TOPIC:

I could not agree more.

But if we play 16 quarters of good footy over next month it will be an easier sell to potential recruits.

Stand the Test wrote: Christ almighty you lot, what’s next, you going to tell me subi are the benchmark and that we should work harder to get to their standard:

Not me. I'm with you, they're cheating C$$ts who deserve every bit of shit they cop. Also if the $$$ubi supporters cant acknowledge they are ruining the competition even further than the alignments are then they deserve just as much abuse.

Now back to the topic at hand. I didn't go to this game and I agree we do need a tall forward target but we don't have one so why are we playing as if we do? Time and time again I see forward entries to the advantage of the defenders, instead of our forwards. Was this the case on Saturday against the Tigers?

PD1899 wrote:

Stand the Test wrote: Christ almighty you lot, what’s next, you going to tell me subi are the benchmark and that we should work harder to get to their standard:

Not me. I'm with you, they're cheating C$$ts who deserve every bit of shit they cop. Also if the $$$ubi supporters cant acknowledge they are ruining the competition even further than the alignments are then they deserve just as much abuse.

Now back to the topic at hand. I didn't go to this game and I agree we do need a tall forward target but we don't have one so why are we playing as if we do? Time and time again I see forward entries to the advantage of the defenders, instead of our forwards. Was this the case on Saturday against the Tigers?

Don't know who you are mate but thank you very much, Its nice to have your fellow supporters back you up. Cheers.

PD, the answer to your question is a resounding "yes", we turned the ball over time and time again going forward, especially in the third quarter where we lost the match. I don't know if C had a loose man back, but they did push their ruckman back, who are way taller than anyone we have. Our kicks consistently fell short into the wind and C picked off mark after mark. Trouble is, as you have said, we simply don't have a tall forward. We played Josh Burke there against C. He wasn't terrible, but he's not a natural forward, nor he is particularly tall. Although Garstone wasn't great early on I thought we were better structurally with him in the team. Now he is injured again. We could maybe try BJ, who kicked 3 in his first game back in reserves after injury, but he probably needs a bit more game time before he's ready for league. Maybe try Hill forward, he can take a decent contested mark.

Ted Nugent wrote: PD, the answer to your question is a resounding "yes", we turned the ball over time and time again going forward, especially in the third quarter where we lost the match. I don't know if C had a loose man back, but they did push their ruckman back, who are way taller than anyone we have. Our kicks consistently fell short into the wind and C picked off mark after mark. Trouble is, as you have said, we simply don't have a tall forward. We played Josh Burke there against C. He wasn't terrible, but he's not a natural forward, nor he is particularly tall. Although Garstone wasn't great early on I thought we were better structurally with him in the team. Now he is injured again. We could maybe try BJ, who kicked 3 in his first game back in reserves after injury, but he probably needs a bit more game time before he's ready for league. Maybe try Hill forward, he can take a decent contested mark.

Agreed I rate Burke very highly but he is not a forward so why did he play there. Also agreed BJ will be a prefect Full Forward given time to develop and gives our forward line a much better structure. BJ at FF and Langdon at Half Forward immediately gives us a better structure. Roe can push up to half forward on one side and Rogers on the other.