two. Total of three from resting rucks.

Butler just can't hit the score board. Pressure and tackling are commendable but its goals that matter. Kicking is not a strength unfortunately.

We do not seem to have half forwards that can regularly punish the opposition or wingmen that can kick one or two a game on average. Dees kicked less than 100 points and even that possibly flattered them by say 3 goals, but we were never going to score enough against a fierce well drilled team i.e. take the chances the defence and mids created.

But what to do? I'm coming around to the idea that Sharman might be better than Butler in the long run, but it would be great if say a Windhager suddenly found the big sticks regularly. I wonder if the selectors think Cooper does not attack the ball hard enough or cause defenders to hear footsteps.

Anyway, Billings will be back soon and Clark. That's a fair injection of class. Brayshaw, Oliver and Pettracca are at their collective and individual peak at the moment. And if Max gets injured it will unravel a bit. Also our Jones has to improve so there is potential to get better. But its about goals under pressure and early.

[saynta]

I thought Paddy got more of the tap outs than Gawn. Only trouble was he either hit it to a dee or they sharked it.

[spert]

I would like to see Maxy work a bit harder when he hasn't got the ball, or when he loses control of the ball, might gain him another goal or two. Higgins needs to get a bit more pro-active and is playing a bit predictably. We have a lazy forward line right now. Bringing in Billings and maybe Sharman might shake the others up a bit. Sandy Saints are in good form and the pressure should be on the seniors positions now

[IluvHarvey]

It's fair to say we have struggled since Hayes retired...... Lenny that is

[D.B.Cooper]

It's fair to say we have struggled since Hayes retired...... Lenny that is

Ah yes, with no disrespect we long for the era when...

Hayes was a Lenny
Max was a Hudgton
Clark(e) was a Xavier
Jones was a Clint
Nick was a Reiwoldt or a Dal Santo not a Coffield
Matthew was a Maguire not an Allison
& Leigh was a player not an umpire

[Vortex]

I think it is a fair point. Jack Hayes was a bit of revelation. A really good pick. He may not have been a star, but he didn't make mistakes. He made opponents earn contested marks. He could not be easily moved aside. And, he is a leader - that is invaluable.

You've nailed it. There is no delusion at all, he played a role our team desperately misses Could take contested Marks and convert the opportunity. Absolutely he isn't a star but I think a taller, stronger AND more aggressive forward line is a better structure for this list we currently have. Our midfield system into F50 seemed to work better with said structure also.

[meher baba]

I think it is a fair point. Jack Hayes was a bit of revelation. A really good pick. He may not have been a star, but he didn't make mistakes. He made opponents earn contested marks. He could not be easily moved aside. And, he is a leader - that is invaluable.

You've nailed it. There is no delusion at all, he played a role our team desperately misses Could take contested Marks and convert the opportunity. Absolutely he isn't a star but I think a taller, stronger AND more aggressive forward line is a better structure for this list we currently have. Our midfield system into F50 seemed to work better with said structure also.

It is pretty clear that the club didn't consider him to be in the top 22. He was selected for the first two games of the season to replace the injured Ryder. The club tried playing Ryder, Marshall and Hayes in one game and then decided it was too many talls, so he was omitted from the 22 for the next game. Then Ryder was suspended, and he played two more games.

We certainly missed him against Port, where he would have been able to fill in for Marshall instead of Campbell. If he hadn't gotten injured, he most likely would have been medical sub again against the Demons.

If Ryder and Marshall are fit, he wouldn't displace either of them. And I don't think playing him in the forward line alongside King and Membrey can work. King and Membrey are better players than him, so he also can't displace either of them.

He's a terrific utlity player, capable of playing ruck and forward and, I would suspect, would go ok down back as well. He gave us great depth in those areas, which we'll miss. But, if we were playing in a final and had all of our top KPPs fit, he wouldn't be in the team.

[meher baba]

I might add that I thought that, so far this season, our team structure looked at its absolute best against the Hawks, in which game Hayes didn't play.

[Vortex]

I think it is a fair point. Jack Hayes was a bit of revelation. A really good pick. He may not have been a star, but he didn't make mistakes. He made opponents earn contested marks. He could not be easily moved aside. And, he is a leader - that is invaluable.

You've nailed it. There is no delusion at all, he played a role our team desperately misses Could take contested Marks and convert the opportunity. Absolutely he isn't a star but I think a taller, stronger AND more aggressive forward line is a better structure for this list we currently have. Our midfield system into F50 seemed to work better with said structure also.

It is pretty clear that the club didn't consider him to be in the top 22. He was selected for the first two games of the season to replace the injured Ryder. The club tried playing Ryder, Marshall and Hayes in one game and then decided it was too many talls, so he was omitted from the 22 for the next game. Then Ryder was suspended, and he played two more games.

We certainly missed him against Port, where he would have been able to fill in for Marshall instead of Campbell. If he hadn't gotten injured, he most likely would have been medical sub again against the Demons.

If Ryder and Marshall are fit, he wouldn't displace either of them. And I don't think playing him in the forward line alongside King and Membrey can work. King and Membrey are better players than him, so he also can't displace either of them.

He's a terrific utlity player, capable of playing ruck and forward and, I would suspect, would go ok down back as well. He gave us great depth in those areas, which we'll miss. But, if we were playing in a final and had all of our top KPPs fit, he wouldn't be in the team.

I don't consider Members a full time forward anymore, under the current game plan he looks like he has full licence to assist from defence to the forward line and is consistently seen deep in D50 and especially in red time and that is where Hayes was handy as he provided the extra tall option in our F50 when we created the turnover and tried to sling shot and that's when Hayes took some nice contested grabs against the oppositions intercepting defenders who ordinarily have King covered as the single tall in that scenario. That's where I think the small forward line set-up of ours gets exposed.

We most certainly can fit an extra tall in the Forward line while Members is spending his game time playing as a utility all over the ground. But a tall that can pinch hit in the Ruck and welcomes the contested stuff when the game is on the line.

[shanegrambeau]

I don’t wanna diss Hayes at all, but so far I have seen one good game. It happened to be notably good. Really good. But that’s it. During the other games, including the community games he looked willing but a shade off the pace IMO.

So it is all the more bewildering why Sharman is considered a job for the seconds when he has probably played three or four solid games in a row.

Stint-for-stint, no comparison from my low footy IQ pOV.