Goining in with one ruckman?

[GVGjr]

I know this gets a lot of vibrant discussion but whats everyone's take on going into the game against the Swans with just one ruckman? Did it work?

I'm prepared to be flexible with this but in general terms I think we need the extra big guy.

It also seemed perplexing to hear that we had Roughead up in Sydney only to send him back to play at Williamstown. I can't quite work out if he was up there as a genuine emergency or as genuine selection option that we decided not to go with. Once it was decided not to use him getting him back to Willy was a good move.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

I really thought this would've been a perfect opportunity for Roughead, and was genuinely surprised we did not play him.

With Tommy rucking, we seemed to have made the call to have Boyd/Cross go up as third man regularly, and this did not work at all and often resulted in Sydney getting first use of the ball out of a stoppage.

I would've preferred to see how Roughead responded from last week and give him a go against Pyke this week, given his form had been quite promising for the last month.

[Hotdog60]

I think we needed the extra ruck, although Tommy did his best we lost it in the middle when Huddo wasn't there. Also with the relieving ruck the mids seem to go for the 3rd man up alot and is usual ineffective and most times their opposition gets the ball.

[always right]

The decision was an umitigated disaster and Eade should put his hand up and take responsibility for the cock-up. The whole night made me angry but watching Kirk lead our quickest defenders to the ball was only topped by seeing a second rate Canadian ruckman make Hudson look like a novice. This team finds new ways to test my allegiance.

[LostDoggy]

Yep Ive called for going with one ruckman providing Everitt plays Tommy doesnt have the motor to be the only backup ruckman, so it was a complete waste and we found out nothing. This whole team revolves around Cooney being in the middle we just dont have the replacement.

[always right]

Watching Roughead play for Willi today just reinforced what a dumb decision it was. He is a spedcial talent and should be persevered with.

Our defence has ben our strong point all season. Why mess with it by trying to make a ruckman out of your CHB this close to the finals?

[LostDoggy]

excuses

[LostDoggy]

Watching Roughead play for Willi today just reinforced what a dumb decision it was. He is a spedcial talent and should be persevered with.

Our defence has ben our strong point all season. Why mess with it by trying to make a ruckman out of your CHB this close to the finals?

Yep great point I was thinking the same I guess your name says it all. :D

[bornadog]

Well a few people on the forum have been calling for one ruckman but it didn't work, our structure was stuffed and we got killed.

Both Minson and Roughead played well today with Minson BOG and Roughead not far behind, although he played Jones roll up forward for the majority of the game.

[LostDoggy]

I'm sure if we had Roughie or Minson in the team, we still wouldn't have won

[Remi Moses]

Watching Roughead play for Willi today just reinforced what a dumb decision it was. He is a spedcial talent and should be persevered with.

Our defence has ben our strong point all season. Why mess with it by trying to make a ruckman out of your CHB this close to the finals?

I agree why upset the chemistry of the back 6 by rucking Williams! Please don't go into a final with one ruck!!

[ReLoad]

Ok, well a couple of things.

1. Yes it failed
2. At least they tried it, given our performance last week, that had to try something different, they made a mistake, as it didnt work, but they will not do it again. Mistake made, now learn from it.
3. It will mean a reduced post count here on the forums :P

[LostDoggy]

It was mystifying trying it without everitt in the side. Personally, I would have played will again against Sydney with him as first choice for this years finals.

[GVGjr]

Watching Roughead play for Willi today just reinforced what a dumb decision it was. He is a spedcial talent and should be persevered with.

Our defence has ben our strong point all season. Why mess with it by trying to make a ruckman out of your CHB this close to the finals?

Roughead has the ability to play as a forward pocket plus obviously do his share in the ruck so that does provide us with the flexibility to add the extra tall.

I mentioned in another thread that I'm not against Williams doing a bit of ruck work when the need arises but planning for him to be the sole support just doesn't seem right.

[always right]

I'm sure if we had Roughie or Minson in the team, we still wouldn't have won

No-one suggested it was the key reason for us losing, just one factor.....and one that made absolutely no sense. The MC carry some of the blame for the performance.

[LostDoggy]

I too believe that the one true ruck experiment had a better chance of succeeding if Everitt was in the team. I am happy that they tried something different after a shellacking. Wouldn't be impressed at all if MC and Eade served up last week's menu again.

[Flamethrower]

It may not have cost us the game but it gave us less chance of winning considering Hudson was recovering from illness and was always going to struggle to run out the game. Coons tearing his hamstring was the deathknell.

[LostDoggy]

Oh The Pain of It All

[mjp]

With Cooney going down, we were actually pretty lucky we went in with only one ruckman...we only ended up being one runner down instead of two!

The one ruckman idea is fine if it is intended to give us a point of difference. With Jones in the side, there is not much room for Roughead or Minson to rest up forward - with Jones and Hall we are big enough - which means the ruckman is either in the ruck or on the bench. This is not good.

The side is still not balanced because we cannot seem to settle on what type of footy we want to play. Not sure how many ruckman we have really matter at the moment because the problem is more than skin deep.

[mighty_west]

With Cooney going down, we were actually pretty lucky we went in with only one ruckman...we only ended up being one runner down instead of two!

The one ruckman idea is fine if it is intended to give us a point of difference. With Jones in the side, there is not much room for Roughead or Minson to rest up forward - with Jones and Hall we are big enough - which means the ruckman is either in the ruck or on the bench. This is not good.

The side is still not balanced because we cannot seem to settle on what type of footy we want to play. Not sure how many ruckman we have really matter at the moment because the problem is more than skin deep.

I'll probably get hot coals poured over me for saying this, but i would have liked have given Jones a spell, a game at Willy, and play Roughead, Huddo gets the chop out & Rough can play up forward, especially taken overhead grabs, it is so easy for centre half forwards to get sucked up the ground, Everitt should have played for Hahn, more run from Andrejs as well, just my 2 cents worth.

Williams to play down back as normal not needing Mitch down back as a chop out for when Lake goes forward.

[mjp]

I'll probably get hot coals poured over me for saying this, but i would have liked have given Jones a spell, a game at Willy, and play Roughead, Huddo gets the chop out & Rough can play up forward, especially taken overhead grabs, it is so easy for centre half forwards to get sucked up the ground, Everitt should have played for Hahn, more run from Andrejs as well, just my 2 cents worth.

Williams to play down back as normal not needing Mitch down back as a chop out for when Lake goes forward.

I pretty much agree with all of that.

[Jasper]

On reflection, I don't really understand why we went in with only one ruckman against a stoppage based team like Sydney where clearances are key on a ground where lack of pace isn't as important.

Perhaps the MC wanted to give Mitch another opportunity and thought we'd be too slow with Mitch and two rucks.

I am not sure we can write the one ruckman experiment off on the back of last night. Probably need Everitt in the team instead of Mitch if we were goint to persist, but as someone said earlier the problems are deeper than whether one or two rucks play, and whether Mitch or Everitt play...

[GVGjr]

I'll probably get hot coals poured over me for saying this, but i would have liked have given Jones a spell, a game at Willy, and play Roughead, Huddo gets the chop out & Rough can play up forward, especially taken overhead grabs, it is so easy for centre half forwards to get sucked up the ground, Everitt should have played for Hahn, more run from Andrejs as well, just my 2 cents worth.

Williams to play down back as normal not needing Mitch down back as a chop out for when Lake goes forward.

If some are concerned on team balance with pace then is the correct option. We simply can't go into games with Williams as the main ruck support.

[lemmon]

We have to play the two rucks against the Pies, Jolley will carve us up. If that means leaving out Jones, so be it. He has done nothing wrong and will be a gun but heading into a finals campaign we have to get our structures right.

[AndrewP6]

We have to play the two rucks against the Pies, Jolley will carve us up. If that means leaving out Jones, so be it. He has done nothing wrong and will be a gun but heading into a finals campaign we have to get our structures right.

Agree on this....Jones has plenty of time (and looks the goods)

[Bumper Bulldogs]

I like others here would leave Tommy at CHB as I don't think his body will stand up to rucking and why would you risk it!

I don't like lake in the forward line and like Mitch in the back line even less. I see this and say we have lost the things that make us dangerous.

I think as things stand we need to have Huddo as the No1 and flick between Roughy & Minson.

As for the forward line I cant see any reason why Hall, Grant and Jones cant play together as they all can find the ball. i think the issue is the small blokes around them. If we have a fit and firing Murphy, Johnson, Ward, Hill, Gia and Higgo it shouldn't be an issue. the problem is these spots have been the most inconsistent one for us all year. With Cooney and Jonno likly to miss would we play Hooper & Rose to see what happens?

[mjp]

I think as things stand we need to have Huddo as the No1 and flick between Roughy & Minson.

As for the forward line I cant see any reason why Hall, Grant and Jones cant play together as they all can find the ball.

They can. But with two rucks you end up with Hall, Grant, Jones AND Roughead/Minson at times - and that is a problem.

[Go_Dogs]

They can. But with two rucks you end up with Hall, Grant, Jones AND Roughead/Minson at times - and that is a problem.

And Everitt trying to get a gig too.

[Bumper Bulldogs]

They can. But with two rucks you end up with Hall, Grant, Jones AND Roughead/Minson at times - and that is a problem.

Yes it could be but if it was Roughy not Minson it could work in our favour, Roughy a better mark, a lot smarter and mobile. Leave him and hall deep with Grant and Jones pushing up to rest the ruckmen.

[lemmon]

Yes it could be but if it was Roughy not Minson it could work in our favour, Roughy a better mark, a lot smarter and mobile. Leave him and hall deep with Grant and Jones pushing up to rest the ruckmen.

And what happens when we have Harry O/Heath Shaw/Ben Johnson/Toovey running the ball off the half back line when it comes to ground with minimal pressure from the slow Hall/Roughead/Jones. We cant afford to be that tall and have to bite the bullet and drop Jones for the sake of structure, will be a gun but structure comes first.

[LostDoggy]

Not sure dropping Jones is the answer. Of all our forwards on Saturday night, he was the only one who chased and harassed with any intensity. Only Grant came close. Can we play all of Jones, Hall, Grant, Everitt, Roughead and Minson if we drop Hahn and A tall defender say Hargrave or Williams? We then tell our rucks to push back instead of pushing forward?

[Desipura]

And what happens when we have Harry O/Heath Shaw/Ben Johnson/Toovey running the ball off the half back line when it comes to ground with minimal pressure from the slow Hall/Roughead/Jones. We cant afford to be that tall and have to bite the bullet and drop Jones for the sake of structure, will be a gun but structure comes first.

What we do is play Griffen on O'Brien or alternatively play Gilbee on O'Brien with Griff at half back to provide run.
Keep Jones who chases and lays tackles and can take a contested mark as opposed to Roughy who at this stage will maybe take one pack mark.

[LostDoggy]

What we do is play Griffen on O'Brien or alternatively play Gilbee on O'Brien with Griff at half back to provide run.
Keep Jones who chases and lays tackles and can take a contested mark as opposed to Roughy who at this stage will maybe take one pack mark.

You want to take Griffen out of the midfield already missing Cooney?

Good luck with that one.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

If some are concerned on team balance with pace then is the correct option. We simply can't go into games with Williams as the main ruck support.

This was a brain fade by Eade and the MC.It defies logic. Tom Williams will never be a ruckman. Why expose your centre half back to this extraodinary proposition.
On what grounds was Hahn selected?
Why would you drop Roughead who along with Jones, Grant and Wood is the future of the club?
Everitt didn't deserve to be dropped but what ever way you look at it he is not rated by the MC and Coach, hence their reason for trying to dispose of him prior to this year.
We are in crisis mode and unfortunately will limp into fourth place with now the distinct possibility of going out in straight sets.

[Desipura]

You want to take Griffen out of the midfield already missing Cooney?

Good luck with that one.
And what has he done in there? I hardly saw him in the 2nd half last week (sure he had plenty of mates)
Its a way of breaking the shackles. The expectations on him are very high especially now that Coon is not there.
I am not saying for him not to play in the middle at all, just the occasional run in there.

We are getting smashed out of the middle, perhaps we need to go with more grunt than skill in there.
Its a left field plan, we cannot continue going down the path we have been.

[LostDoggy]

I really thought this would've been a perfect opportunity for Roughead, and was genuinely surprised we did not play him.

With Tommy rucking, we seemed to have made the call to have Boyd/Cross go up as third man regularly, and this did not work at all and often resulted in Sydney getting first use of the ball out of a stoppage.

I would've preferred to see how Roughead responded from last week and give him a go against Pyke this week, given his form had been quite promising for the last month.

Been a massive issue from my pov - 3rd man up when it constantly leaves us short around the stoppages on the turf - now and then fine but is becoming just to prevalent. Dont like it.

[LostDoggy]

And what has he done in there? I hardly saw him in the 2nd half last week (sure he had plenty of mates)
Its a way of breaking the shackles. The expectations on him are very high especially now that Coon is not there.
I am not saying for him not to play in the middle at all, just the occasional run in there.

We are getting smashed out of the middle, perhaps we need to go with more grunt than skill in there.Its a left field plan, we cannot continue going down the path we have been.

We have the grunt - Boyd/Cross etc but speed and skill is restricted to Cooney and Griffen and Cooney is missing. Now you want to take Griffen out as well?

[bornadog]

Not sure dropping Jones is the answer. Of all our forwards on Saturday night, he was the only one who chased and harassed with any intensity. Only Grant came close. Can we play all of Jones, Hall, Grant, Everitt, Roughead and Minson if we drop Hahn and A tall defender say Hargrave or Williams? We then tell our rucks to push back instead of pushing forward?

So lets throw out the baby with the bath water and start again after finishing 4th?

Williams and Hargrave are integral to our backline and forwards are all talls, so won't work.

[Desipura]

We have the grunt - Boyd/Cross etc but speed and skill is restricted to Cooney and Griffen and Cooney is missing. Now you want to take Griffen out as well?
Play him more outside then inside. O'Brien has historically provided alot of run out of their defence. Griffen to hopefully stop him in his tracks OR Griff to provide that same run out off half back.
Gilbee is not providing enough run for minedown back so play him up front and hope that O'Brien goes to him or if he does not Gilbee gets enough ball at half fwd to feed the forwards.

[bornadog]

Play him more outside then inside. O'Brien has historically provided alot of run out of their defence. Griffen to hopefully stop him in his tracks OR Griff to provide that same run out off half back.
Gilbee is not providing enough run for minedown back so play him up front and hope that O'Brien goes to him or if he does not Gilbee gets enough ball at half fwd to feed the forwards.

Grant has speed, so why not play him on Obrien?

[Desipura]

Grant has speed, so why not play him on Obrien? O'Brien will brush him aside like a hairbrush. Not many can tackle O'Brien and Grant wont really hurt him by foot or on the scoreboard.

[Greystache]

O'Brien will brush him aside like a hairbrush. Not many can tackle O'Brien and Grant wont really hurt him by foot or on the scoreboard.

I'm enclined to play Addison on O'Brien, Dylan can match it with him physically and we have enough scoring power to allow a defensive role in our forward line.

[bornadog]

I'm enclined to play Addison on O'Brien, Dylan can match it with him physically and we have enough scoring power to allow a defensive role in our forward line.

so Addison plays as a forward?

[Desipura]

I'm enclined to play Addison on O'Brien, Dylan can match it with him physically and we have enough scoring power to allow a defensive role in our forward line.
Dont worry, this did cross my mind.

[Greystache]

so Addison plays as a forward?

Yep, in a lockdown role. He can also add some defensive pressure in the midfield should Collingwood get on a roll and we need to stop their momentum. Something that's been a major problem the last two weeks.

[always right]

I'd prefer someone like Ward to play as a defensive forward. More likely to also provide a goal scoring option.

Moles as a defensive forward on Shaw??

[always right]

The problem with pushing a young bloke like Jones out of the side is that he is the only one providing any sort of forward pressure at the moment. He chases his heart out. If we manage the bench properly we should manage to have only two of Hudson, Roughead and Jones on the ground at any one time.