Port Adelaide 2017

[Booney]

Sounds like :

In - Hombsch, Pittard, Young, Amon
Out - Austin ( Omit ), Wingard ( inj ), White ( Omit ) and either Polec or Atley.

I'd like Monfries to get a run too, see what he can offer us up forward.

Ken must have the same selection policy as Woosha.
Revolving door between the same 4-5 players each week

Surely if you drop a bloke and ask him to show something ( be it possessions, pressure acts, goal assists ) and he does what was requested at the lower level you bring him back in ahead of someone who is either not ready or not in form?

I understand the frustration Port people have with HInkley, I get it, but I think the frustration should be aimed at the players just as much.

Young, for example, burns it up at SANFL level when dropped ( last week 34 touches, 11 tackles, 4 I50, 2R50 ) and when he comes back in ( this year especially ) doesn't bring that type of form to AFL level when he has shown in the past ( 37 goals in 2016 ) that he can deliver at the top level.

Hinkley damned if he does, if he doesn't. Who'd be a coach?

[morell]

Sounds like :

In - Hombsch, Pittard, Young, Amon
Out - Austin ( Omit ), Wingard ( inj ), White ( Omit ) and either Polec or Atley.

I'd like Monfries to get a run too, see what he can offer us up forward.

Ken must have the same selection policy as Woosha.
Revolving door between the same 4-5 players each week

Surely if you drop a bloke and ask him to show something ( be it possessions, pressure acts, goal assists ) and he does what was requested at the lower level you bring him back in ahead of someone who is either not ready or not in form?

I understand the frustration Port people have with HInkley, I get it, but I think the frustration should be aimed at the players just as much.

Young, for example, burns it up at SANFL level when dropped ( last week 34 touches, 11 tackles, 4 I50, 2R50 ) and when he comes back in ( this year especially ) doesn't bring that type of form to AFL level when he has shown in the past ( 37 goals in 2016 ) that he can deliver at the top level.

Hinkley damned if he does, if he doesn't. Who'd be a coach?

We'd all be a lot more patient if he just tried to do something about our inherent problems instead of just pretending they don't exist.

[Booney]

The problems that exist in your wisdom?

[morell]

Mine and a huge proportion of Port supporters. It might be taboo to mention it, but if you haven't check out our board on BigFooty. I am far from alone, in fact, I'm in the vast majority.

Yeah yeah keyboard experts and all that, but that's a lot of minds and many clever people thinking about it for a long time.

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ ... 0/page-297

As I've mentioned he's a good motivational coach, but he has *repeatedly* ignored structure throughout his tenure, its his modus operandi. Be it replacing Trengove with Kane Mitchell for 5 games in 2013 or playing Ryder and Lobbe for a massive part of 2015 or not picking a key forward. Ken isn't infallible. He has flaws. This is one of them.

[bertiebeatle]

I've stopped reading bigfooty for the above reasons. As much as i would love for Eddy to be in the side, we don't need another tall in the side. We are balanced enough as it is and our structure works around it. Our structure breaks down with our disposal which is still our number 1 issue.

Sounds like :

In - Hombsch, Pittard, Young, Amon
Out - Austin ( Omit ), Wingard ( inj ), White ( Omit ) and either Polec or Atley.

I'd like Monfries to get a run too, see what he can offer us up forward.

Reckon Atley might drop out. Amon straight swap for White, Young can play forward and through the middle this week. I'd expect Gray to spend the majority of time up forward this week.

I'd love Monfries to come in as well, reckon he might get the last 2-3 games of the year to build into finals. I've been talking about it all season with mates and i think he will get the last couple of games to come in and get the feel of it again and be set to go for finals

[Booney]

I've stopped reading bigfooty for the above reasons. As much as i would love for Eddy to be in the side, we don't need another tall in the side. We are balanced enough as it is and our structure works around it. Our structure breaks down with our disposal which is still our number 1 issue.

Sounds like :

In - Hombsch, Pittard, Young, Amon
Out - Austin ( Omit ), Wingard ( inj ), White ( Omit ) and either Polec or Atley.

I'd like Monfries to get a run too, see what he can offer us up forward.

Reckon Atley might drop out. Amon straight swap for White, Young can play forward and through the middle this week. I'd expect Gray to spend the majority of time up forward this week.

I'd love Monfries to come in as well, reckon he might get the last 2-3 games of the year to build into finals. I've been talking about it all season with mates and i think he will get the last couple of games to come in and get the feel of it again and be set to go for finals

Big Footy = more experts in arm chairs ( like me ) with no genuine understanding of top flight football as much as they think they do ( like me ).

I agree, bertie, Dixon, Trengove, Ryder, Clurey, Hombsch, Jonas, Westhoff. Pretty much the same structure all sides play with. 2 tall fowards, one utility, 3 tall backs and a ruckman.

[Booney]

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ ... 0/page-297

I clicked on the link, then I felt like a pie, winnie red and a VB so strong were the stereotypes.

[morell]

I've stopped reading bigfooty for the above reasons. As much as i would love for Eddy to be in the side, we don't need another tall in the side. We are balanced enough as it is and our structure works around it. Our structure breaks down with our disposal which is still our number 1 issue.

and that's fair enough, its a much more cynical place than then fluff and bubbles of safooty thats for sure.

But..

My point was refuting Booney that this isn't just a figment of my imagination. There is a bit of a ground swell of opinion at the moment on this issue.

One person, 10 people, yeah OK, maybe they're crazy. Hundreds of people creates a thread 300 pages long? Sorry, that is a fair indicator that there is an issue that people are noticing.

as for Eddy - again, it doesn't have to be him. It really can be any of Eddy, Marshall, Frampton or Howard. They don't have to kick a bag. They don't have to dominate. They just need to create space for others, provide a contest and take their opportunities in front of goal. The current Trengove role, in other words, except with a modicum of forward line ability.

If anything just play one of Marshall or Howard to develop them. They can't do any worse than Trengove and the upside we get is Trengove goes back so can we drop a poor defender and develop a young key forward in the process.

[Spargo]

I'd like Monfries to get a run too, see what he can offer us up forward.

A few weeks ago though you likened the Crows picking Thompson to Port with Monfries.
"Not the best option now or with one eye on the future"...

[morell]

I've stopped reading bigfooty for the above reasons. As much as i would love for Eddy to be in the side, we don't need another tall in the side. We are balanced enough as it is and our structure works around it. Our structure breaks down with our disposal which is still our number 1 issue.

Sounds like :

In - Hombsch, Pittard, Young, Amon
Out - Austin ( Omit ), Wingard ( inj ), White ( Omit ) and either Polec or Atley.

I'd like Monfries to get a run too, see what he can offer us up forward.

Reckon Atley might drop out. Amon straight swap for White, Young can play forward and through the middle this week. I'd expect Gray to spend the majority of time up forward this week.

I'd love Monfries to come in as well, reckon he might get the last 2-3 games of the year to build into finals. I've been talking about it all season with mates and i think he will get the last couple of games to come in and get the feel of it again and be set to go for finals

Big Footy = more experts in arm chairs ( like me ) with no genuine understanding of top flight football as much as they think they do ( like me ).

I agree, bertie, Dixon, Trengove, Ryder, Clurey, Hombsch, Jonas, Westhoff. Pretty much the same structure all sides play with. 2 tall fowards, one utility, 3 tall backs and a ruckman.

Trengove isn't a tall forward mate. He's a liability up there. Teams know it and ignore him.

It's only a subtle change.

Out: Hombsch

Trengove to his spot.

In: <pick a key forward in the best form>

[morell]

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ ... 0/page-297

I clicked on the link, then I felt like a pie, winnie red and a VB so strong were the stereotypes.

Some quality football people in there man. Many with a *lot* of experience at a high level. Some others... notsomuch.

You learn to pick the gooduns from the others, just like here.

Difference is safooty has about 5 people. BigFooty 500.

[human_torpedo]

I've stopped reading bigfooty for the above reasons. As much as i would love for Eddy to be in the side, we don't need another tall in the side. We are balanced enough as it is and our structure works around it. Our structure breaks down with our disposal which is still our number 1 issue.

and that's fair enough, its a much more cynical place than then fluff and bubbles of safooty thats for sure.

But..

My point was refuting Booney that this isn't just a figment of my imagination. There is a bit of a ground swell of opinion at the moment on this issue.

One person, 10 people, yeah OK, maybe they're crazy. Hundreds of people creates a thread 300 pages long? Sorry, that is a fair indicator that there is an issue that people are noticing.

as for Eddy - again, it doesn't have to be him. It really can be any of Eddy, Marshall, Frampton or Howard. They don't have to kick a bag. They don't have to dominate. They just need to create space for others, provide a contest and take their opportunities in front of goal. The current Trengove role, in other words, except with a modicum of forward line ability.

If anything just play one of Marshall or Howard to develop them. They can't do any worse than Trengove and the upside we get is Trengove goes back so can we drop a poor defender and develop a young key forward in the process.

Howard can chop out in the ruck as well cant he?

I know its robbing Peter to pay Paul, but Robbie Gray in the midfield second half last week was a timely reminder of just how good the bloke is. His clearance work is beyond elite, and with the arguably AA ruckman feeding him, he could have monster games in the middle. Real dilemma for Ken, but certainly not the worst spot to be in

[morell]

I've stopped reading bigfooty for the above reasons. As much as i would love for Eddy to be in the side, we don't need another tall in the side. We are balanced enough as it is and our structure works around it. Our structure breaks down with our disposal which is still our number 1 issue.

and that's fair enough, its a much more cynical place than then fluff and bubbles of safooty thats for sure.

But..

My point was refuting Booney that this isn't just a figment of my imagination. There is a bit of a ground swell of opinion at the moment on this issue.

One person, 10 people, yeah OK, maybe they're crazy. Hundreds of people creates a thread 300 pages long? Sorry, that is a fair indicator that there is an issue that people are noticing.

as for Eddy - again, it doesn't have to be him. It really can be any of Eddy, Marshall, Frampton or Howard. They don't have to kick a bag. They don't have to dominate. They just need to create space for others, provide a contest and take their opportunities in front of goal. The current Trengove role, in other words, except with a modicum of forward line ability.

If anything just play one of Marshall or Howard to develop them. They can't do any worse than Trengove and the upside we get is Trengove goes back so can we drop a poor defender and develop a young key forward in the process.

Howard can chop out in the ruck as well cant he?

Absolutely he can. Which solves the I think reasonably insignificant problem of having a drop off in the ruck when Trengove relieves Ryder.

He looked awesome before his knee, hes played some ripper games in the SANFL.

Pick him!

I know its robbing Peter to pay Paul, but Robbie Gray in the midfield second half last week was a timely reminder of just how good the bloke is. His clearance work is beyond elite, and with the arguably AA ruckman feeding him, he could have monster games in the middle. Real dilemma for Ken, but certainly not the worst spot to be in

He's going to have to in order to cover Wingard over the next month.

Which means our forward line will be:

HF: Boak - Trengove - S.Gray
FF: Impey - Dixon - Young

I wouldn't back that forward line in to kick a wining score against a top 8 opponent, even with the lions share of inside 50s. Would you?

[bennymacca]

How many teams play a genuine second key forward these days?

Crows swans and GWS do. Other teams in the eight, Richmond, port, Essendon, Melbourne don't really.

Tex and franklin are exceptionally mobile for their size too. So that leaves gws with Cameron, Patton and lobb as the one team in the top eight that is top heavy.

And a weakness of theirs is defending ball movement and forward pressure. So I can understand why port might want to play a mobile second forward like Trengove instead of a more traditional big fella

[morell]

How many teams play a genuine second key forward these days?

Crows swans and GWS do. Other teams in the eight, Richmond, port, Essendon, Melbourne don't really.

Tex and franklin are exceptionally mobile for their size too. So that leaves gws with Cameron, Patton and lobb as the one team in the top eight that is top heavy.

And a weakness of theirs is defending ball movement and forward pressure. So I can understand why port might want to play a mobile second forward like Trengove instead of a more traditional big fella

Crows: 3 sometimes 4! (Walker, Jenkins, Lynch and McGovern)
Swans: 3 at times, always 2 (Franklin, Reid - also have some mediums that are tough to match up on)
GWS: 3 at times, always 2
Richmond: Only the 1 - why I don't think they can win it.
Geelong: Play two ruckman and rest one with Hawkins, Taylor also goes through there.
Essendon: 2 (Hooker and Daniher)
Melbourne: 2 (Hogan and McDonald)

Port play 2, it's just one of them isn't any good at it. But he happens to be a pretty good defender.

Trengove aint mobile, he's a giraffe. And we have a plethora of defensive forwards to compensate.

[Jim05]

How many teams play a genuine second key forward these days?

Crows swans and GWS do. Other teams in the eight, Richmond, port, Essendon, Melbourne don't really.

Tex and franklin are exceptionally mobile for their size too. So that leaves gws with Cameron, Patton and lobb as the one team in the top eight that is top heavy.

And a weakness of theirs is defending ball movement and forward pressure. So I can understand why port might want to play a mobile second forward like Trengove instead of a more traditional big fella

Crows: 3 sometimes 4! (Walker, Jenkins, Lynch and McGovern)
Swans: 3 at times, always 2 (Franklin, Reid - also have some mediums that are tough to match up on)
GWS: 3 at times, always 2
Richmond: Only the 1 - why I don't think they can win it.
Geelong: Play two ruckman and rest one with Hawkins, Taylor also goes through there.
Essendon: 2 (Hooker and Daniher)
Melbourne: 2 (Hogan and McDonald)

Port play 2, it's just one of them isn't any good at it. But he happens to be a pretty good defender.

Trengove aint mobile, he's a giraffe. And we have a plethora of defensive forwards to compensate.

We play Stewart up there aswell in the 3rd tall role. Nowhere near a great player but does his job each week

[MW]

How many teams play a genuine second key forward these days?

Crows swans and GWS do. Other teams in the eight, Richmond, port, Essendon, Melbourne don't really.

Tex and franklin are exceptionally mobile for their size too. So that leaves gws with Cameron, Patton and lobb as the one team in the top eight that is top heavy.

And a weakness of theirs is defending ball movement and forward pressure. So I can understand why port might want to play a mobile second forward like Trengove instead of a more traditional big fella

Crows: 3 sometimes 4! (Walker, Jenkins, Lynch and McGovern)
Swans: 3 at times, always 2 (Franklin, Reid - also have some mediums that are tough to match up on)
GWS: 3 at times, always 2
Richmond: Only the 1 - why I don't think they can win it.
Geelong: Play two ruckman and rest one with Hawkins, Taylor also goes through there.
Essendon: 2 (Hooker and Daniher)
Melbourne: 2 (Hogan and McDonald)

Port play 2, it's just one of them isn't any good at it. But he happens to be a pretty good defender.

Trengove aint mobile, he's a giraffe. And we have a plethora of defensive forwards to compensate.

Does Westoff go forward at all?

[bertiebeatle]

How many teams play a genuine second key forward these days?

Crows swans and GWS do. Other teams in the eight, Richmond, port, Essendon, Melbourne don't really.

Tex and franklin are exceptionally mobile for their size too. So that leaves gws with Cameron, Patton and lobb as the one team in the top eight that is top heavy.

And a weakness of theirs is defending ball movement and forward pressure. So I can understand why port might want to play a mobile second forward like Trengove instead of a more traditional big fella

Crows: 3 sometimes 4! (Walker, Jenkins, Lynch and McGovern)
Swans: 3 at times, always 2 (Franklin, Reid - also have some mediums that are tough to match up on)
GWS: 3 at times, always 2
Richmond: Only the 1 - why I don't think they can win it.
Geelong: Play two ruckman and rest one with Hawkins, Taylor also goes through there.
Essendon: 2 (Hooker and Daniher)
Melbourne: 2 (Hogan and McDonald)

Port play 2, it's just one of them isn't any good at it. But he happens to be a pretty good defender.

Trengove aint mobile, he's a giraffe. And we have a plethora of defensive forwards to compensate.

Does Westoff go forward at all?

Does a bit, not heaps but is our 3rd tall. So not sure Morell thinks we are any different to other sides. Looking at the sides he has listed, we are the same as Sydney & Essendon. Think GWS with their full side would play 3 talls permanently.
I don't get why people are bagging Trengove so much. He is doing his job and he would be doing what any other tall in our side would do. Realistically, when we go inside 50, when do we look to short? When we kick the ball 50 metres up in the air and sit it on the key forwards heads and expect them to beat 2-3 guys each time. It's lucky we always have one of Wingard or Gray roving off of them

[valleys07]

Does a bit, not heaps but is our 3rd tall. So not sure Morell thinks we are any different to other sides. Looking at the sides he has listed, we are the same as Sydney & Essendon. Think GWS with their full side would play 3 talls permanently.
I don't get why people are bagging Trengove so much. He is doing his job and he would be doing what any other tall in our side would do. Realistically, when we go inside 50, when do we look to short? When we kick the ball 50 metres up in the air and sit it on the key forwards heads and expect them to beat 2-3 guys each time. It's lucky we always have one of Wingard or Gray roving off of them

I believe the only game this season in which Westhoff has spent significant time forward was the West Coast game.

I will disagree to an extent, Bertie. People rag on Trengove because he simply isn't fulfilling the requirements of a 2nd tall forward. Less than a goal a game average, 1 contested mark per game average and 1 mark inside 50 average across the season is not good enough. Harry Taylor as a part time 2nd tall for Geelong is putting up better numbers.

At the end of the day, this was an experiment. An experiment that has failed.

Question is- with the emergence of Clurey, the resurgence of Jonas, plus having to fit one of Hombsch and Austin in the side, what is Trengove's role moving forward??

I genuinely have no idea.

[morell]

I don't get why people are bagging Trengove so much. He is doing his job and he would be doing what any other tall in our side would do.

He took one mark inside 50 in 8 weeks.

ONE!

He took a cutla chestys vs West Coast and North, only other games he took more than one were against Carlton and Brisbane. 0 again last week. It's not like our inside 50 counts are low either.

For 2017 he averages 0.8 goals a game. 0.8 Marks inside 50 a game. 3 marks in total. 12 disposals. 3 tackles (not too bad).

Do you really think Brett Eddy couldn't achieve that? Or Dougal Howard?

You are right in that hes just playing his role, but we have a bunch of guys that could play that role with the same output. Some with far more upside, especially when Trengove is a natural rangy centre half back and we've struggled for options down there this year.

EDIT: damnit valleys stole my thunder