View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
It's pretty clear that pre-season the plan was for Cox to play forward and Moore to play back, but as we were losing games, and Cox was not doing much, a decision was made to try Moore up forward for a few weeks. Unfortunately, he has not performed as hoped in this new position, and to stop our season from completely imploding, he is now being moved back to defence. This has been made easier by the reasonably good form of Cameron as a forward/ruckman.
FWIW, I was one of those who clamoured for Bucks to throw Moore forward, but I am now pleased he is returning to defence. Sometimes you never know if you don't have a go. |
|
|
|
|
MatthewBoydFanClub
Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Location: Elwood
|
Post subject: | |
|
Rd10.1998_11.1#36 wrote: | What happened to all the people who were screaming for Moore to go forward?? |
More than happy to admit I was one who called for him to be moved down forward. It was worth a try because we were lacking down forward and we were able to cover him down back. I'd be more than happy to try the experiment again after we get back a few of our senior players in Adams, Elliot and Howe and a few of our youngsters start performing at AFL level. |
|
|
|
|
Boogie Knights
Joined: 18 Sep 2015
|
Post subject: | |
|
I wasn't completely opposed to the experiment, but I was vehemently opposed to the timing. Our best 2 intercept defenders and the ones who organise everything in the back half are Howe and Moore. With Howe injured, Moore had to stay back to keep the defense respectable (which has been one of our strengths). Had Howe not been injured, then sure, trial Moore forward... but seriously, you can't take the backbone out of a skeleton and expect it'll still stand up. |
|
|
|
|
Abdul The Bull
Joined: 02 Aug 2017
|
Post subject: | |
|
^ This.
I was not opposed to Moore going forward. I called for Cloke to go back on many occasions. Moving Key Position players should not be taboo. But timing is everything, and as stated trying it when one of the generals and a leadership group member is out is not the time to try it. _________________ There are 10 types of people in this world, those that understand binary and those that don't. |
|
|
|
|
Raw Hammer
Joined: 11 Sep 2008 Location: The Gutter
|
Post subject: | |
|
It wasn’t so much the moving of Moore forward, it was starting him there and leaving him there, especially when the defence was struggling or down on personnel. He should still be trailed in a pinch hit role if the forward line ain’t firing a shot, or if we’re up big (unlikely). _________________ Est. 2002 |
|
|
|
|
Pies2016
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
Post subject: | |
|
MatthewBoydFanClub wrote: | Rd10.1998_11.1#36 wrote: | What happened to all the people who were screaming for Moore to go forward?? |
More than happy to admit I was one who called for him to be moved down forward. It was worth a try because we were lacking down forward and we were able to cover him down back. I'd be more than happy to try the experiment again after we get back a few of our senior players in Adams, Elliot and Howe and a few of our youngsters start performing at AFL level. |
I think that’s the key to it. You need to try these things when they are at least half a chance to succeed, not when they are consigned to fail.
Moore was in the forward line for all of 45 mins before Howe and DeGoey both went down. Moore still kicked three against good opposition, so Its not like he was entirely clueless in the role. |
|
|
|
|
uncanny
Joined: 04 Mar 2014 Location: Castlemaine
|
Post subject: | |
|
I was calling for Moore to go forward and pleased when he lined up there v Weagles. Then he kicks two early goals.
Losing De Goey and Howe then crippled the team and the supply to the forward line. Yes send him back this weekend to get the team structure more balanced and his confidence back but let's not give up on the idea of Moore playing as a forward in future when the opportunity arises. At the end of the day are crying out for a key position forward and he could be the answer. _________________ woodsmen rule |
|
|
|
|
Boogie Knights
Joined: 18 Sep 2015
|
Post subject: | |
|
I think there's a strong correlation to the Grundy / midfield situation with the Moore / midfield situation.
Is it that Moore wasn't up to playing forward, or is it that his midfield, through inept delivery, set him up to fail?
With Grundy, it's is his ruck dominance completely useless, or is it that the midfield, through inability to win clean clearance, have set him up to be the media (and Nicks) latest whipping boy?
You will not a common theme among the two which may or may not be pure coincidence... |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
uncanny wrote: | I was calling for Moore to go forward and pleased when he lined up there v Weagles. Then he kicks two early goals.
Losing De Goey and Howe then crippled the team and the supply to the forward line. Yes send him back this weekend to get the team structure more balanced and his confidence back but let's not give up on the idea of Moore playing as a forward in future when the opportunity arises. At the end of the day are crying out for a key position forward and he could be the answer. |
I'm in broad agreement, but in truth, Moore only kicked one early goal against the Eagles (Grundy kicked 2), and kicked another 2 in the last quarter, when the game was already lost. |
|
|
|
|
scoobydoo
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
|
Post subject: | |
|
Boogie Knights wrote: | I think there's a strong correlation to the Grundy / midfield situation with the Moore / midfield situation.
Is it that Moore wasn't up to playing forward, or is it that his midfield, through inept delivery, set him up to fail?
With Grundy, it's is his ruck dominance completely useless, or is it that the midfield, through inability to win clean clearance, have set him up to be the media (and Nicks) latest whipping boy?
You will not a common theme among the two which may or may not be pure coincidence... |
Exactly, Plugger would go goalless with the delivery our midfield has been supplying this year. |
|
|
|
|
Piesnchess
piesnchess
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
|
Post subject: | |
|
Im tipping the Woods by around 4 goals, only cos i thought back to the Lions game, which we led for 95% of that match, losing post final siren by a lousy point. The Lions are a very good side, so that gives me some heart, that we can, still, play some good footy, hopefully. Must say tho, its a lousy time to play the match, late Sat arvo, shithouse time, be a small crowd id say because of that alone. Go Woods !! _________________ Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb. |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
Sier and Henry look to have got the call up as they are not in the VFL side.
Macrae is back in the ressies. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
IN: Oliver Henry, Tyler Brown
OUT: Finlay Macrae, Callum Brown (omitted), Jay Rantall (unused medical substitute)
Full team in OP. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
RudeBoy wrote: | Sier and Henry look to have got the call up as they are not in the VFL side.
Macrae is back in the ressies. |
Sier is an emergency. He's probably going to be held back as the Medical Sub. |
|
|
|
|
PyreneesPie
PyreneesPie
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
|
Post subject: | |
|
So pleased to see that Murphy and Poulter have held their spots. They are the wings for both now and the future. Excellent that Oliver Henry is rewarded for good form in the VFL.
Mc Crae could've been retained instead of JT.
Looks like the Brown brothers are alternating senior games between them. |
|
|
|
|
|