| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: Moore - forward or back? |  |
|
With Cox out for the season, we've been playing Rough as 2nd tall 2nd Ruck and making do with a small defence.
With Moore due to return this week, do we put him down back leaving Rough forward or put Moore down forward and shift Rough back?
Moore is more talented at either end, Rough is a role player.
I'm undecided.
Thoughts?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Honestly, putting either of them forward seems like robbing Peter to pay Paul. Moore's probably a more effective forward, but he's also the more dynamic backman in some ways (and it goes without saying that both are much better defenders than they are forwards). I tend to think it's a lose/lose either way.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I prefer to play both Moore and Roughead in defence.
Assuming De Goey returns for the finals, we'll have enough marking power up forward with him, Stevo, Elliott, Mihocek and WHE. |
|
|
|
|
shawthing 
Joined: 04 Jul 2019
Location: Victoria Park
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Moore has been tried forward - a failure.
Keep him back where he has played really well. |
|
|
|
|
Boogie Knights
Joined: 18 Sep 2015
|
| Post subject: | |
|
With the dynamic of our mid sized forwards, we really don't need someone of Moore's ability down there. Roughie provides enough in conjunction with the rest of the forwards for the unit to function just fine - and I'd rather Roughie in the ruck than Moore.
Moore back thank you where his ability to read play, close space and run are where he's most needed. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I guess Bucks has shown a preference for 2 tall forwards surrounded by mids/smalls, so I'm assuming that even with DeGoey and Stevo back, he'd want to continue that.
Having that one real tall gives the option of the dump kick up in the air toward goal when all leading options are covered. Without at least 1 genuine tall option, we'll be picked off by opposition tall marking defenders.
That was Cox main role and what Rough has been doing, make a contest.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Pies2016
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | I guess Bucks has shown a preference for 2 tall forwards surrounded by mids/smalls, so I'm assuming that even with DeGoey and Stevo back, he'd want to continue that.
Having that one real tall gives the option of the dump kick up in the air toward goal when all leading options are covered. Without at least 1 genuine tall option, we'll be picked off by opposition tall marking defenders.
That was Cox main role and what Rough has been doing, make a contest. |
I think you’re on the money, stui. From the moment Cox was ruled out, they immediately declared their hand by replacing him with another tall.
They are auditioning for finals already, so I don’t see them trying out a plan B, when A would still need some tweaking.
As B K said ( ^^ ) I really like Moore’s closing speed. He kills so many contests and then we get to reset in defence again. I think Moore is a natural defender and Roughead will probably remain as the reluctant forward. As long as he doesn’t get outmarked, he’s well on the way to doing his job. |
|
|
|
|
Stevo75
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| We need one or the other to play forward and relieve Grundy in the ruck. Much better to switch up the forwards than it is to take someone out of the backline. For mine Moore goes straight back to defence where he is a star. Roughie has been doing ok forward and certainly provides a good contest and more than capable ruck option. |
|
|
|
|
Magpietothemax 
magpietothemax
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Start him back, but if our forward line lacks punch, rotate him with Roughie.
_________________
Free Julian Assange!!
Ice in the veins |
|
|
|
|
Skids 
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Haven't minded Roughie forward. No goals but a good target and averaging 7 marks the last 3 outings, he's going to worry most Backman.
With Moore in, I'd leave him in the F50, at least for a start. Moore forward... no.
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count.
Last edited by Skids on Thu Aug 22, 2019 7:49 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
mgh3536
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Both!!!
Grundy 50% forward
Moore and Roughead the other 50% |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Honestly, putting either of them forward seems like robbing Peter to pay Paul. Moore's probably a more effective forward, but he's also the more dynamic backman in some ways (and it goes without saying that both are much better defenders than they are forwards). I tend to think it's a lose/lose either way. |
I don't see how it's a lose/lose. We're bereft of height up forward and having either Roughead or Moore as a target option (as well as relief ruck) strengthens that setup. Either would be especially important as a down the line target which this season has become essential for all teams with the rule changes resulting in less direct play.
Down back it's rare that you need two 200cm players. One of them plus Scharenberg/Howe to take the next guy is almost always fine. I guess there's some remote possibility we retain Madgen for finals but I'd say not.
Talent wise I'd prefer to see Moore up forward and in the ruck. He has the potential to cause major problems in both positions. Stability wise I'd prefer Roughead down back as he's played there all year and done it well, though the couple of weeks he's played up forward is also a useful initiation.
However, Moore's propensity for injury needs to be considered. I think it unfortunately rules him out of a ruck/forward position and that he'll play defence and Roughead will remain forward.
_________________
Well done boys!
Last edited by AN_Inkling on Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:34 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
they might play Moore forward to protect his hammy. it is chasing backs on a lead that causes hamstring injuries. Its how it happened to Moore every time. We moved Reid forward so that he might have a shot at playing more footy. Worked for a time.
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Good arguments by all above. I don't know what's best, although my instinct is to make sure we're breaking even over the ball before moving one of them forward.
If we find ourselves under the pump and bombing to a wall of defenders who are providing dangerous rebound, the move has to be made with haste despite the temptation to bolster the defence when under siege. But as long as we get it into our heads that we might need to make a move early, I would probably start them back.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
bokka
Joined: 11 Apr 1999
Location: NY, Ex Land of Brave and Free
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Well Moore and Roughhead are both swingmen so swing them around to get what works at any particular time.
But I'd start with Moore forward, I think he is a better forward and defender than Roughhead but a better better forward than better back if that makes sense.
Roughhead may not be as rebounding and offensive from defense, but may be as good or better a stopper. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
