Max Disposal

older saint · Mon 17 Aug 2009 4:38pm

Interesting since Max's return how teams have allowed the kick backwards to Max and then pressured his disposal from there. This is a tactic which seems to have worked well.

The counter i think is to get him to push up the ground more sothe player behind the ball is a better user of the ball and less likely to be left. If they do let Mx get it let him be 1.5 kicks from goal and thereforeif disposal ok will hurt the opposition and also easier for the run past handball

SydneySainter · Mon 17 Aug 2009 4:53pm

I can't help but think that our back line looked too top heavy with Blake, Gilbert, Zac and Max. Hate to say it, but don't think we can go in with four talls in future, but just my opinion.

Arthur Mullard · Mon 17 Aug 2009 4:53pm

Any relation to Max Headroom?

older saint · Mon 17 Aug 2009 4:55pm

NO otherwise would be MMMMMMMMMMMax Hudghton here!

Batnoe · Post: # 798101Post **Batnoe** » Mon 17 Aug 2009 5:12pm

SydneySainter wrote:I can't help but think that our back line looked too top heavy with Blake, Gilbert, Zac and Max. Hate to say it, but don't think we can go in with four talls in future, but just my opinion.

I see your dilema

Play one in the forward line!!

JT · Post: # 798118Post JT » Mon 17 Aug 2009 5:49pm

SydneySainter wrote:I can't help but think that our back line looked too top heavy with Blake, Gilbert, Zac and Max. Hate to say it, but don't think we can go in with four talls in future, but just my opinion.

Plus Fisher who doesn't look as good up forward. All of them deserve to be in the team but agree the team doesn't look as balanced with them all in.

plugger66 · Post: # 798170Post **plugger66** » Mon 17 Aug 2009 7:09pm

I know this will be very unpopular but should this thread be retiltled dispose of Max. its either Max, Zac, Bally or Dempster out next week and I have a real problem with the height in our backline.

Con Gorozidis · Tue 18 Aug 2009 2:01am

SydneySainter wrote:I can't help but think that our back line looked too top heavy with Blake, Gilbert, Zac and Max. Hate to say it, but don't think we can go in with four talls in future, but just my opinion.

i have been saying this all year. its not possible they all can play back.
i reckon one of max or blake might be chopped.

vacuous space · Tue 18 Aug 2009 2:55am

Con Gorozidis wrote:i have been saying this all year. its not possible they all can play back.

We've played every game this year with a tall backline. We've lost one out of twenty. Even if we drop one of Max, Zac or Blake, we'll still have a tall backline. Geelong have a tall backline. Collingwood have a tall backline. Even the Dogs have a pretty tall backline - Hargrave, Lake, Morris and Williams are all 190cm+. Good backlines are tall backlines these days. It's not all about matching up one-on-one on similar players.

We have played Blake, Dawson, Fisher, Gilbert and Hudghton in the same game and AFAIC we can do it. We just need to play better than we did on Sunday. Losing the contested ball and allowing a lot of I50s is going to make it tough to win, no matter who we have back there.

groupie1 · Post: # 798492Post **groupie1** » Tue 18 Aug 2009 6:14am

Our backline all year comprised of Blake, Max, Zac, Fisher, Gilbert and one of Raph Clark, Dempster, and Baker.

RL likes a tall backline: height doesn't detract from Gilbert, Fisher's, Raph's, Dempster's flexibility or pace.

Don't worry about it.

6 big strong backs is a positive, mate

Moods · Post: # 798510Post **Moods** » Tue 18 Aug 2009 10:12am

[quote="vacuous space We've played every game this year with a tall backline. We've lost one out of twenty. Even if we drop one of Max, Zac or Blake, we'll still have a tall backline. Geelong have a tall backline. Collingwood have a tall backline. Even the Dogs have a pretty tall backline - Hargrave, Lake, Morris and Williams are all 190cm+. Good backlines are tall backlines these days. It's not all about matching up one-on-one on similar players.

We have played Blake, Dawson, Fisher, Gilbert and Hudghton in the same game and AFAIC we can do it. We just need to play better than we did on Sunday. Losing the contested ball and allowing a lot of I50s is going to make it tough to win, no matter who we have back there.[/quote]

I beg to differ. Yes we have played a tall backline all year. But EVERY time we have played Max, Zac and Blake together we have played poorly (the Hawthorn game aside)

Height isn't the issue - it's flexibility and skill. 2 of them we can cope with. 3 is too many. Glad I'm not on selection, b/c someone is going to be shattered.

derby Street · Tue 18 Aug 2009 10:58am

Not sure Max's disposal is such a huge problem - afterall he doesn't get it that much. It is more about balance. Since Max returned from injury and Zac was playing we are one too big down back. Perhaps that's why Ross had Fish play forward?

matrix · Post: # 798612Post **matrix** » Tue 18 Aug 2009 2:23pm

anyone checked the effective disposal %age of these backline players???

aussiejones · Tue 18 Aug 2009 2:37pm

No but ther are very high due to defensive kick to kick.

Up until last week I50s were restricted by play down the ground.

matrix · Post: # 798626Post **matrix** » Tue 18 Aug 2009 2:41pm

so?
so what?... it means nothing?
people are saying the ball gets put into certain players hands because their disposal is bad....
when in fact its not bad.

QuestionOfAccuracy · Tue 18 Aug 2009 4:18pm

vacuous space wrote:Losing the contested ball and allowing a lot of I50s is going to make it tough to win, no matter who we have back there.

That was the key to the loss on the weekend no doubt. We got smashed in the midfield.

Having said that, the back six did seem quite unbalanced but I think part of that was due to the fact that it had not been used to that amount of easy and constant delivery into the 50. Also, keep in mind most of the other top 8 teams will not be playing with a fwd line so small.