Brett Ebert and the Big Picture

tribey · Jul 13, 2008

He's too slow and doesn't/can't chase hard enough to be deployed on a flank/wing - so he must almost always be deployed deep.
But he's only 178cms and yet plays exclusively as a key forward, relying on leading and marking, with crumbing and groundlevel play practically non-existent.
His tank supposedly isn't big enough to play in the midfield despite winning a Magarey there at SANFL level, so he can't be rotated out of the forward line at all, other than to the pine.

Combined with Motlop who is almost the exact same type of player, despite being 6cms taller and having a few more tricks, is Brett a luxury we cannot afford when looking at the bigger picture?

That is, the effect his position has on the forward structure as a whole given his presence in the side is almost exclusively in the one role - that being the league's shortest key position forward?

As we saw tonight with brutal clarity, guys more suited to the targetman roles - specifically Tredrea and Westhoff (despite accusations of being the league's tallest small, he was brutally effective in 2007 by playing deep and merely putting his arms up) - are being increasingly forced out of the F50 and more specifically the hotspot to accomodate him, by playing in roaming roles that seem to fatally weaken their ability to be effective and therefore the team's ability to both score and win overall.

Moreover, how often to we go long to him, despite his diminutive size, only for the ball to rebound straight back from whence it came because he cannot bring the ball to ground or contest like a traditional KPP, let alone chase when the ball does come out?

Is his 1-2 goals a game with minimal additional impact by way of defensive pressure and creative, inclusive teamwork really worth sacrificing the games of our two genuine key forwards?

*PAF · Jul 13, 2008

dyertribe said:
... Combined with Motlop who is almost the exact same type of player, ...

Motlop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... > Ebert

Macca19 · Jul 13, 2008

He used to be a decent ground level player, especially at SANFL level, but his ridiculously good marking for his size has always been his forte. I still think in a traditional forward structure he'd still be ok. Who knows. Guess we wont find out.

*PAF · Jul 13, 2008

Macca19 said:
He used to be a decent ground level player, especially at SANFL level, but his ridiculously good marking for his size has always been his forte. I still think in a traditional forward structure he'd still be ok. Who knows. Guess we wont find out.

Once you remove the cake from underneath the cream it will invariably turn into mush.

FishingRick04 · Jul 13, 2008

Disgraceful thread, disgraceful opinion of a 2007 A.A player and a reliable forward this season when we haven't had too many!

Macca19 · Jul 13, 2008

Ebert wasnt AA last year.

crazyman27 · Jul 13, 2008

Look what happens as soon as Motlop marks on the 50, straight away turns around and bangs it to the top of the square; Ebert finds some space and marks. Give him a break, the kind of service he's gotten this year is terrible and by the time we get the footy into our forward half teams have 2 or 3 guys sitting in front of him, forcing him to lead into the pockets. I just don't understand why Choco refuses to back his forwards in to win a 1 on 1 contest or at least bring it to ground for the smalls. Mind you, most of our smalls are sitting behind the play waiting for the opposition to rebound it to take an uncontested mark in the defensive 50. Why can't we get a decent forward set-up going which backs the forwards in and gives us some options at ground level. Teams rebound from defence so easily against us because we have no numbers to keep the footy inside the 50.

Power House · Jul 13, 2008

Ebert will be a lot better once we fix up some other areas on the ground. I just know if we trade him off we'll regret it al la Medhurst from Freo to Collingwood. Look at how much he's improved with a new side.

The Hobo · Jul 13, 2008

Play him like Collingwood play Paul Medhurst

Schulzenfest · Jul 13, 2008

Ebert would be good if he didn't have five balls kicked directly over his head while on the lead every game.

Portia · Jul 13, 2008

Ebert would be good if he was a foot taller, it sounds like he would mark 5 extra balls on the lead every game.

Schulzenfest · Jul 13, 2008

Porthos said:
Ebert would be good if he was a foot taller, it sounds like he would mark 5 extra balls on the lead every game.

He probably would. If he was a foot taller he'd also be up there with Aaron Sandilands.

Peninsula Boy · Jul 13, 2008

Absurd. Close to AA selection last year. Has looked injured all year and can only dream of laces out to him this year. However, some better defensive efforts woudl be nice.

Port01 · Jul 13, 2008

Its not easy to have second efforts when the ball hits the ground and there is a 2 to 1 to the opposition, and when those 2 get the ball an easy out at half back. If you aren't first to the ball on the ground (which a marking target rarely is), you don't get much oppurtunity in that situation to have an impact. If you do get the ball first your only option is a quick snap and it isnt counted as a defensive effort.

One classic example was S Burgoynes free close in for holding the ball. The ball hit the ground, a north player got it but we had enough in the vicinity to force a contest, something we rarely do.

tribey · Jul 13, 2008

FishingRick04 said:
Disgraceful thread, disgraceful opinion of a 2007 A.A player

Wow. Deep. I suppose when you put it like that...

...and a reliable forward this season when we haven't had too many!

Reliable?

Inconsistent, frustrating and one-dimensional in reality.

tribey · Jul 13, 2008

Peninsula Boy said:
Absurd. Close to AA selection last year. Has looked injured all year and can only dream of laces out to him this year. However, some better defensive efforts woudl be nice.

But that's exactly the point.

Given his height and the unique role he plays he needs silver service and is practically irrelevant without the ball in his hands given is lack of defensive pressure or versatility when not lining up (when he is elite).

P.A.F.C · Jul 13, 2008

He doesn't need silver service, just a bit of competency. He hasn't got that this year nor has he been in great form. Will bounce back.

Borscht Mat · Jul 13, 2008

dyertribe said:
But that's exactly the point.

Given his height and the unique role he plays he needs silver service and is practically irrelevant without the ball in his hands given is lack of defensive pressure or versatility when not lining up (when he is elite).

he has reliably kicked goals. first and foremost that is what we need from a forward. It just seems he doesn't kick those goals in the exact manner that you expect

Macca19 · Jul 13, 2008

Im on the fence. I like Ebert, he kicks goals, hes one of the best small forwards in the league, but if he doesnt get hit lace out then hes pretty much out of the picture. It seems at times hes completely lost that ground side of his game. I think thats one of his downfalls.

I dont like that he is the main focal point of our forward line and I cant see us winning a flag with that being so. I think his game would improve in a more traditional forward line setup where he is the 2nd or 3rd dog instead of number 1.

Peninsula Boy · Jul 14, 2008

dyertribe said:
But that's exactly the point.

Given his height and the unique role he plays he needs silver service and is practically irrelevant without the ball in his hands given is lack of defensive pressure or versatility when not lining up (when he is elite).

I dont think he needs laces out to be effective but look at the rest of the forwards. No one has fired this year. Our midfield is a mess and will continue to provide nothing. Up until the prelim lasd year, which was about the time the groin started to become a problem, Ebert was a very dangerous small forward close to AA selection and kicked around 60 odd goals. A lot of people have very short memories.

Blame the midfield this year. Its shocking.

*PAF · Jul 14, 2008

Macca19 said:
Im on the fence. I like Ebert, he kicks goals, hes one of the best small forwards in the league, but if he doesnt get hit lace out then hes pretty much out of the picture. It seems at times hes completely lost that ground side of his game. I think thats one of his downfalls.

I dont like that he is the main focal point of our forward line and I cant see us winning a flag with that being so. I think his game would improve in a more traditional forward line setup where he is the 2nd or 3rd dog instead of number 1.

Yep. Fence sitter number two here. :thumbsu:

El_Scorcho · Jul 14, 2008

I think sorting out our forward entry might be a good idea before we start having a go at any of the forwards individually.

The fact that we are playing Tredrea as a foil pretty much tells me that the way our forward line and forward entry is structured is all wrong and frankly sickening.

When we fix the structure, i'll comment on Ebert. He has shown he has the talent to kick bags of goals, so i'd definitely be hesitant to write him off. You don't have to be 6'6 to play a key forward's role, and when he is on he is a difficult matchup for anyone.

portentous · Jul 14, 2008

*PAF said:
Yep. Fence sitter number two here.

I'd sit on the fence with you,but it'd collapse under the weight.

Seriously, I hardly blame any of our forwards individually for our poor season given the ridiculous forward line structure we've had and the inconsistency of our midfielders.

Why on earth are we playing injured players at this stage of the season is the big question?

Andre · Jul 16, 2008

Macca19 said:
Im on the fence. I like Ebert, he kicks goals, hes one of the best small forwards in the league, but if he doesnt get hit lace out then hes pretty much out of the picture. It seems at times hes completely lost that ground side of his game. I think thats one of his downfalls.

I dont like that he is the main focal point of our forward line and I cant see us winning a flag with that being so. I think his game would improve in a more traditional forward line setup where he is the 2nd or 3rd dog instead of number 1.

I'm in the fence sitters group. I can handle a 2 tall forward line with Brett as the 3rd 'tall' - IF he's the THIRD 'tall', not playing FF or CHF. And if we had at least one crumber down there.

Brett has flaws in his game, but (like 90% of our problems all over the ground) it's structural issues with the forward setup that is the biggie. You could say get him out of there if Choco is going to use him incorrectly, but Choco should stop thinking he can turn 150 years of footy experience (that small forwards don't win you games when it matters most), when it's clearly not working.

Portia · Jul 16, 2008

Actually, small forwards can. Its short marking forwards that don't.

Rd 10 + Your Club Board

NRL Round 11 🏉

EPL Matchday 38 ⚽ Tip Now

Brett Ebert and the Big Picture

ʎǝlʞuᴉH ʞɔɐS

Brownlow Medallist

Moderator

Brownlow Medallist

Brownlow Medallist

Moderator

Club Legend

Senior List

Norm Smith Medallist

TheBrownDog

#DrewBlood

TheBrownDog

Premiership Player

Norm Smith Medallist

ʎǝlʞuᴉH ʞɔɐS

ʎǝlʞuᴉH ʞɔɐS

Norm Smith Medallist

Club Legend

Moderator

Premiership Player

Brownlow Medallist

Hall of Famer

Brownlow Medallist

Brownlow Medallist

#DrewBlood

Similar threads

Log In or Create New Account