Using a part timer as our 2nd ruckman

[Rocco Jones]

I was going to post this in the round 3 ins and outs thread but thought it warranted it's own thread as it's about our structure for the rest of the season.

There has already been a fair bit of discussion about Roughead possibly replacing Minson in the side but do any of you want us to go in with a part timer instead to give our side greater flexibility/mobility?

Last week we went in at least one midfielder short and bringing back Johnno (whenever that is) will cause some structural dilemmas.

Will is struggling and as a 2nd ruckman I really believe he lacks that extra string to his bow, he is just making up numbers playing forward. Having him out of the side would give us greater flexibility to play someone like Johnno or Hahn without having to sacrifice running depth.

I haven't got TOG stats handy but I believe Hudson's would be about 70%. He doesn't have the fitness that some other ruckmen have, so a draw back to the tactic would be the added time. Still though, is saying 30% (bit more than a quarter) really worth playing another pure ruckman?

Obviously another issue is who we would use as the part timer. Dre seems the obvious candidate to me but he has finally found some form down back and disrupting that has a risk.

Would love to read a few thoughts.

[SonofScray]

I think you are underselling Will a bit to be honest. The combination of Huddo and Will is where our rucking strength is, they're not individually elite talls but together form a very solid working class ruck division. Both scrap hard in close, they do the hard yards where needed and can provide effective taps to the midfield.

Huddo is better at winning his own ball in close, Minson has days where he is valuable around the ground and is a bit better up forward. There just seems to be a good balance there, it isn't perfect but I think if you change it up right now we fall away a lot more than most would anticipate. On form you'd have to say Will needs to come under some scrutiny, fitness wise he is battling a lot; so something has to give at some stage.

I wouldn't want Everitt filling the role, he needs times to get his own game going. Would not be in our interests to make him a bit parts man when he potentially could be an elite KP at best, or a handy flanker at least.

I wouldn't ask more of Huddo, he has slipped a bit here and there when his body isn't quite right, I'm think late 2008 is a good example. Can't put him under more pressure to play more good minutes, and liewise we don't want to ask too much of a "fill" in ruck.

Form pending, you'd give Roughy a chance at some stage, pray Ayce is actually any good and hope Huddo doesn't get injured.

[Dry Rot]

The hypothetical is interesting - who are the candidates?

Aside from Dre, I suppose purely going on height there's Williams, Lake and Hall but I don't know we'd want to risk them in the ruck, nor would they have the skills.

[Rocco Jones]

I don't think our candidates are great, I personally just don't rate playing 2 pure ruckmen who struggle elsewhere on the field.

I believe a big factor in the amount of time we will actually need them to cover in the ruck.

[Sedat]

I was going to post this in the round 3 ins and outs thread but thought it warranted it's own thread as it's about our structure for the rest of the season.

There has already been a fair bit of discussion about Roughead possibly replacing Minson in the side but do any of you want us to go in with a part timer instead to give our side greater flexibility/mobility?

Last week we went in at least one midfielder short and bringing back Johnno (whenever that is) will cause some structural dilemmas.

Will is struggling and as a 2nd ruckman I really believe he lacks that extra string to his bow, he is just making up numbers playing forward. Having him out of the side would give us greater flexibility to play someone like Johnno or Hahn without having to sacrifice running depth.

I haven't got TOG stats handy but I believe Hudson's would be about 70%. He doesn't have the fitness that some other ruckmen have, so a draw back to the tactic would be the added time. Still though, is saying 30% (bit more than a quarter) really worth playing another pure ruckman?

Obviously another issue is who we would use as the part timer. Dre seems the obvious candidate to me but he has finally found some form down back and disrupting that has a risk.

Would love to read a few thoughts.
I reckon Huddo needs the bash and crash of Will to help wear the opposition ruckmen down. He was completely spent late in 2008 and his repeat efforts after the stoppage dried up considerably that September. I'm confident that Will will find some touch before too long and will become a valuable part of the starting 22. Hudson is a vitally important ingredient in our structure and needs to be protected for as long during the season as possible. Worth noting that we were a bottom 2 team in the competition for clearances and contested possessions prior to Huddo's arrival and we are have been ranked in the top 2-3 for both stats since Huddo came to the club.

[Rocco Jones]

I reckon Huddo needs the bash and crash of Will to help wear the opposition ruckmen down. He was completely spent late in 2008 and his repeat efforts after the stoppage dried up considerably that September. I'm confident that Will will find some touch before too long and will become a valuable part of the starting 22. Hudson is a vitally important ingredient in our structure and needs to be protected for as long during the season as possible. Worth noting that we were a bottom 2 team in the competition for clearances and contested possessions prior to Huddo's arrival and we are have been ranked in the top 2-3 for both stats since Huddo came to the club.

Yep, definitely value the role Hudson plays and think he needs some protection. Occasionally resting Hudson and having a horses for courses 2 ruck/1 ruck + part timers are possible options. My issues are less about Minson and more about having 2 out and out rucks in a side struggling to fit in midfielders/runners.

[boydogs]

Nice thread. I've always thought Everitt was an attacking player like a Goodes or Embley, and this would give us a good excuse to move him out of defense and play him on the ball instead. I reckon the coaching staff are thinking the same thing, as it is only really Cordy behind Hudson, Minson and Roughead on the list at the moment as a genuine ruck option.

Will's poor pre-season is translating into poor early form, and Everitt resting forward while Hudson is rucking looks more attractive now that we have Hall to crash the packs and create a contest, which Will was doing previously.

I would be happy to put this into place when Ward or Eagle are ready to come back in, to save dropping Moles or Picken

[Sedat]

My issues are less about Minson and more about having 2 out and out rucks in a side struggling to fit in midfielders/runners.
I don't think Minson is the problem - it is more about the 5-6 attacking mid-sized forwards who are all inconsistent in their defensive pressure when they don't have the ball. For mine, Higgins is the one from this group that needs to be released into the middle on a more permanent basis - he was a top-shelf midfielder at U-18 level and has developed some bad habits playing as an almost permament half forward throughout his career thus far. Sucessfully release him into our midfield on a more consistent basis and it starts to provide a more balanced overall structure with regard to mids and forwards.

[Hotdog60]

This might be a little off topic, but could Will move to the back line and become a defender and when Roughy is ready becomes our forward ruck option.

This thought come to me will reading this thread, Will hasn't had great success forward and as has been mentioned that BBB crashes the packs so maybe a change of style might be something will needs.

It also gives us a big bodied tall defender and maybe release Tom up forward.

[chef]

I don't like the idea.

What happens if the number 1 gets injured during the match?

People need to remember that Big Will didn't have a very solid preseason so it is going to take him a few games to get going. A full game or two at Williamstown might be good for him to blow out the cobwebs and give Roughead a taste IMO.

[chef]

This might be a little off topic, but could Will move to the back line and become a defender and when Roughy is ready becomes our forward ruck option.

This thought come to me will reading this thread, Will hasn't had great success forward and as has been mentioned that BBB crashes the packs so maybe a change of style might be something will needs.

It also gives us a big bodied tall defender and maybe release Tom up forward.

He would get cut to piece's in the backline. He is not agile or quick enough.

[Hotdog60]

He would get cut to piece's in the backline. He is not agile or quick enough.

Fair enough! poor Will was copping a bagging and I was looking for other options.

I like Will although he can do some really silly things, he's big and aggressive and that can be a good thing. I thought he did play well after half time.

[chef]

Fair enough! poor Will was copping a bagging and I was looking for other options.

I like Will although he can do some really silly things, he's big and aggressive and that can be a good thing. I thought he did play well after half time.

He did, he's going to take some time to find form after a compromised preseason.

[GVGjr]

Obviously another issue is who we would use as the part timer. Dre seems the obvious candidate to me but he has finally found some form down back and disrupting that has a risk.

Would love to read a few thoughts.

Everitt is the logical candidate but we haven't got as lot of options in that regard. Mulligan might be an option but he seems to be a long way off as a player from being able to come into the seniors on even a semi regular basis.

What about Cross? Strong mark for his size and very competitive.

[Mofra]

I don't think our candidates are great, I personally just don't rate playing 2 pure ruckmen who struggle elsewhere on the field.
It is an interesting point to raise - but does it solve itself after 2010 anyway?

Roughead already looks better up forward than Will does, and our other developing ruckman (Cordy) spent most of last year playing forward to the degree that some (myself included) have wondered whether he will become a forward who pinch hits in the ruck instead.

I guess the other two options we have don't inspire me with their flexibility - Prato is learning the game as is Mulligan who seems to be on the backman's development path anyway.

[azabob]

Is Everitt competitive enough and does he have the body to be battered physically game in game out? - I dont think so.

Reason I single out Everitt is he is the most likely to play this roll outside of Minson and Roughead.

Personally I think you need two ruckman.

Just out of curiosity who was the last team to win the GF without two speciliast ruckman?

[LostDoggy]

Thought Will was ok yesterday after a shocking first quarter. He actually took some nice grabs.

[Bulldog Joe]

I think Will is copping more criticism than he deserves.

Our rucks have been dominant in both games and Will has played his part. The other aspects of his game are a little down but he is actually taking more marks than his average and does make himself an option.

The only issue is probably frees conceded and the umpires against Richmond looked to have Will as a target in the first.

I think we really need both rucks. Will will be improved as he gets game time after his reduced pre-season. He also gives Huddo the chop out that will help in the later stages of the season.

By seasons end Will may be the better option, but we won't know that by playing him at Williamstown where he would just be dominant. When Roughead is really ready Hudson will be close to retirement and Minson will be first ruck.

[mighty_west]

People need to remember that Big Will didn't have a very solid preseason so it is going to take him a few games to get going. A full game or two at Williamstown might be good for him to blow out the cobwebs and give Roughead a taste IMO.

I think that is a very good point.

Yes Minson is struggling, but that is no suprise given his pre season from hell and being a very sick boy, perhaps in a perfect world, Minson would be best to play a few games at Willy to dust off the cobwebs, but Rocket may think that games in the senior side might be best to do that, perhaps Roughead could have been given a chance yesterday against a weaker ruck duo.

Perhaps also that Minson would have at least along with Huddo really dominate the ruck, where's Roughead may very well have held his own, but not dominate they way the other 2 could.

Regarding a part timer in the ruck, that may work on occasions, if a player gets injured, Everitt could pitch hit for 20% of the time or whatever, but i couldn't see it as a full time thing, i'd back a team with a realistic chance for a Premiership with 2 strong rucks that can dominate, rather than carrying a player that may do a job on the odd occasion, you would hate to be smashed in the ruck come finals time, opposition teams would just be too smart for a part timer, especially a quality ruck duo or midfield.

Whilst Huddo & Minno are not superstars, they do work well together, and i would back them to work with our midfield than some part timer.

[Dazza]

I don't think we should rest Minson up forward anymore with Hall down there. He is too slow to provide any form of pressure once the defenders get their hands on it. I love watching big Minno kicking a goal but it doesn't seem logical anymore.

[The Coon Dog]

I don't think we should rest Minson up forward anymore with Hall down there. He is too slow to provide any form of pressure once the defenders get their hands on it. I love watching big Minno kicking a goal but it doesn't seem logical anymore.

He'll go up there at times to gives the mids a rest.

[Sedat]

The Hawks didn't mount a strong case for the 'one ruckman and one part-timer' model today. The part-timers used, in particular Hodge, used up a hell of a lot of petrol tickes early and were spent by the last qtr. Admittedly their predicament is out of necessity. I agree with the rationale that a rubbish 2nd ruckman serves little purpose (ie: Jake Spencer last week for the Dees) but if you have 2 good quality ruckmen at your disposal, I think they should be used in tandem in the senior team.

[Rocco Jones]

A few posters have mentioned that I underrate or undervalue Will Minson.

Just to make it clear, it's not so much about Will Minson as it is about the structure of our side.

Ideally, I would like us to play two specialist ruckmen with at least one of them having the ability to offer value in another role. The problem I see isn't about Will's ability in the ruck, I definitely see his ability as a pure ruck as being above 2nd ruck par, it's just that he offers very little value elsewhere.

I see the other teams that play two ruckmen as having a different model to us. Some examples.

Crows- Tippet plays forward and offers 1st ruck support.
Lions- Leunberger is a 2nd ruck who is a pure ruck but Clark offers value around the ground.
Blues- Kreuzer offers value forward.
Pies- Fraser offers 'value' forward (relative to 'value' he offers in ruck')
Dons- Ryder is your typical modern day 2nd ruck/value elsewhere type
Cats- Blake is a pure 2nd ruck but Ottens offers value forward
Saints- Odd set up. They play at least one pure ruck with a couple of potential back ups. Last year they went with a similar set up to our current one at times with King and Gardiner, not sure they will do that again this year. I think Gardiner is a fair bit stronger around the ground than Hudson and Minson anyway. To be honest though, I think overall they are a good example that a gun side can have a couple of immobile types because the rest of their team works so hard.
Sydney- Another one that maybe supports us although Seaby now looks a lot better around the ground, especially as a goal scoring threat.
West Coast- Cox and Nic Nat especially offer ability to play other roles.

Overall, I have no real issues with Will playing. Even if went with 1 ruckman, I would want it to be horses for courses. The Lions game is a clear example of where the Minson and Hudson team works very well. More of a food for thought thing, something I would like us to potentially play around with. The Swans and Saints examples could be due to being stoppage type teams but also due to the hard work the others do.

[LostDoggy]

The weaknesses in Will's game in the opening two rounds have related largely to non-rucking issues, eg when playing forward or when giving away silly free kicks in general play

His ruckwork, in my view has continued to be good and teamed with Hudson represents one of our strengths.

The Hudson/Minson combination smashed Richmond on Sunday and I would expect them to do the same v Hawthorn this week giving us a great start against them

One of Adelaide's great failings has been their poor ruck talent and they would be joined by a number of clubs eg Hawthorn, Collingwood. We should think ourselves fortunate that this affliction is not borne by us.

Having said that I would not be resting Minson on the forward line although it must be said that when he went there on Sunday, it stuffed up the Richmond defence because they had to put one of the big defenders on him rather than swetting on Hall.

[bornadog]

Don't agree at all with a part time ruck. Firstly if the number one ruck is injured during the game, then we are in trouble. Secondly, we don't have a part time ruckman and thirdly, I think Minson is building up after having an interrupted pre-season. He is actually rucking well, but maybe needs to rest on the bench, not up forward.

[Rocco Jones]

Don't agree at all with a part time ruck. Firstly if the number one ruck is injured during the game, then we are in trouble. Secondly, we don't have a part time ruckman and thirdly, I think Minson is building up after having an interrupted pre-season. He is actually rucking well, but maybe needs to rest on the bench, not up forward.

The reason why he plays forward isn't for him to rest or because he actually has decent ability there, it is because it directly and indirectly provides rest for our runners.

Having your 1st ruckman spend all his TOG in the ruck and your 2nd ruckman spending the vast majority of his TOG in the ruck is a massive risk in the modern game. It would mean Will would be spending about 40% TOG (that's factoring in some time forward).

Overall, I probably wouldn't go with one ruckman because of your second reason (not having a suitable part-timer. If we actually had a decent part-time option, I think it would be worth the risk of Hudson being injured during the game. Freo have Sandilands and Johnson offering support, if Sandi went down they would be vulnerable in the ruck but playing the extra runner is worth the calculated risk. Conversely, what happens if one of your many runners go down? I think a lot of people are underrating the value of running depth, extremely ironic considering what happened 8 days ago.

[Hotdog60]

What I can see happening over the next couple of seasons is Will taking Huddo's position as 1 st ruck and Roughy taking Will's role as the 2 nd ruck.
Huddo is 31 and I think other season maybe and then retirement.

[chef]

What I can see happening over the next couple of seasons is Will taking Huddo's position as 1 st ruck and Roughy taking Will's role as the 2 nd ruck.
Huddo is 31 and I think other season maybe and then retirement.

He didn't debut until he was 25, so I could see Hudson playing into his mid 30's(injuries pending)

[Rocco Jones]

He didn't debut until he was 25, so I could see Hudson playing until his mid 30's(injuries pending)

Agreed. It's not like his game style is dependent on speed or athleticism, his game should age pretty well.

Watch my idea get smashed to bits this week. The Hawks have the worst ruck division I have seen for awhile.

[chef]

Agreed. It's not like his game style is dependent on speed or athleticism, his game should age pretty well.

Watch my idea get smashed to bits this week. The Hawks have the worst ruck division I have seen for awhile.

It was a bit sad seeing Hodge going up for some of the ruck contests(bit like Richmond in round one and not having the ruckman contest when it was in their forward fifty)

[Hotdog60]

He didn't debut until he was 25, so I could see Hudson playing into his mid 30's(injuries pending)

So his body hasn't had the battering of AFL football as long as most, still it hard to see a player of his size go to 35 this day and age, but you never know.

If Huddo goes that long does Roughy become Hall's replacement and a back up ruck.

Or is Will going down Skippers path?

[Rocco Jones]

It was a bit sad seeing Hodge going up for some of the ruck contests(bit like Richmond in round one and not having the ruckman contest when it was in their forward fifty)

Totally. The Hawks have no real choice as the only other ruckman they have is a kid and probably no more physically able to play as an AFL ruck.

If you are going to willingly play with only one specialist ruck then you need to have a part-timer who is actually suited to the role. We probably don't at the moment.

[chef]

So his body hasn't had the battering of AFL football as long as most, still it hard to see a player of his size go to 35 this day and age, but you never know.

If Huddo goes that long does Roughy become Hall's replacement and a back up ruck.

Or is Will going down Skippers path?

That's where it gets interesting. I would hope that one of(or both if we are lucky)Jones/Grant become Hall's replacement. Roughead could come into the side a play like a young Darcy did, but then can we play all of Hudson, Minson and Roughead in the team at the same time. And then there is Cordy:confused:

[LostDoggy]

I don't like the idea.

What happens if the number 1 gets injured during the match?

People need to remember that Big Will didn't have a very solid preseason so it is going to take him a few games to get going. A full game or two at Williamstown might be good for him to blow out the cobwebs and give Roughead a taste IMO.

Just watched the game again thought Minsons game wasnt as bad as everybody thought.Plenty of time for Roughie,no change for me and leave it be with 2 rucks

[Rocco Jones]

Just watched the game again thought Minsons game wasnt as bad as everybody thought.Plenty of time for Roughie,no change for me and leave it be with 2 rucks

Once again, not really so much about how Minson is going but the theory of playing two out and out ruckmen. I think both of Minson's games haven't been as bad as lot have made them out to be as well.

[Before I Die]

So his body hasn't had the battering of AFL football as long as most, still it hard to see a player of his size go to 35 this day and age, but you never know.

If Huddo goes that long does Roughy become Hall's replacement and a back up ruck.

Or is Will going down Skippers path?

If Huddo keeps going, then the best two get selected each week. This could result in Huddo doing a Steven King or Big Will doing a Seaby or Roughead/Cordy considering doing a Warnock. I'd love to keep them all but geez, its a good problem to have.

Look at the quality players who have had to leave Geelong to get a game. Its the kind of selection dilemma that leads to premierships.

[boydogs]

If you are going to willingly play with only one specialist ruck then you need to have a part-timer who is actually suited to the role. We probably don't at the moment.

Round 22 2009?

[bornadog]

Round 22 2009?

That was versus no rucks playing for the opposition

[Mantis]

Round 22 2009?

Minson did most of the ruck work with Everitt helping out a little.

No surprises that the following week in our QF Minson was as flat as a tack due to a shortened break and after carrying the heavy load in the Collingwood clash.

[bornadog]

Minson did most of the ruck work with Everitt helping out a little.

No surprises that the following week in our QF Minson was as flat as a tack due to a shortened break and after carrying the heavy load in the Collingwood clash.

True.


Was it the Saints game he did his toe?

[Bulldog4life]

Don't agree at all with a part time ruck. Firstly if the number one ruck is injured during the game, then we are in trouble. Secondly, we don't have a part time ruckman and thirdly, I think Minson is building up after having an interrupted pre-season. He is actually rucking well, but maybe needs to rest on the bench, not up forward.

Agree. Furthermore if we reach the GF this year 2 ruckmen would be a priority on the big day.

[Rocco Jones]

I find the Minson going to the bench rather than playing forward comments very ignorant of the demands of modern day footy. Do people really view carrying a player with 40% TOG per game as a viable option?

I am not a fan of Minson as a forward but he has to play there to basically free up a spot on the bench for runners to rest. You simply cannot play 2 ruckmen who only spend time in the ruck. That's not a statement to support Will be dropped, just a virtual fact in modern day footy.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I find the Minson going to the bench rather than playing forward comments very ignorant of the demands of modern day footy. Do people really view carrying a player with 40% TOG per game as a viable option?

I am not a fan of Minson as a forward but he has to play there to basically free up a spot on the bench for runners to rest. You simply cannot play 2 ruckmen who only spend time in the ruck. That's not a statement to support Will be dropped, just a virtual fact in modern day footy.

Right on the money

[bornadog]

I find the Minson going to the bench rather than playing forward comments very ignorant of the demands of modern day footy. Do people really view carrying a player with 40% TOG per game as a viable option?

I am not a fan of Minson as a forward but he has to play there to basically free up a spot on the bench for runners to rest. You simply cannot play 2 ruckmen who only spend time in the ruck. That's not a statement to support Will be dropped, just a virtual fact in modern day footy.

so there goes the part time ruck theory as it's already happening;)

I should have explained that he should spend more time in the ruck, less in the forward line and rest on the bench to solve YOUR problem of not resting in the forward line. And no, I am not ignorant of the modern game.

[Rocco Jones]

so there goes the part time ruck theory as it's already happening;)


In a practical sense, we actually are. That's the point I am making. Is Minson our best option when you consider that one ruck has to spend the majority of his TOG elsewhere?



I should have explained that he should spend more time in the ruck, less in the forward line and rest on the bench to solve YOUR problem of not resting in the forward line. And no, I am not ignorant of the modern game.

What does Hudson do while Minson spends more time in the ruck? Unless Hudson picks up Minson's time up forward you will end up with the same net result with a ruckman taking too much bench time.

We need an average of about 70% TOG from Hudson and Minson. That means about 40% TOG where Hudson and/or Minson spend time outside of the ruck. Anything less than this and we are really damaging our running depth, especially with our top heavy issues.

Overall, I actually think we should play Minson as our 2nd ruck but do not see it as such a clear option as others.

[bornadog]

Overall, I actually think we should play Minson as our 2nd ruck but do not see it as such a clear option as others.

I think some people are being too harsh on Minson. I wasn't at the game on the week end due to my daughters sporting commitments in Adelaide. I watched the game last night and I must say, I thought Minson wasn't as bad as people made out. I thought he did give away some silly frees, but he did some good things as well. With his limited preseason, he will only get better as the season goes on.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I think some people are being too harsh on Minson. I wasn't at the game on the week end due to my daughters sporting commitments in Adelaide. I watched the game last night and I must say, I thought Minson wasn't as bad as people made out. I thought he did give away some silly frees, but he did some good things as well. With his limited preseason, he will only get better as the season goes on.

I wasn't all all worried about Minson's frees on the weekend because on each occasion Richmond already had the ball. The net loss was negligible.

[Dry Rot]

Has this been posted here before? Very interesting read


Rotations impacting on ruck role
By Leigh Matthews
7:00 AM Wed 07 April, 2010

YOU WOULDN'T ordinarily think that going from 30 or 40 rotations in a game, as we had not too many years ago, to the 100 or 120 that is now common practice, would have a profound influence on ruckmen. But that is exactly what has happened. And it has driven a string of interesting and important questions on benefit and consequence which coaches are being forced to contemplate on a weekly basis.

Are they better off with one or two ruckmen? What is the collective upside of playing two 200cm specialists? And what is the team and individual downside of sharing the big man load? Or, more succinctly, does the benefit of having two ruck specialists outweigh the negative of having one less player to spread the midfield load?.....

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/91702/default.aspx

[Mofra]

I noted he referenced the Geelong game - if there ever was a game that shows how 2 ruckmen can help, not hinder the running brigade, this was it.

[mjp]

I noted he referenced the Geelong game - if there ever was a game that shows how 2 ruckmen can help, not hinder the running brigade, this was it.

Well - unless you consider that the sheer size/weight/experience of Ottens would have eventually come through? I am not convinced Ottens/Blake gave the Cats an advantage that Ottens/Mooney would not have...

Mooney though is a viable second ruck option. We don't have one.

[Rocco Jones]

Well - unless you consider that the sheer size/weight/experience of Ottens would have eventually come through? I am not convinced Ottens/Blake gave the Cats an advantage that Ottens/Mooney would not have...

Mooney though is a viable second ruck option. We don't have one.

Totally agree with all that.

I keep on saying this but this thread/theory isn't about Minson not being good enough in the ruck. It is about playing 2 ruckmen who offer very little value outside of the ruck.

All in all, I would have Minson in the 22 for the exact reason mjp has mentioned.

[Mofra]

Well - unless you consider that the sheer size/weight/experience of Ottens would have eventually come through? I am not convinced Ottens/Blake gave the Cats an advantage that Ottens/Mooney would not have...

Mooney though is a viable second ruck option. We don't have one.
If Ottens rucked for most of the game with Mooney only providing a chop-out the advantage over Renouf would have been negated as players invariably tire with grater match-time (especially those coming back); Mooney was doing well up forward and the second tall forward was important in stretching the fragile Hawk defence.

Just going back in recent memory, premiership teams tend to have two good solid ruckmen and although there is a temptation to try and get ahead of the curve in football trends (looking for any new advantage available) I'm happy enough to wait until Roughead is a regular senior player (he looks better forward than Minson does IMO) than try to eek out a situation that doesn't directly suit the list we have this year.

[Mofra]

I keep on saying this but this thread/theory isn't about Minson not being good enough in the ruck. It is about playing 2 ruckmen who offer very little value outside of the ruck.
It's true Minson offers limited value outside of the ruck however I don't think it is a long term issue for us with Cordy & Roughead looking more suitable as resting forwards than either Hudson or Minson.

[Rocco Jones]

It's true Minson offers limited value outside of the ruck however I don't think it is a long term issue for us with Cordy & Roughead looking more suitable as resting forwards than either Hudson or Minson.

I definitely agree with (and can't wait for) that but I am discussing what's best for us in 2010, a season with a pretty obvious motivation to maximise our short term best 22.

It really sounds like I am beating on Minson. I actually think he is definitely decent enough as a pure ruckman, it's about what modern day footy has become. If we were allowed 6 on the bench, I would have Will as a virtual auto selection.

In modern day footy, it is a big sacrifice to play 2 players who pretty much only offer value in the ruck, even if they are both very good in the ruck. Posters see Will's forward line duties are nowhere near as important as his ruck duties but unless Hudson picks up some of his forward line time, Will will continue to spend most of his TOG outside of ruck duties.

Just a deadset modern footy fact that if Hudson and Minson's combined TOG outside of the ruck is less than 40%, we are really hurting our running depth. The question isn't whether Minson is the 2nd best ruck option, it is whether his value in the ruck is worth that 40% TOG where he virtually takes a spot on the ground to give our runners a rest (which is a must). I say overall it is, but it's mainly due to not having a decent part time option.

I guess I would like to see some convo that isn't purely about Minson's quality as a ruckman but about the theory. I am definitely one that really looks to maximise running depth in a 22 and I really think we have some structural issues in that regard that might really hamper our chances to compete with the best.

[mighty_west]

I actually thought Minson was good against Richmond, he had to be after having a howler the week before around the ground, but lead well and took a few good grabs on the lead against the Tigers.

It's interesting the bashing Minson does cop from time to time, yeah he has the odd brain fade when it comes to taking a grab, but i just wonder how he stacks up against other "second" ruckmen in the comp, Huddo given his age is probably regarded as our numero uno, although their work in the middle is pretty even imo, both do their job pretty well, Minson seems to do alot more around the ground than Huddo, yet cops ALOT more flack as well.

How does Minson stack up against say McEvoy? Renouf? or Blake?, Seaby? or Josh Fraser? etc etc.

[Rocco Jones]

I actually thought Minson was good against Richmond, he had to be after having a howler the week before around the ground, but lead well and took a few good grabs on the lead against the Tigers.

It's interesting the bashing Minson does cop from time to time, yeah he has the odd brain fade when it comes to taking a grab, but i just wonder how he stacks up against other "second" ruckmen in the comp, Huddo given his age is probably regarded as our numero uno, although their work in the middle is pretty even imo, both do their job pretty well, Minson seems to do alot more around the ground than Huddo, yet cops ALOT more flack as well.

How does Minson stack up against say McEvoy? Renouf? or Blake?, Seaby? or Josh Fraser? etc etc.

It's not about bagging Minson or him being a dud. It's about playing 2 pure ruckmen who offer very little outside of the ruck.

I rate Minson a lot higher than most 2nd ruckmen in the ruck but that's not the only thing that makes a 2nd ruck. Ironically, if we trade Hudson for a superior ruckman who would play forward, I would have no issue with Minson being in the ruck. It's not about Minson, it's about Minson and Hudson being in the same side.

Sometimes your best 22 players are not the best 22 to have run out on the field.

FWIW I think Minson gets a lot more unwarranted love than he gets hate (I do believe he cops both though, fans seem to be very polarised with him). I think a lot of fans struggle to put aside their fond feelings towards him and a lot of fans are also too harsh on him because his weaknesses are obvious and his strengths are surprisingly subtle.

[mighty_west]

It's not about bagging Minson or him being a dud. It's about playing 2 pure ruckmen who offer very little outside of the ruck.

I rate Minson a lot higher than most 2nd ruckmen in the ruck but that's not the only thing that makes a 2nd ruck. Ironically, if we trade Hudson for a superior ruckman who would play forward, I would have no issue with Minson being in the ruck. It's not about Minson, it's about Minson and Hudson being in the same side.

Sometimes your best 22 players are not the best 22 to have run out on the field.

I guess we are lucky [well, it's not really luck] but being able to play Minson deep forward at times, and have an effect as well, we definatly have the right depth now to go in with a well balanced side, with the 2 ruckmen, but we also have other options if we require those, Barry Hall did alot of forward ruck work at Sydney, Everitt showed in that one game v Collingwood that he could pitch hit, or even go in as a 3rd over the top ruck, but you wouldn't use both as a perminant thing, but i can't see why it wouldn't work on occasions.

I guess when you come up against sides that have that ultra mobile ruckman, who really plays as an extra midfelder - Nick Nat, Mitch Clarke, Cox [when in form], we could perhaps free up Everitt to take on those blokes around the ground, and try & exploit the opposition by playing Minson or Huddo loose, whilst Minson drops a few marks up forward from time to time, he is still taking away a tall defender, whilst Barry is double teamed, sometimes triple teamed, that free's up other forwards, so we are bascially using Everitt as a midfielder / wing / whatever you want to call it, but playing close to the oppositions ruckman, and even running off the bigger dopey'er slower rucks.

What i'm saying is that, Minson can play as a forward decoy, but he has proven he can be dangerous at times as well, rest up Huddo when he's had his stint in the ruck.

It would make for an interesting debate on ranking each sides 2 ruckmen, and how we stack up, i'm tipping we are not far off the mark, and thats taking everything into account, tap work to advantage, effectiveness around the ground etc etc, how dangerous up forward.

[Go_Dogs]

Plenty of interesting discussion in this thread.

What it emphasises to me, is that we will continue to see Will spending time up forward - that is simply the way we have to do it. What we may need to improve on, is what we do with our other rotations up forward whilst Will is there.

[LostDoggy]

I was all for giving Will a miss for the Richmond game as a confidence boost/wake up call. He is very important to our team and will be vital in the big games, we have seen that he is a lot better than he has been this season and we know he has had a poor preseason. He will come good, he is our best option for now and I imagine he will take Huddos #1 spot in a couple of years with Ayce or Roughy backing him up and providing the extra mobility. Some of Wills rucking is already better than Huddo but its Bens second efforts that make such a big difference. Will can get better with his second efforts I believe. At least he is marking now so he's worked on that, he should now be kicking and handballing every spare minuite he gets to improve his disposal. he will get better, in small increments.

[LostDoggy]

I definitely agree with (and can't wait for) that but I am discussing what's best for us in 2010, a season with a pretty obvious motivation to maximise our short term best 22.

It really sounds like I am beating on Minson. I actually think he is definitely decent enough as a pure ruckman, it's about what modern day footy has become. If we were allowed 6 on the bench, I would have Will as a virtual auto selection.

In modern day footy, it is a big sacrifice to play 2 players who pretty much only offer value in the ruck, even if they are both very good in the ruck. Posters see Will's forward line duties are nowhere near as important as his ruck duties but unless Hudson picks up some of his forward line time, Will will continue to spend most of his TOG outside of ruck duties.

Just a deadset modern footy fact that if Hudson and Minson's combined TOG outside of the ruck is less than 40%, we are really hurting our running depth. The question isn't whether Minson is the 2nd best ruck option, it is whether his value in the ruck is worth that 40% TOG where he virtually takes a spot on the ground to give our runners a rest (which is a must). I say overall it is, but it's mainly due to not having a decent part time option.

I guess I would like to see some convo that isn't purely about Minson's quality as a ruckman but about the theory. I am definitely one that really looks to maximise running depth in a 22 and I really think we have some structural issues in that regard that might really hamper our chances to compete with the best.

Hi RJ -- having read through the thread, I think some are still missing your point. Most posters are still commenting on Minson's individual merit when you are talking about the pros and cons of having essentially two specialist rucks who offer very little (relatively speaking) value elsewhere on the ground.

If I can summarise the arguments for and against either option, it would seem that:

Play one specialist ruck + one part-timer:
- free up spot in the 22 for another mobile player ie. maximise the value of total player minutes, as essentially every minute a specialist ruck is not rucking is a 'wasted' minute that could have been spent on a running player. This waste 'load' has to be shared by the remaining 20 players.

Play two specialist rucks:
- Ruckmen are not rucking tired at any point, so should still be going strong late in quarters/ in fourth quarter when a single specialist ruck may be tiring.
- Can play different styles against a single ruckman, so one can work the opposition ruck over physically to tire them out sooner.

So, essentially, we are weighing up the value of extra run (which, as you've pointed out, is growing in value in the modern game) vs. a fresher ruck division at the end of quarters/games (which became sort of unfashionable only a few years ago, but has come back into vogue).

The answer to this cannot possibly be black and white -- it must depend (as others have said) on your opposition's ruck set-up, and whether or not we have viable rucking alternatives. Rocket doesn't seem to like rotating his line-up too much, but there is definitely a case for a horses-for-courses policy here. Unfortunately we don't seem to have a clear back-up option (Cam White would have been useful for this discussion if he came good, and you know, Coons still has a 100% winning record in the ruck...). Ayce Cordy would be the ideal long-term solution. Alternatively, a single specialist with a massive aerobic capicity may also work (a fully fit Cox comes to mind), but neither Huddo or Minnow fit this description.

As for stating my final preference -- I think, as much as there is a premium on 'run' in the modern game**, there is an even higher premium on winning stoppages and getting your hands on the ball first. This premium becomes even higher late in high-intensity, close games (ie. finals). A fresh ruck division goes a long way to ensuring this, so I would say that a very good one-two ruck combination, even if they don't offer much else around the ground, marginally edges out an extra running player for me, especially when we have players like the uber-fit Boyd and Cross who can and do carry that extra running load regularly.

---

** I question the real overall value of 'run' in isolation in any case. We became a far better team when we stopped being the uber-fast class of 2006 and became the bigger-bodied, stronger and fitter version of 2009. Essendon is fast but that doesn't win you games on its own. Geelong, on the other hand, aren't terribly quick all over the ground, but keep winning their own ball, and the bigger bodies wear you down over the course of 4 long quarters (as seen last week against the faster Hawks).

[Rocco Jones]

Thank you Lantern for seeing the point I am trying to raise. Not sure why I got so many ''people are too harsh on Will'' replies after continually saying it's not really about Will. I love this place but I think a lot of posters have decided on what they are going to post and don't really take in what they are replying to.

I pretty much agree with everything you have said except for this bit...



** I question the real overall value of 'run' in isolation in any case. We became a far better team when we stopped being the uber-fast class of 2006 and became the bigger-bodied, stronger and fitter version of 2009. Essendon is fast but that doesn't win you games on its own. Geelong, on the other hand, aren't terribly quick all over the ground, but keep winning their own ball, and the bigger bodies wear you down over the course of 4 long quarters (as seen last week against the faster Hawks).

Thing is I am not really talking about speed when I mention running depth. Playing an extra runner instead of Will isn't going to make us faster so much as it is going to add running depth. Bit like a marathon runner rather than a sprinter. I see the Cats as having running depth and the Dons speed. In modern day footy, running depth > speed.

[LostDoggy]

Thing is I am not really talking about speed when I mention running depth. Playing an extra runner instead of Will isn't going to make us faster so much as it is going to add running depth. Bit like a marathon runner rather than a sprinter. I see the Cats as having running depth and the Dons speed. In modern day footy, running depth > speed.

Yep. We agree on this -- I used Essendon as an example (and us in 2006) because they and we were widely seen as 'running' teams vs. say, Sydney, which was a more 'stoppage' type team. As I said in my post, I think Crossy and Boydy compensate for the running depth loss to a specialist ruck somewhat due to their freak fitness levels -- didn't Boydy play 100% of gametime vs. Collingwood in Rd.1? I don't know how sustainable this is over 22 games + finals, and his performance definitely fell away in the 4th quarter, but Crossy and Boydy would have to be the two fittest guys (in pure aerobic capacity) going around in the AFL at the moment.

[Rocco Jones]

Yep. We agree on this -- I used Essendon as an example (and us in 2006) because they and we were widely seen as 'running' teams vs. say, Sydney, which was a more 'stoppage' type team. As I said in my post, I think Crossy and Boydy compensate for the running depth loss to a specialist ruck somewhat due to their freak fitness levels -- didn't Boydy play 100% of gametime vs. Collingwood in Rd.1? I don't know how sustainable this is over 22 games + finals, and his performance definitely fell away in the 4th quarter, but Crossy and Boydy would have to be the two fittest guys (in pure aerobic capacity) going around in the AFL at the moment.

Yep. Interesting to see that the two teams that most resemble our rucking combo are the Swans and Saints. They are both 'stoppage' type teams.

As I have said, I would have Minson in the 22 as we don't have a decent part time option. If we want the extra runner, we will probably have to drop Williams or Everitt (assuming Johnno takes Hill's spot).

It's tough but a good MC doesn't pick the best 22 on paper, it picks the best 22 to play.

[Mofra]

I definitely agree with (and can't wait for) that but I am discussing what's best for us in 2010, a season with a pretty obvious motivation to maximise our short term best 22.

It really sounds like I am beating on Minson. I actually think he is definitely decent enough as a pure ruckman, it's about what modern day footy has become. If we were allowed 6 on the bench, I would have Will as a virtual auto selection.
I didn't interpret as a Minson-bashing exercise; but with respect to this year, we have to ask - if Minson was to make way for a part timer, who do we go with?

At this stage, I don't see any credible alternative that would actually add to the team more than we lose by dropping Minson (worth noting 16 goals at 80% efficiency in 2009 is not a disgraceful return either).

Roughead - not yet ready, would like to see him build up more credentials at VFL level first
Everitt - 193cm and not really a body on body type, stop gap at best
Williams - Needs to concentrate on establishing himself in one position first
Mulligan/Prato - nowhere near ready in any position
Cordy - would probably break against an established AFL ruck at this stage. Let us not "Fraser" him.
Cooney - only against West Coast ;)

[Mofra]

Yep. Interesting to see that the two teams that most resemble our rucking combo are the Swans and Saints. They are both 'stoppage' type teams.
Hawks would play 2 pure ruckman if they had them.
Brisbane seem to be benching Clark more this year rather than resting him forward, so he & the Burger look like a traditional duo.

It does raise an interesting question - how many teams play a part timer as second ruck out of necessity, rather than choice?

[Rocco Jones]

I didn't interpret as a Minson-cashing exercise; but with respect to this year, we have to ask - if Minson was to make way for a part timer, who do we go with?

At this stage, I don't see any credible alternative that would actually add to the team more than we lose by dropping Minson (worth noting 16 goals at 80% efficiency in 2009 is not a disgraceful return either).

Roughead - not yet ready, would like to see him build up more credentials at VFL level first
Everitt - 193cm and not really a body on body type, stop gap at best
Williams - Needs to concentrate on establishing himself in one position first
Mulligan/Prato - nowhere near ready in any position
Cordy - would probably break against an established AFL ruck at this stage. Let us not "Fraser" him.
Cooney - only against West Coast ;)

I agree with you about us not having suitable applicants Mofra, hence why I think overall we need to play Minson.

I think Everitt and possibly Williams could be decent options but as you mentioned, they need to establish themselves and Dre is finally looking decent again. I guess one of my points is that if we are going to drop one of them anyway, the disruption argument loses a bit of weight.

Another pro Hudson and Minson argument is that someone ruckmen suit having a tag team partner and some don't. Hudson is definitely in the former. Players like Clark and Ryder really lifted last year when they carried the ruck duties as their main strength ruck was/is being able to run out the game.

[Sedat]

Thing is I am not really talking about speed when I mention running depth. Playing an extra runner instead of Will isn't going to make us faster so much as it is going to add running depth. Bit like a marathon runner rather than a sprinter. I see the Cats as having running depth and the Dons speed. In modern day footy, running depth > speed.
Rocco this is a terrific thread, and I agree that the point you raise in relation to running depth has been a little misconstrued as a personal criticism of Will. Whilst I do disagree with your suggestion my reasons are a little different. My counter to the 2nd ruckman query would be to put the onus on our half-dozen small-mid forwards (not the 2nd ruckman) to provide the additional running depth that the modern game demands. And if 1-2 of them cannot do so, they would be the ones whose place in the team would be under review (to be replaced by players that can provide this running depth, assuming they exist running around at Williamstown). This is where the discussion gets very tricky because we are talking about such revered players as Johnson, Akermanis, Higgins, Gia, Hahn and (to a lesser extent) Hill who would be assisting in that that running depth if at all possible. Or if that isn't their go, they would be providing consistently fierce defensive pressure in the forward 50. If they are nor providing either, it leaves our team structure vulnerable, moreso than having two traditional ruckmen in the team. I feel a little dirty for raising the possibility of "killing a Bambi" but if we are to measure ourselves against the best teams in the business (Geelong and St Kilda IMO), this is where they still have a definite edge over us.

[mighty_west]

Thing is I am not really talking about speed when I mention running depth. Playing an extra runner instead of Will isn't going to make us faster so much as it is going to add running depth. Bit like a marathon runner rather than a sprinter. I see the Cats as having running depth and the Dons speed. In modern day footy, running depth > speed.

I guess thats part of the overall plan, from recruting over the past 5 or 6 years, and going for a few taller athletes, Williams, Everitt, Grant, Jesse Wells [didn't make it], players that perhaps were earmarked as key position players, but also can be used for their run, Boumanns another, to counter-act that issue of playing 2 specialist rucks in the side.

I think it could also be a horses for courses thing, and depending on match up's, you could possibly get away with playing a part timer in the ruck against the less matured bodies, but he also might get exposed against sides with 2 experienced rucks, Wayde Skipper was probably a classic example, would compete against the lesser knowns, but get smashed by the experienced rucks.

[mjp]

If Ottens rucked for most of the game with Mooney only providing a chop-out the advantage over Renouf would have been negated as players invariably tire with grater match-time (especially those coming back); Mooney was doing well up forward and the second tall forward was important in stretching the fragile Hawk defence.


I don't disagree in principle, but Blake really gave the Cats very little and didn't play much (or so it seemed).

Basically, if I had Mooney I wouldn't play a second ruck - I would rotate them deep forward whenever possible, with 6-8 minute stints at half forward (for Mooney) thrown in as well. Not too many other clubs are in this boat.

[Mofra]

I don't disagree in principle, but Blake really gave the Cats very little and didn't play much (or so it seemed).

Basically, if I had Mooney I wouldn't play a second ruck - I would rotate them deep forward whenever possible, with 6-8 minute stints at half forward (for Mooney) thrown in as well. Not too many other clubs are in this boat.
Out of interest, this would make Hawkins the only full time tall forward down there.
Under this structure would you rest Ottens in the F50 whenever he wasn't rucking, throw another tall-type down there (Lonergan or play Pods) or just go the 1 tall with 5 mid/small sized players down there?
Stevie J is 191cm from memory although I have classed him as mid-sized.

[LostDoggy]

Well, if today didn't answer the question conclusively it went some way to doing so. Our two fresh ruckmen + Coons essentially handed the 4th quarter to us on a plate while Renouf was off the park sucking in air. Also, their 'part-timer' in Roughhead (their Roughhead, who is ironically not a ruckman), apart from getting owned by Hudson, also committed a cardinal modern rucking sin in getting caught holding the ball after grabbing the ball from a bounce up, something full-time specialist ruckmen never get done for anymore.

[boydogs]

Well, if today didn't answer the question conclusively it went some way to doing so. Our two fresh ruckmen + Coons essentially handed the 4th quarter to us on a plate while Renouf was off the park sucking in air. Also, their 'part-timer' in Roughhead (their Roughhead, who is ironically not a ruckman), apart from getting owned by Hudson, also committed a cardinal modern rucking sin in getting caught holding the ball after grabbing the ball from a bounce up, something full-time specialist ruckmen never get done for anymore.

Yeah good point. I was watching and waiting for an advantage from the rucks, but Roughead seemed to be a good option, he is tall enough and has a fantastic leap - then the 4th quarter happened as you described

[Mofra]

Rocco's thread does throw up an interesting question - at what point does Roughead overtake Will in the selction battle?
Every time I've seen Roughy forward, he looks more likely to take a grab than Will. Will is out of form, although has the physical maturity to still be more effective in the ruck than Roughead is likely to as he comes to terms with AFL standard football.

[LostDoggy]

Rocco's thread does throw up an interesting question - at what point does Roughead overtake Will in the selction battle?
Every time I've seen Roughy forward, he looks more likely to take a grab than Will. Will is out of form, although has the physical maturity to still be more effective in the ruck than Roughead is likely to as he comes to terms with AFL standard football.

Why does he have to take Wills spot? Why not Hudsons? In some ways Will is a better ruckman and will be a longer term option.

[Mofra]

Why does he have to take Wills spot? Why not Hudsons? In some ways Will is a better ruckman and will be a longer term option.
On current form Hudson is miles ahead of Will, and he has been playing as our no 1 ruckman since he came to the club.

I Rate Roughead's upside more highly than Will's as well so I don't think a pure upside argument is in Will's favour either.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Yep. Interesting to see that the two teams that most resemble our rucking combo are the Swans and Saints. They are both 'stoppage' type teams.

As I have said, I would have Minson in the 22 as we don't have a decent part time option. If we want the extra runner, we will probably have to drop Williams or Everitt (assuming Johnno takes Hill's spot).

It's tough but a good MC doesn't pick the best 22 on paper, it picks the best 22 to play.

The demands on modern day ruckmen today, simply means the need for two specialists playing together. Given Hudson's age, Minson and Roughead should in the years to come, be our two ruckmen working on and off the bench in tandem. Minson's inconsistency is still a problem, which might see Roughead get his opportunity in the foreseeable future.

[Rocco Jones]

As an aside, I think playing alongside Hudson isn't great for Will's game. I think he would be much more suited playing alongside a ruckman who could go forward as it would benefit Will in a few ways. It would mean he would virtually spend all his TOG in the ruck, clearly his best position. Will would also benefit from having a clearer role/consistency. He obviously hasn't got a footy brain and keeping it as simple as possible would be great for him. It would also help him with momentum and confidence.

My issue isn't with Hudson and/or Minson in isolation. It's that they are both 1D ruckmen, Will just has to pick up the slack up forward because he is slightly more suited to it than Hudson.

[LostDoggy]

On current form Hudson is miles ahead of Will, and he has been playing as our no 1 ruckman since he came to the club.

I Rate Roughead's upside more highly than Will's as well so I don't think a pure upside argument is in Will's favour either.

Current form yes but towards the end of the home and away last year it seemed that Will was close to, if not, better than Hudson in the ruck and around the ground, at the very least Roughhead will slip in nicely when Hudson needs a rest. Maybe Hudson should be rested more often now.

[Mantis]

As an aside, I think playing alongside Hudson isn't great for Will's game. I think he would be much more suited playing alongside a ruckman who could go forward as it would benefit Will in a few ways. It would mean he would virtually spend all his TOG in the ruck, clearly his best position. Will would also benefit from having a clearer role/consistency. He obviously hasn't got a footy brain and keeping it as simple as possible would be great for him. It would also help him with momentum and confidence.

My issue isn't with Hudson and/or Minson in isolation. It's that they are both 1D ruckmen, Will just has to pick up the slack up forward because he is slightly more suited to it than Hudson.

I think that's a pretty harsh and unfair call RJ.

Will has many a brain fade, but from afar he seems to have some understanding of the game.

[GVGjr]

I think that's a pretty harsh and unfair call RJ.

Will has many a brain fade, but from afar he seems to have some understanding of the game.

I'm a supporter of Minson and I don't think he should be dropped but I'd still have to ask the question how many brain fades does an intelligent guy like Minson have to make before we start to question his footy smarts?
If he is learning from them then it's probably a short term investment that will pay dividends down the track but I'm not sure he can keep making these errors without questioning his understanding of what team football is all about.

[Rocco Jones]

I think that's a pretty harsh and unfair call RJ.

Will has many a brain fade, but from afar he seems to have some understanding of the game.

I think he speaks like someone with a footy brain but doesn't play like one.

[Mantis]

I think he speaks like someone with a footy brain but doesn't play like one.

What part of his game makes you think Will has no footy brain?

I fully understand Will makes a comfortable living out of giving away free kicks, but generally I feel this is because he doesn't no the difference between being intimidating with his aggression and overstepping the mark, but I don't see how this could be due to not having an understanding of the game in it's truest form.

Generally I feel is a pretty smart user of the ball and is able to predict the movements of his team-mates such that he can weight the ball to their advantage. I feel this element of his game is under-rated and shows that he thinks about where to place the ball to best advantage the intended target.

[Mofra]

Current form yes but towards the end of the home and away last year it seemed that Will was close to, if not, better than Hudson in the ruck and around the ground, at the very least Roughhead will slip in nicely when Hudson needs a rest. Maybe Hudson should be rested more often now.
I'd expect Hudson to be rested at some stage this year, especially if Roughead keeps playing the way he has. Minson will improve from his current form slump and might find touch again if given 60-70% gametime as a no 1 ruck, with Roughead resting forward.

[Rocco Jones]

What part of his game makes you think Will has no footy brain?

I fully understand Will makes a comfortable living out of giving away free kicks, but generally I feel this is because he doesn't no the difference between being intimidating with his aggression and overstepping the mark, but I don't see how this could be due to not having an understanding of the game in it's truest form.

Generally I feel is a pretty smart user of the ball and is able to predict the movements of his team-mates such that he can weight the ball to their advantage. I feel this element of his game is under-rated and shows that he thinks about where to place the ball to best advantage the intended target.

You have raised some good points. I do agree that he is a smarter user of the ball. Without wanting to get caught up in semantics, I would put brain fades (or lack of) intothe footy brain category but I can see where you're coming from.

[westbulldog]

I hope we don't throw Roughhead to the Lions, as good a prospect as he is.

[Rocco Jones]

Roughead out, Hill in.

Let's see how this theory goes in action.

[Jasper]

Am in favour of this, particularly against teams like Melbourne. Someone crazy just said try Williams in the ruck....yes he would break....Everitt is the guy, hope it goes well. Having said that it might be a bit cold and wet for Josh tonight.:rolleyes:

[Hotdog60]

Am in favour of this, particularly against teams like Melbourne. Someone crazy just said try Williams in the ruck....yes he would break....Everitt is the guy, hope it goes well. Having said that it might be a bit cold and wet for Josh tonight.:rolleyes:

Well they did use Williams and he didn't break :)

[bulldogsman]

Well they did use Williams and he didn't break :)

He wasn't to bad, still has trouble picking up the ball

[jazzadogs]

Well they did use Williams and he didn't break :)
I almost said something along those lines when he went into the ruck, but didn't want to jinx him...thank goodness he didn't hurt himself. Performed reasonably well.

[comrade]

After the match, Rocket said it was a success. If the conditions/match ups suit, maybe we'll go solo with Hudson more often?

[chef]

After the match, Rocket said it was a success. If the conditions/match ups suit, maybe we'll go solo with Hudson more often?

Yep, it worked well last night.

[GVGjr]

Roughead out, Hill in.

Let's see how this theory goes in action.

It worked well and yet I still thought we were top heavy given the conditions.

We still need to find a genuine part time option though and I don't think we have one on the list.

[bornadog]

It worked well and yet I still thought we were top heavy given the conditions.

We still need to find a genuine part time option though and I don't think we have one on the list.

What do you think of Williams being the part time ruck option and moving to CHF when he is not rucking. Everitt taking on the CHB role.

[LostDoggy]

What do you think of Williams being the part time ruck option and moving to CHF when he is not rucking. Everitt taking on the CHB role.

He did ok last night and I would prefer to see him in the forward line rather than the backline because his stuff ups wont result in goals to the opposition.

But, we do need a CHB though and I guess he is the only option at the moment.

[GVGjr]

What do you think of Williams being the part time ruck option and moving to CHF when he is not rucking. Everitt taking on the CHB role.

I don't think he provides a genuine back-up ruck option.
Still not sure if he could play CHF. For what it's worth, perhaps Lake should have played CHF last night and done a bit of the ruck work there.

[Rocco Jones]

IMO we simply cannot play Everitt, Williams and a 2nd ruckman.

As GVG said, we looked top heavy even going in with 1 specialist ruck. We look like we are struggling with the enormous amount of running involved in the modern game.

[Jasper]

IMO we simply cannot play Everitt, Williams and a 2nd ruckman.

As GVG said, we looked top heavy even going in with 1 specialist ruck. We look like we are struggling with the enormous amount of running involved in the modern game.

Completely agree with this. Our team balance seems top heavy and one or two runners short. It will be interesting to see what happens. Some hard decisions will be made if we have a full list.

[Rocco Jones]

It worked well and yet I still thought we were top heavy given the conditions.


Agreed.



We still need to find a genuine part time option though and I don't think we have one on the list.

I do see where you are coming from but could it be at least partly due to potential options not being given a chance to show their ability in the role?

[alwaysadog]

I would be interested know if someone tracked Melbourne's clearances and goals scored when Hudson was on the ground last against those when he was resting.

[Rocco Jones]

I would be interested know if someone tracked Melbourne's clearances and goals scored when Hudson was on the ground last against those when he was resting.

Would be.

I make no argument against Minson/Roughead offering us more when in the ruck than our part timer but a lot of people treat the 2nd ruck role as if it was purely about ruck duties.

Minson typically plays about 70% when in the side, 30% of which is in the ruck. So our 2nd ruck spends more than half his TOG outside of the ruck.

I can see why posters want Minson and Williams to play in isolation. Minson is our 2nd best ruckman and Williams is finally up and running but what about the balance of our side?

What are our bigger issues? The 30% ruck time we have to fill when Hudson is missing? Having another tall defensive option to compliment Lake, Morris, Shaggy and Everitt? Extra running depth?

I am definitely up for the running depth option but also understand our actual depth has been hurt by injuries and that there is little point playing a runner who is unable to warrant more than say 70% TOG.

[alwaysadog]

I'm agnostic on this matter but I try to have an evidence base approach and last season we had the highest % of ruck clearances in the league and there wasn't a lot of difference between the two ie Huddo and Will, in the effectiveness figures I have seen.

So I would like like to know how we went when we fully explored the other option. Some would argue we've really been toying with it in blooding Roughie anyway.

That was why I wanted to see some stats., because in spite of how well Williams went the game seemed to drift away without Hudsons presence and I would like to know if that impression is correct or not. Then I'd be better equipped to actually form an opinion.

On another point I thought Hudson was the most influential player on the ground last night, not the flashiest, not the one who did the game breaking acts but overall on a night when big men should have struggled he thrived.

[Rocco Jones]

On another point I thought Hudson was the most influential player on the ground last night, not the flashiest, not the one who did the game breaking acts but overall on a night when big men should have struggled he thrived.

I had him as BOG. I actually though conditions suited him but pantsed Jamar, who I think has been the best ruckman outside of Sandi this year.

If we are going down the path of playing only one specialist ruck I think it will be important to rest Hudson at various points of the season by playing a 2nd ruck and occasionally resting him.

If play Hudson as our only specialist ruck week in, week out, he will be broken by September.

[AndrewP6]

I had him as TOG. I actually though conditions suited him but pantsed Jamar, who I think has been the best ruckman outside of Sandi this year.
.

Tallest On Ground? :)

[Rocco Jones]

Tallest On Ground? :)

Goodness, I have been posting TOG so much on this thread that I forgot it isn't the acronym for best on ground. As a fellow teacher I hope you have sympathise with me buckling under the acronym overload.

I have Hudson as BOG and Paul Johnson as Tallest On Ground. Hudson just missed out by a cm apparently. :)

[AndrewP6]

Goodness, I have been posting TOG so much on this thread that I forgot it isn't the acronym for best on ground. As a fellow teacher I hope you have sympathise with me buckling under the acronym overload.

I have Hudson as BOG and Paul Johnson as Tallest On Ground. Hudson just missed out by a cm apparently. :)

:D Sure, I can understand... FWIW (another acronym! oh no!) I'd have The Beard as BOG too...

I hope this week vs the Swans, the MC make some smart decisions, our KPI's are up, Huddo's TOG isn't overloaded, we're cleaner going into F50, the KPP in the F50 is A-OK, the FSI is 100 % and DFA puts his head over the ball.

Above all else, I hope that the WB CEO and COO are both keeping us within the TPP, or Henry Jolson QC will be called, and we'll be USC ASAP!

Is that clear? :)

[alwaysadog]

:D Sure, I can understand... FWIW (another acronym! oh no!) I'd have The Beard as BOG too...

I hope this week vs the Swans, the MC make some smart decisions, our KPI's are up, Huddo's TOG isn't overloaded, we're cleaner going into F50, the KPP in the F50 is A-OK, the FSI is 100 % and DFA puts his head over the ball.

Above all else, I hope that the WB CEO and COO are both keeping us within the TPP, or Henry Jolson QC will be called, and we'll be USC ASAP!

Is that clear? :)

And some teachers wonder why the general public finds them hard to understand. I take it that the above is the current iteration of that obscure language Educanto.

[AndrewP6]

And some teachers wonder why the general public finds them hard to understand. I take it that the above is the current iteration of that obscure language Educanto.

Could be, or it could just be crap that I thought of! :)

[Rocco Jones]

Bringing this bad boy back due to our team selection for tonight.

I see the 2nd ruck role as rather mutated. It's ironic a role so influenced by the modern game is a bit of a throwback in terms of how speciliast it is.

I am not a fan of players developing in the role. I see it as a role for mature players/journeymen who have struggled elsewhere but have the tools suited to it.

The two main attributes I see are:
1/ (most importantly) being able to offer something up forward, easiest way is being a contest/competitive type forward
2/ being competitivie in the ruck

As I've said a lot of times, when a 2nd ruck is paired up with a pure/gun ruck like Minson they will probably spend about 20% TOG in the ruck, 55-60% up forward and 20-25% on the bench.

There is the option of going back instead of forward but I think this is a bad idea as it break concentration need in defence.

The main raw attributes I see are those based around being competitive. A strong body and an appetitie for the contest. Q is the perfect example at the moment. The guys I suited most suited to the role at the Dogs are Markovic and Redpath. I know Redpath goes against my development phase ethos but he is an exception for two reasons; a mature body and the fact that I hold little hope for him unless he can find a trick.

[boydogs]

Bringing this bad boy back due to our team selection for tonight.


As I've said a lot of times, when a 2nd ruck is paired up with a pure/gun ruck like Minson they will probably spend about 20% TOG in the ruck, 55-60% up forward and 20-25% on the bench.

So you would support us leaving Cordy out then? Seems silly to pick someone because they are the best person to play a role that lasts for 20% of the game.


There is the option of going back instead of forward but I think this is a bad idea as it break concentration need in defence.


The main raw attributes I see are those based around being competitive. A strong body and an appetitie for the contest. Q is the perfect example at the moment. The guys I suited most suited to the role at the Dogs are Markovic and Redpath. I know Redpath goes against my development phase ethos but he is an exception for two reasons; a mature body and the fact that I hold little hope for him unless he can find a trick.

Liam Jones seems to fit your criteria, why doesn't he get a mention?

[comrade]

Liam Jones seems to fit your criteria, why doesn't he get a mention?

Jones is a genuine KPF, the only one we have. Playing him in a Q Lynch role would be a waste of resources. It'd be like Buddy or Cloke taking 2nd rucking duties each week.

[Rocco Jones]

So you would support us leaving Cordy out then? Seems silly to pick someone because they are the best person to play a role that lasts for 20% of the game.


Yep. Cordy is good enough in the ruck but he really struggles up forward.


Liam Jones seems to fit your criteria, why doesn't he get a mention?

As I mentioned, I don't think we should be playing guys who are developing in another role as our 2nd ruck unless they are already/were an actual ruckman like Cordy or Roughy.

I hold a lot of hope in Jones as a key-forward. I would play the 25 year old Bupa version of Jones who hasn't gone anywhere/stagnated in his career as a key-forward as a 2nd ruck.