Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast
Results 73 to 84 of 147

Thread: Changes for elimination final v Essendon, Saturday 9 September

  1. #73
    Veterans List wolftone57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lilyfield
    Posts
    5,788
    Quote Originally Posted by barry View Post
    We can get away with one ruck, but we won't.

    Good luck with one ruck look what happened against Carlton in the second quarter. Kreuzer killed us and set them up big time. All this talk of Essendon playing one ruck is total rubbish do you know where that came from Barry? Probably not, I don't either. Essendon use Stewart as second ruck and if he is not there they use Daniher.Stewart is 198 and Daniher 200.

  2. #74
    Warming the Bench
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by Markwebbos View Post
    Once again I agree with Ludwig earlier that we can get away with only one ruck. Combining that with Bazza... How about:

    In: Naismith, Hanners, Paps
    Out: Cunningham, Tippo, Sinkers

    You need Towers to pinch hit in the ruck, where he shows promise. It's a quicker side too.
    Sounds good to me! As long as we're confident Naismith can play out the match

  3. #75
    Veterans List wolftone57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lilyfield
    Posts
    5,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    I would drop one of the ruckmen, probably Sinclair, and also leave out Hayward. We only need one ruckman as Essendon only play one ruckman. Then we can leave in both Cunningham and Towers to help neutralise their outside speed, which troubled us the last time we played. This way we have their strengths covered and take away the only weapons they have to beat us.
    Where did you get the bull@@@@ that Essendon only play one ruckman Ludwig? It's absolute rubbish. The proof is STEWART, he is a 198cm ruckman. Even if they don't play Stewart and only play Daniher as second ruck he is 200cm. They have the advantage over us in the centre square of 10-12cm and both are fairly mobile. Leaving one ruck out doesn't give us any advantage at all. On the contrary we would be up against it big time.

  4. #76
    Warming the Bench
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by wolftone57 View Post
    Where did you get the bull@@@@ that Essendon only play one ruckman Ludwig? It's absolute rubbish. The proof is STEWART, he is a 198cm ruckman. Even if they don't play Stewart and only play Daniher as second ruck he is 200cm. They have the advantage over us in the centre square of 10-12cm and both are fairly mobile. Leaving one ruck out doesn't give us any advantage at all. On the contrary we would be up against it big time.
    We would lose the hitouts but that's about it. For me if Naismith can play at least 80% time in the ruck then I'd be happy leaving out Tippett and Sinclair. The difference between Sinclair/Tippett and Stewart/Daniher is they are selected as tall forwards and both play the role effectively. At the moment neither Tippett or Sinclair play the tall forward role well enough to be selected in that position

  5. #77
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    Quote Originally Posted by wolftone57 View Post
    Good luck with one ruck look what happened against Carlton in the second quarter. Kreuzer killed us and set them up big time. All this talk of Essendon playing one ruck is total rubbish do you know where that came from Barry? Probably not, I don't either. Essendon use Stewart as second ruck and if he is not there they use Daniher.Stewart is 198 and Daniher 200.
    This has already been completely debunked. The goals had nothing to do with ruck contests. If you have access to the replay, take a look for yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by wolftone57 View Post
    Where did you get the bull@@@@ that Essendon only play one ruckman Ludwig? It's absolute rubbish. The proof is STEWART, he is a 198cm ruckman. Even if they don't play Stewart and only play Daniher as second ruck he is 200cm. They have the advantage over us in the centre square of 10-12cm and both are fairly mobile. Leaving one ruck out doesn't give us any advantage at all. On the contrary we would be up against it big time.
    If they played both Bellchambers as well as Leuenberger, then I would say they are playing 2 ruckmen. Stewart and Daniher are forwards who play in the ruck when Bellchambers is rested, although their height does them an advantage, especially Daniher. Same as us playing Reid when our ruckman is resting. Calling Stewart a ruckman is the same as calling Reid a ruckman. Do we need an extra ruckman to go up against Stewart or Daniher? Or would one of our other players like Reid or Towers do well enough. The 2nd ruckman is not a 'free hit'; it means someone like Cunningham or Hayward get left out of the side. So we need to ask where would we get the most value.

    I happen to think, BTW, that we will go with 2 ruckmen. I just don't agree with it.

  6. #78
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Terrigal (SCG - Bay 32)
    Posts
    2,601
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardLong View Post
    We all like to kick Towers a bit. But defensively, he's a terrific player!
    I strongly disagree with this.. Watch the shallow kick into the 50 to an opposition halfback flanker, Towers is inevitably the one lagging behind to stand the mark. He really is good at standing the mark and watching the ball sail over his head, though.
    C'mon Chels!

  7. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Markwebbos View Post
    Once again I agree with Ludwig earlier that we can get away with only one ruck. Combining that with Bazza... How about:

    In: Naismith, Hanners, Paps
    Out: Cunningham, Tippo, Sinkers

    You need Towers to pinch hit in the ruck, where he shows promise. It's a quicker side too.
    We don't play two ruckman. We play a one ruckman and three tall forward structure. What you are essentially saying with your selection policy, is one ruckman and two tall forwards. So the debate us not one or two ruckmen, it us two or three tall forwards.

    I favour the three talls because when Reid inevitably goes back as required, it still leaves us with two tall marking options. When we've only played two talls in the past and reid goes back, it only leaves Buddy up forward and the opposition puts two defenders on him. Three talls gives us so much more flexibility.

  8. #80
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    It's all a moot point anyway. Does anyone really think that, when the team comes out on Thursday, two out of three of Naismith, Tippett and Sinclair won't be named?

    The only way this might happen is if only one of them is fit.

  9. #81
    Nup , I don't, not for a millisecond.

  10. #82
    Swans in order of rucking abilities:
    1. Naismith
    2. Tippet
    3. Sinclair
    4. Towers
    5. Reid
    6. Daylight
    7. Mcveigh

    We play 5 genuine ruckman. It's a miracle we win any games.

  11. #83
    Parker puts his hand up too.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Parker puts his hand up too.

  12. #84
    Senior Player Matty10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Southbank, VIC
    Posts
    1,323
    Quote Originally Posted by barry View Post
    It's a miracle we win any games.
    And yet we do.

    It is always an interesting debate, though. Do we play the players we (the Club) think will be the hardest to beat, or do we modify our team to address the strengths of our opposition? Our supposed weakness could be our strength in the end.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO