Does Roo back solve the problem?

[The OtherThommo]

Why not consider Roo going to CHB? Fish could drop a line deeper to Full Back and suddenly we have the best key defensive pairing in the competition.
Front half with size would comprise Stanley, Lee, Kosi, Wilkes and Sipposs. Around them would be smalls in Milne, Schneider, Millera, Saad.
It looks like we'll have an excess of tall forward options and, maybe, a shortage of big defence options. Roo going back would more than fill the hole. Fisher going 1 line deeper would see him as more viable for longer.
Its worth a look. Even more, I have no doubt such changes are on the books.

[Saintersss]

Because Riewoldt has never played CHB in his life and he isn't going start at age 30.

[saint3d]

It depends what the problem is, I suppose. But it creates the problem of not having him at CHF.

[plugger66]

No I dont think you move a 5 time B&F winner to CHB because we have enough forwards. Anyway our problem is FB and Fisher going back there doesnt address the issue because we dont want him back there. If we cant get a FB we are going to have to play a better team defence than this year.

[Tragic sainter]

Because Riewoldt has never played CHB in his life and he isn't going start at age 30.

Roo played CHB early in his career. Still don't think we should move him though.

[Jaz]

Kosi to full back to play on the monsters works!

[SaintPav]

Kosi to full back to play on the monsters works!

and would be a goal to the opposition every time the ball hit the ground.

[True Blue Sainter]

No, why would we move him back?

Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I have no doubt that he would play reasonable football at CHB (in a third man up sort of role), but I'm not sure if he would be able to man mark efficiently.

[SinCitySainter]

Kosi to full back to play on the monsters works!

Until one of them decides to actually move and then Kosi is out of the contest.

[kimberly saint]

why do people keep thinking roo and kosi can play full back chb, this is the AFL not country footy. Both are past it and lost all there agility , roo will be best served playing out his days hopefully deep in our foward line kosi most likely on his farm

[Scollop]

No to Kosi and No to Roo going in defence. Might've worked when they were 23.

I reckon Roo needs to reduce the miles in his legs during games, so keep him at FF, Kosi (when he plays should play the traditional resting ruckmens role in the forward pocket), and Stanley - with plenty of run in his young legs- plays further up the ground.

That means Lee and Wilkes are back up forwards or Stanley is 2nd ruck and Lee and Wilkes get games to see who can hold down the 3rd tall forward spot.

Actualy...come to think of it, a 'resting ruckmens role' means that your main job is being a ruckmen...maybe Kosi makes way to give game time to Lee

[LTN16]

I have a feeling Wilkes will be played as a defender next year.
There's no way riewoldt will be playing back there

[savatage]

Wilkes is a forward and a forward only.

[Con Gorozidis]

I have a feeling Wilkes will be played as a defender next year.
There's no way riewoldt will be playing back there

your feeling wont come to fruition

roo = fwd
wilkes = fwd

we are still in need of a tall defender. the search will continue. we will land one in the next 3 weeks.

[R. Harvey 3 votes!]

I know this is years ago but Rooey played CHB I remember one game against Freo at the then Optus Oval. He took something like 13 marks and kicked but back there.
I personaly like the Rooey at CHB idea because it also takes away from his goal kicking and makes us less predictable. Also Imagine Rooey dropping in the hole in front of Buddy for example? Would Hawthorn want to kick it there? Would be a prick of an option for them putting it in Rooey's area

[8856brother]

I know this is years ago but Rooey played CHB I remember one game against Freo at the then Optus Oval. He took something like 13 marks and kicked but back there.
I personaly like the Rooey at CHB idea because it also takes away from his goal kicking and makes us less predictable. Also Imagine Rooey dropping in the hole in front of Buddy for example? Would Hawthorn want to kick it there? Would be a prick of an option for them putting it in Rooey's area

Hawks would be happy he was playing in defence and not forward IMO.

[kimberly saint]

he has no side ways movement his knees are shot, any half decent foward who could lead would destroy him

[hungry for a premiership]

Although it would be very nice to see Roo finally have some freedom and not be bastardized by the opposition week after week by putting him in defence, there's no way any sensible coach in his right mind would move our champion CHB and the lynch-pin of our defence in Sam Fisher out of his normal position.

Fish is one of the best readers of the play in the game, and he's been playing that role all his career. As good as Roo is, it would be detrimental to our structure to put him at CHB in place of Fish.

No, if you're going to put Roo into the backline (which I wouldn't), then just cut to the chase and put HIM at Full Back on the oppositions No.1 forward, rather than moving Fish and have him play out of position, too.

With all Roo's experience as a forward and with his height, athleticism and endurance, he may just have a fighting chance of holding down a defensive position playing 1 on 1 vs the oppositions "full-forward," with fish and gilbo doing what they do best and jumping 3rd and 4th man into the contests and chopping off supply. Riewoldt on Buddy would be interesting to see.


In all reality, though, surely this just isn't an option. I mean, come on, we've got pick 13 and 24-odd, we've got all this salary cap space left by the departure of B. (The Grumpy Dunce) Goddard, I know it's easy to say but sheesh, just get a full-back from somewhere and let Riewoldt play forward for the rest of his days. He truly is a fantastic forward, one of the best the game has ever seen, and that is where he is most dangerous and valuable to the team.

[groupie1]

No I dont think you move a 5 time B&F winner to CHB because we have enough forwards. Anyway our problem is FB and Fisher going back there doesnt address the issue because we dont want him back there. If we cant get a FB we are going to have to play a better team defence than this year.

Bollocks
Paul Salmon... Alastair Lynch... Richo... Gavin Brown... Aussie Jones... Fraser Gehrig... Chris Tarrant... Ryan O'Keefe... plenty of footballers have changed positions deep or mid-career.

[LTN16]

Wilkes is a forward and a forward only.

Yes for sandringham maybe.

There's no way Wilkes, Riewoldt, Kosi, Lee and Stanley can all fit in the same forward line when we have no injurys. Just saying you need to be flexible so Wilkes needs to be able to pinch hit down back if needed and with a bit of confidence he'd go alright back there.

[The OtherThommo]

We have an abundance of tall forward options and a dearth of tall defensive options. I don't want us to overpay for a bloke with an ordinary injury history, 50 odd games in 6 odd years, can't get a game as a big defender ahead of Eric McKenzie (3 parts gumby, 1 part big body, IMO), because we are desperate for a big defender.
Stanley is plainly being groomed as a key forward (primarily, and going after Hickey supports that notion). Lee has been brought in on the basis of what he did in '12 as a forward in the WAFL. Kosi can only play forward, and deep forward. Wilkes only has a future as a forward, as his occasional forays in defence show. Sipposs grew again in '12 and his natural flair is that of a forward.
Even if Roo wasn't around in '13, we can't fit all those options up forward at once. Yes, it would be great to let Roo play out his days forward. He is a modern great CHF, so that would be ideal.
But, if we do not pluck a viable option as a key defender, we have an unbalanced list. Adjusting a list to address imbalances is rarely a 1 year task, anyway, but it is less possible when some of your keys are ageing. Given list adjustments can take a while any club will try to mitigate the shortcomings of their list in the short term. They'd be negligent not to do so.
It started this year. Fisher did play a number of games deeper, did play more defensively in some games on opposition big forwards, and did it well.
If Roo was to move back, we would lose forward, no argument. But, it is not unreasonable to expect Stanley to improve, Lee at 21 to have some impact, Kosi and Wilkes to make some contribution and Sipposs to continue to improve. Saad will improve, Milne should maintain his output (or close to it, and because we now have more options), Schneider would hopefully have a better run with injury and the midfielders began kicking more goals in '12 with the way Watters set us up and had us play.
On that basis I reckon we are more chance to compensate for Roo's absence forward than we are to pluck a gun defender out of thin air (and I don't believe Brown's a gun, anyway). A lesser consideration, but still relevant, is Roo's less than optimal goal kicking.
And I reckon Roo would be a sensation at CHB. He's a smart footballer who'd be able to address his lack of experience in defence in a very short time. After all, he's spent 10+ years working out how to beat them. He would relish not having an opponent's first objective as clattering into him, often with more numbers with exactly the same objective. As for his knees not being up to it 1) a lot of the pressure on his knees comes from opponents making his body the objective, particularly from side on (it was the side on contact that finsihed Brereton early) 2) there is a lot more turning involved playing forward, particularly when you do as many changes of directions as he does, at pace.
Then there's his ability to cover the ground. He still runs further, at pace, than any forward in the game. Ergo, up the other end, no forward is going to be able to out run him consistently over a game. Plus, he reads the game expertly (as all great forwards can) so that should translate into him being able to decide when he doesn't have to run with his opponent, but can just go to the ball. As far as the attacking side of defending goes, who amongst the opposing forwards is going to be able to run with him when he decides we've got control of the ball and he'll take off to be part of it? If we set this up right I could see him kicking goals coming down from defence because the opposing forward just can't go with him. Footballers generally cover more of the ground now and that's right up Roo's alley.
The whole thought comes back to how we get the best out of what we've got on our list. There is more team upside with this than there is downside. I reckon the football department will be considering a whole range of scenarios as the list gets finalised. This will be one of them. The primary objective of any management is to get the best result out of what you've got to work with. In footballing terms be as hard to beat as you can possibly be. And, be flexible. Roo's good enough to be part of that.

[Scollop]

.........if we do not pluck a viable option as a key defender, we have an unbalanced list. Adjusting a list to address imbalances is rarely a 1 year task, anyway, but it is less possible when some of your keys are ageing. Given list adjustments can take a while any club will try to mitigate the shortcomings of their list in the short term. They'd be negligent not to do so...........

+1

If we don't recruit a specialist tall defender then one of our existing talls has to put their hand up. I'd rather blood Stanley as CHF.

Kosi can't do the job, so it's going have to be Lee, Wilkes or Roo. There is another option with JB playing full back, but that would mean that we are not interested in improving the side.

[SainterK]

Interesting thread and question posed...

[Chubby chequer]

We have an abundance of tall forward options and a dearth of tall defensive options. I don't want us to overpay for a bloke with an ordinary injury history, 50 odd games in 6 odd years, can't get a game as a big defender ahead of Eric McKenzie (3 parts gumby, 1 part big body, IMO), because we are desperate for a big defender.
Stanley is plainly being groomed as a key forward (primarily, and going after Hickey supports that notion). Lee has been brought in on the basis of what he did in '12 as a forward in the WAFL. Kosi can only play forward, and deep forward. Wilkes only has a future as a forward, as his occasional forays in defence show. Sipposs grew again in '12 and his natural flair is that of a forward.
Even if Roo wasn't around in '13, we can't fit all those options up forward at once. Yes, it would be great to let Roo play out his days forward. He is a modern great CHF, so that would be ideal.
But, if we do not pluck a viable option as a key defender, we have an unbalanced list. Adjusting a list to address imbalances is rarely a 1 year task, anyway, but it is less possible when some of your keys are ageing. Given list adjustments can take a while any club will try to mitigate the shortcomings of their list in the short term. They'd be negligent not to do so.
It started this year. Fisher did play a number of games deeper, did play more defensively in some games on opposition big forwards, and did it well.
If Roo was to move back, we would lose forward, no argument. But, it is not unreasonable to expect Stanley to improve, Lee at 21 to have some impact, Kosi and Wilkes to make some contribution and Sipposs to continue to improve. Saad will improve, Milne should maintain his output (or close to it, and because we now have more options), Schneider would hopefully have a better run with injury and the midfielders began kicking more goals in '12 with the way Watters set us up and had us play.
On that basis I reckon we are more chance to compensate for Roo's absence forward than we are to pluck a gun defender out of thin air (and I don't believe Brown's a gun, anyway). A lesser consideration, but still relevant, is Roo's less than optimal goal kicking.
And I reckon Roo would be a sensation at CHB. He's a smart footballer who'd be able to address his lack of experience in defence in a very short time. After all, he's spent 10+ years working out how to beat them. He would relish not having an opponent's first objective as clattering into him, often with more numbers with exactly the same objective. As for his knees not being up to it 1) a lot of the pressure on his knees comes from opponents making his body the objective, particularly from side on (it was the side on contact that finsihed Brereton early) 2) there is a lot more turning involved playing forward, particularly when you do as many changes of directions as he does, at pace.
Then there's his ability to cover the ground. He still runs further, at pace, than any forward in the game. Ergo, up the other end, no forward is going to be able to out run him consistently over a game. Plus, he reads the game expertly (as all great forwards can) so that should translate into him being able to decide when he doesn't have to run with his opponent, but can just go to the ball. As far as the attacking side of defending goes, who amongst the opposing forwards is going to be able to run with him when he decides we've got control of the ball and he'll take off to be part of it? If we set this up right I could see him kicking goals coming down from defence because the opposing forward just can't go with him. Footballers generally cover more of the ground now and that's right up Roo's alley.
The whole thought comes back to how we get the best out of what we've got on our list. There is more team upside with this than there is downside. I reckon the football department will be considering a whole range of scenarios as the list gets finalised. This will be one of them. The primary objective of any management is to get the best result out of what you've got to work with. In footballing terms be as hard to beat as you can possibly be. And, be flexible. Roo's good enough to be part of that.

+1

[Con Gorozidis]

Riewoldt is a champ - but if people think we are going to benefit from switching a 30yo champ fwd with dodgy knees to become a key defender this club is in serious side.