Seriously?

Yeah, look I know as far as penetrating questions of coaches go it might be on the trainspotter side of technical but give it a shot.

Depends what midfield you have got.

No. Midfields are the same. Ideal forward set up?

Depends on the ruck.

No, it doesn't. Just tell me what you'd most like? How many talls and how many smalls?

Depends on the forward personnel.

Now you are getting close but still, really, is it that hard? Ideal world, ideal forward set up what is it for the modern game?

Honest answer

That'd be nice.

Two mobile big keys who can get up and down the ground and one can ruck. But if I only have one good one I'm happy with that.

The Bulldogs won last year with an unconventional set-up of Tom Boyd rotating through the ruck and a blend of mid-sized players Tory Dickson, Jake Stringer and like the Eagles flag of 2006 shifted the preconceptions of forwards.

Still was last year Luke Beveridge's ideal structure? It would seem not, the recruiting in the off-season of Travis Cloke and the immediate inclusion of Stewart Crameri after suspension would suggest he was not wedded to what had worked but liked the idea of more talls.

So what is the right blend? Two talls and four smalls? Two talls, a third mid-sized hard running tall (the Jack Gunston of the Hawks prime), or one tall and five smalls?

And where does the second ruck come in? Is that rotated off the bench or rotated forward?

The answer will typically be that it depends on who you have and the quality of the personnel, but this has only been true to a point. Many coaches like the idea of the role player and that you have a plug in plug out idea to players filling roles.

But this does not always apply. And again the dogs have been an exemplar of this. This year they shifted from what they had, trialled other talls then fell back to the idea that you do not play a tall player because he fits a structure, you instead play the players in the best form.

Collingwood has done the same thing. They started with three tall forwards (Darcy Moore, Mason Cox and Jesse White) all as forwards. But it didn't work. They then tried different combinations. Moore and Cox, Moore and White, then Moore and Reid.

When Reid got injured they didn't lapse back to one of the unsuccessful earlier arrangements they abandoned the second tall. Or rather they played a second tall, he just wasn't that tall.

Jamie Elliott has played pretty much as a full-forward leading the goal square since his return. They are now playing a one-five structure (one tall five small forwards) but with the strapping 178cm yet high leaping Elliott playing virtually as one of the talls.

It is a quaintly retro re-styling that this weekend offers a neat nod to an earlier successful arrangement.

Callum Brown was picked in the squad for Sunday's game against Fremantle.

He won't play unless there is an injury but he is in the squad. Earlier this year Josh Daicos was an emergency too as part of his pre-debut education.

Both Daicos and Brown's dads, Peter and Gavin, successfully played as undersized key forward targets in the 1990 flag.

Daicos kicked 97 goals that year as a nominally small forward - surpassing Leigh Matthews for the most ever by a shorter chap.

Typically though it has not happened. The game has not tolerated smaller players at length as the target.

Collingwood has performed better with Elliott back in the side and as a target forward. Those inside Collingwood suggest the difference has been the change in the speed of ball movement as much as the change of forward structure, but acknowledge there is a chicken and egg element to whether the change of forward structure helped speed the ball movement. (Then there is talk of running patterns and things get far too trainspottery).

Collingwood would doubtless prefer not to rely on this structure and would prefer a second tall forward with Elliott as a difficult-to-match-up-on third option. Because of his leap and strong hands as well as his strength and speed he is capable of performing both roles as a small and a tall forward so he can play the target role but ideally he would not be that player.

Why? The second genuine tall forward enables variations in game style - fast and slow ball movement. Most teams prefer to ideally move the ball quickly but occasionally the opposition does not allow that.

The second tall forward can be important not as a target inside fifty but as a release player to take a mark on a wing.

"The idea of how tall your forward line has to be is flawed because it's about what type of ball movement they are playing in front of. That is more important," said one senior coach this week.

"I don't think the size of the forward is as vital as the capacity to impact and win the ball in the air or on the ground, win a one on one or halve a one on two."

So the consensus, cutting through the clich?? and lies, is two talls as long as they are mobile.

"We'd all love Cameron and Patton or Lynch and Wright," one said.

"You can't afford to have a player who won't do damage in more than one way. If he doesn't mark it he is a liability. If he can't get a ground ball or put pressure on he is no good to you."

Size matters but not that much.

Thanks coach.