more flexible line up .... Longmire wants it to cope with interchange limit

[Ajn]

Franklin mitchell rohan kennedy jack x2 mcglnn parker fwd/mid
Tippett Pyke ruck/forward
Mcveigh backline/mid
Reid lrt back/fwd

To me I can't see enough flexibility in the defence. We need more mid/def and fwd/def.

Perhaps that is where rampe, lamb, smith need to develop our "flexibility"

[DamY]

Franklin mitchell rohan kennedy jack x2 mcglnn parker fwd/mid
Tippett Pyke ruck/forward
Mcveigh backline/mid
Reid lrt back/fwd

To me I can't see enough flexibility in the defence. We need more mid/def and fwd/def.

Perhaps that is where rampe, lamb, smith need to develop our "flexibility"

Smooch kicked a goal this year (as did Teddy) and Rampe's played forward in the past.

[liz]

Our defenders very rarely get any rest, especially the talls. Check out the time on ground for Reg and Ted over the last couple of years and you'll see it's very high 90s%. Many games the pair of them each play 100%.

[MightyBloods]

Our defenders very rarely get any rest, especially the talls. Check out the time on ground for Reg and Ted over the last couple of years and you'll see it's very high 90s%. Many games the pair of them each play 100%.

...and check the kms covered per game per player. I'm more interested in those guys getting rested during a game or year...and they tend to be the guys running thru the midfield. Interesting comment by Horse which probably tells us the type of player they will target...players with a tank.

[707]

..... interesting comment by Horse which probably tells us the type of player they will target...players with a tank.

The interchange limit has suddenly put a premium on draftees with endurance. The Beep Test and 3km run at the Draft Combine will never have been so closely analysed by recruiters. The draftees will have jumped or dropped in the order after the Combine by more than they have in previous years I would imagine.

I think we already have a good stock of endurance players that should serve us well going forwards and if my memory is correct we've just added another in the last few days :-)

[Ajn]

Smooch kicked a goal this year (as did Teddy) and Rampe's played forward in the past. goals are a result of the press, we need more flexibility through the def to keep players fresh and give them a chop out.

Would love to see rampe and smith through the midfield and another mid playing a "hodge" like role def/mid. I actually think lamb is the ideal prototype of this relieving defender, with good foot skills

[stellation]

Just on the subject of interchange limits overall, I'd be interested to see how clubs are planning on approaching the problem and how that has factored into their pre-season planning; are they planning on frequent rotations through onfield positions, or less frequent rotations of (so longer stretches in) onfield positions? Will they opt for significantly longer rests on the bench when guys do come off (logically that will occur, but are they going to try to work to specifically targeting lengths for particular players/positions?)? I recall Phil Jackson being noted for maximizing rest time to his players around breaks in play- so take a star off with 2 minutes to go leading into 3/4 time, then bring them on 2 minutes after.

Rotating people through the backline is an option, but I'm not sure how likely it really is for actual defensive posts- I could certainly see it for a running/rebounding defender, but even then I'm not sure that they don't put a lot of work into their legs already in that role. Hodge as a sweeping defender is probably a good model.

[magic.merkin]

Fun fact for the day, I saw the guy this year ran 9.32mins (2secs off best) for 3km. So I looked up the world record 7:20 by a kenyan.

It means nothing as the footy player isn't as developed or trained specifically for it, but damn that a massive drop! Now to see the Kenyan do the kicking drills.

[southsideswan]

or grow 0.4m and put on 20 kg ... but so close

[magic.merkin]

or grow 0.4m and put on 20 kg ... but so close

close, 18kg's and 12cm. That guy was running around at 50kg's! He'd blow away!

[Rob-bloods]

Just on the subject of interchange limits overall, I'd be interested to see how clubs are planning on approaching the problem and how that has factored into their pre-season planning; are they planning on frequent rotations through onfield positions, or less frequent rotations of (so longer stretches in) onfield positions? Will they opt for significantly longer rests on the bench when guys do come off (logically that will occur, but are they going to try to work to specifically targeting lengths for particular players/positions?)? I recall Phil Jackson being noted for maximizing rest time to his players around breaks in play- so take a star off with 2 minutes to go leading into 3/4 time, then bring them on 2 minutes after.

Rotating people through the backline is an option, but I'm not sure how likely it really is for actual defensive posts- I could certainly see it for a running/rebounding defender, but even then I'm not sure that they don't put a lot of work into their legs already in that role. Hodge as a sweeping defender is probably a good model.

Talls will almost certainly be expected to stay on the ground longer at both ends just like Grundy and Richards do, teams will stack the midfield even more and the limited rotations will obviously be concentrated there. You could possibly see more part time ruckmen rucking in the forwards and the backs and the main ruck perhaps working mainly between the 50s.

[wolftone57]

Just on the subject of interchange limits overall, I'd be interested to see how clubs are planning on approaching the problem and how that has factored into their pre-season planning; are they planning on frequent rotations through onfield positions, or less frequent rotations of (so longer stretches in) onfield positions? Will they opt for significantly longer rests on the bench when guys do come off (logically that will occur, but are they going to try to work to specifically targeting lengths for particular players/positions?)? I recall Phil Jackson being noted for maximizing rest time to his players around breaks in play- so take a star off with 2 minutes to go leading into 3/4 time, then bring them on 2 minutes after.

Rotating people through the backline is an option, but I'm not sure how likely it really is for actual defensive posts- I could certainly see it for a running/rebounding defender, but even then I'm not sure that they don't put a lot of work into their legs already in that role. Hodge as a sweeping defender is probably a good model.

Who's Phil Jackson? What AFL Club did he coach? Never heard of him. If he has nothing to do with AFL then he is invalid. Basketball is a far different sport and is only played over a short period on a very small court. The tactics used in basketball, a non-contact sport are very different to those in AFL. I played both and the difference is palpable. For a start you don't have to worry about tackles, bumps, climbing players, kicking, handballing, goals & points and more than two umpires. some basic screens and cross court and fast breaks can be adapted but generally the tactics used are for a small area and we play on a large arena where those tactics can easily @@@@ up.

[stellation]

Who's Phil Jackson? What AFL Club did he coach? Never heard of him. If he has nothing to do with AFL then he is invalid. Basketball is a far different sport and is only played over a short period on a very small court. The tactics used in basketball, a non-contact sport are very different to those in AFL. I played both and the difference is palpable. For a start you don't have to worry about tackles, bumps, climbing players, kicking, handballing, goals & points and more than two umpires. some basic screens and cross court and fast breaks can be adapted but generally the tactics used are for a small area and we play on a large arena where those tactics can easily @@@@ up.
Were/are you pro-Roosy?

I don't really see how the tactic I mentioned would not translate (not that I'm saying teams will use it).

[Ludwig]

Who's Phil Jackson? What AFL Club did he coach? Never heard of him. If he has nothing to do with AFL then he is invalid. Basketball is a far different sport and is only played over a short period on a very small court. The tactics used in basketball, a non-contact sport are very different to those in AFL. I played both and the difference is palpable. For a start you don't have to worry about tackles, bumps, climbing players, kicking, handballing, goals & points and more than two umpires. some basic screens and cross court and fast breaks can be adapted but generally the tactics used are for a small area and we play on a large arena where those tactics can easily @@@@ up.

How can you say there is no applicability whatsoever of tactics in one sport to another? Of course there is. A strategy from a great coach like Phil Jackson is always worth listening to. Whether this particular one has a crossover to AFL is a matter of opinion, but is certainly worth contemplating.

[jono2707]

Who's Phil Jackson? What AFL Club did he coach? Never heard of him. If he has nothing to do with AFL then he is invalid. Basketball is a far different sport and is only played over a short period on a very small court. The tactics used in basketball, a non-contact sport are very different to those in AFL. I played both and the difference is palpable. For a start you don't have to worry about tackles, bumps, climbing players, kicking, handballing, goals & points and more than two umpires. some basic screens and cross court and fast breaks can be adapted but generally the tactics used are for a small area and we play on a large arena where those tactics can easily @@@@ up.

Probably explains why someone like Scott Pendlebury is such a terrible AFL player...... Oh and Tippett too....

[aardvark]

Probably explains why someone like Scott Pendlebury is such a terrible AFL player...... Oh and Tippett too....

and Roughead, Dal Santo, Thomas,Blair and even Jesse White............oops maybe a bad example there

[Doctor]

This is why we let Mummy go too. We couldn't play both him and Pyke with an interchange cap.

Stellation, your point was well made. If you don't look at what's happening in other sports to try to improve your own methods you're crazy.

[DamY]

Wolftone, do you read your posts back to yourself?

You are full of information and passion. But your posts can come across as dismissive, elitist and verge on arrogant. Your other post re: the definition of the surface/oval/pitch came across as just mean. The post regarding how if it's from another sport makes it invalid is dismissive. AFL has borrowed many concepts from other sports including free agency, and Roosy stole "tempo footy" from basketball too.

If you are happy with how you come across on posts then proceed but I thought I would just highlight that and you can do with that what you will

[wolftone57]

and Roughead, Dal Santo, Thomas,Blair and even Jesse White............oops maybe a bad example there

I was talking about tactics not players. I wouldn't go onto a basketball court and tackle or not since I realised it was sort of non contact. Tactics of a short court game are very hard to transpose into a large oval game. sometimes they work to a certain degree but not without being changed considerably. Basketball is a NON CONTACT sport and therefore is very different in tactics to a contact sport. You even leap differently, more straight up. If a basketballer did not play AFL early he tends to have trouble adapting. Everyone of those players mentioned played junior Aussie Rules and played in the Under 18-19's. Just because they may have had the occasional basketball game in a reasonable division doesn't make them a convert from basketball. They were all brought up on Aussie rules. None other than Pendlebury was ever seen as having a future in basketball and even then it was tenuous due to height. At 191cm he would have seen the writing on the wall as he would be too short to play top basketball. The days of a Shane Heal are well and truly gone.

Just because they played a few games of basketball does not make them a basketball CONVERT!!!!!

Pendlebury played junior Aussie rules all his life until he accepted a scholarship to the Basketball Acadamy at the Australian Institute of Sport. He was back playing AFL by age 18.

Tippett is the closest to a real basketballer but again played as a junior and not into his late teens. He was already playing Aussie rules by 18. He played both Aussie rules and basketball in U 18's.

Roughead, Blair (talk about a short basketballer he could run through their legs), Thomas (I presume you were referring to the Dale variety) & Dal Santo had such auspicious basketball careers it is not even mentioned on their Biogs.

Jesse quit basketball at 16. Says it all really.

Yes basketballers do generally have a very good vertical leap. But to say that basketball tactics can translate to footy, sorry but not without multiple tweaks and most tactics don't work because of the nature of the two games, one contact and the other non contact. I coached a premiership in junior basketball and the tactics I used were very different to Aussie rules tactics. Some tactics cross over but they do in all sports and therefore are not essentially belonging to one or the other.

[undy]

I was talking about tactics not players. I wouldn't go onto a basketball court and tackle or not since I realised it was sort of non contact. Tactics of a short court game are very hard to transpose into a large oval game. sometimes they work to a certain degree but not without being changed considerably. Basketball is a NON CONTACT sport and therefore is very different in tactics to a contact sport. You even leap differently, more straight up. If a basketballer did not play AFL early he tends to have trouble adapting. Everyone of those players mentioned played junior Aussie Rules and played in the Under 18-19's. Just because they may have had the occasional basketball game in a reasonable division doesn't make them a convert from basketball. They were all brought up on Aussie rules. None other than Pendlebury was ever seen as having a future in basketball and even then it was tenuous due to height. At 191cm he would have seen the writing on the wall as he would be too short to play top basketball. The days of a Shane Heal are well and truly gone.

Just because they played a few games of basketball does not make them a basketball CONVERT!!!!!

Pendlebury played junior Aussie rules all his life until he accepted a scholarship to the Basketball Acadamy at the Australian Institute of Sport. He was back playing AFL by age 18.

Tippett is the closest to a real basketballer but again played as a junior and not into his late teens. He was already playing Aussie rules by 18. He played both Aussie rules and basketball in U 18's.

Roughead, Blair (talk about a short basketballer he could run through their legs), Thomas (I presume you were referring to the Dale variety) & Dal Santo had such auspicious basketball careers it is not even mentioned on their Biogs.

Jesse quit basketball at 16. Says it all really.

Yes basketballers do generally have a very good vertical leap. But to say that basketball tactics can translate to footy, sorry but not without multiple tweaks and most tactics don't work because of the nature of the two games, one contact and the other non contact. I coached a premiership in junior basketball and the tactics I used were very different to Aussie rules tactics. Some tactics cross over but they do in all sports and therefore are not essentially belonging to one or the other.

And Brogan (who the OP omitted)?
Had the occasional game of basketball (NBL GF 1998), then was a useful footy player (AFL GF 2004)

[Doctor J.]

to say that basketball tactics can translate to footy, sorry but not without multiple tweaks and most tactics don't work because of the nature of the two games, one contact and the other non contact. I coached a premiership in junior basketball and the tactics I used were very different to Aussie rules tactics. Some tactics cross over but they do in all sports and therefore are not essentially belonging to one or the other.

So do they or don't?

Tempo footy, fwd press, defensive press, one on one, zone defense etc...

Geez Wolfy, some times I wonder.

[Melbourne_Blood]

Wolftone, do you read your posts back to yourself?

You are full of information and passion. But your posts can come across as dismissive, elitist and verge on arrogant. Your other post re: the definition of the surface/oval/pitch came across as just mean. The post regarding how if it's from another sport makes it invalid is dismissive. AFL has borrowed many concepts from other sports including free agency, and Roosy stole "tempo footy" from basketball too.

If you are happy with how you come across on posts then proceed but I thought I would just highlight that and you can do with that what you will

Well put, I agree.

[stellation]

I was talking about tactics not players. I wouldn't go onto a basketball court and tackle or not since I realised it was sort of non contact. Tactics of a short court game are very hard to transpose into a large oval game. sometimes they work to a certain degree but not without being changed considerably. Basketball is a NON CONTACT sport and therefore is very different in tactics to a contact sport. You even leap differently, more straight up. If a basketballer did not play AFL early he tends to have trouble adapting. Everyone of those players mentioned played junior Aussie Rules and played in the Under 18-19's. Just because they may have had the occasional basketball game in a reasonable division doesn't make them a convert from basketball. They were all brought up on Aussie rules. None other than Pendlebury was ever seen as having a future in basketball and even then it was tenuous due to height. At 191cm he would have seen the writing on the wall as he would be too short to play top basketball. The days of a Shane Heal are well and truly gone.

Just because they played a few games of basketball does not make them a basketball CONVERT!!!!!

Pendlebury played junior Aussie rules all his life until he accepted a scholarship to the Basketball Acadamy at the Australian Institute of Sport. He was back playing AFL by age 18.

Tippett is the closest to a real basketballer but again played as a junior and not into his late teens. He was already playing Aussie rules by 18. He played both Aussie rules and basketball in U 18's.

Roughead, Blair (talk about a short basketballer he could run through their legs), Thomas (I presume you were referring to the Dale variety) & Dal Santo had such auspicious basketball careers it is not even mentioned on their Biogs.

Jesse quit basketball at 16. Says it all really.

Yes basketballers do generally have a very good vertical leap. But to say that basketball tactics can translate to footy, sorry but not without multiple tweaks and most tactics don't work because of the nature of the two games, one contact and the other non contact. I coached a premiership in junior basketball and the tactics I used were very different to Aussie rules tactics. Some tactics cross over but they do in all sports and therefore are not essentially belonging to one or the other.
I observed that Phil Jackson was known for resting players either side of breaks to maximize game time, the sainted Mr Roos worshiped at his alter and has previously acknowledged he studied his methods (both on and off field tactics and coaching logic) to help develop his coaching style. I think it's a reasonable thing to ponder, and I don't overly see why it would fail to translate; I'm sure it's been used prior to the interchange cap and I'm just wondering how prevalent it will become with the cap.

Your concerns appear to boil down to the games being different, but I don't really see how rest breaks/player management in this instance are such polar opposites as it's an off field/court thing.

This is probably a moot point, but Pendelbury's height was not an issue. He's about 6'3", which is the ideal height for a big point guard in the modern NBA (there's plenty shorter, and plenty of other professional leagues). Scott was a point guard, he was the starter for the AIS squad and after he left basketball to focus on football the chap who then came in to the starting role was Patty Mills- who is a few inches shorter than Scott and currently making a reasonable fist of having a career in the NBA. Scott just wanted to play football.

[Jewels]

I was talking about tactics not players. I wouldn't go onto a basketball court and tackle or not since I realised it was sort of non contact. Tactics of a short court game are very hard to transpose into a large oval game. sometimes they work to a certain degree but not without being changed considerably. Basketball is a NON CONTACT sport and therefore is very different in tactics to a contact sport. You even leap differently, more straight up. If a basketballer did not play AFL early he tends to have trouble adapting. Everyone of those players mentioned played junior Aussie Rules and played in the Under 18-19's. Just because they may have had the occasional basketball game in a reasonable division doesn't make them a convert from basketball. They were all brought up on Aussie rules. None other than Pendlebury was ever seen as having a future in basketball and even then it was tenuous due to height. At 191cm he would have seen the writing on the wall as he would be too short to play top basketball. The days of a Shane Heal are well and truly gone.

Just because they played a few games of basketball does not make them a basketball CONVERT!!!!!

Pendlebury played junior Aussie rules all his life until he accepted a scholarship to the Basketball Acadamy at the Australian Institute of Sport. He was back playing AFL by age 18.

Tippett is the closest to a real basketballer but again played as a junior and not into his late teens. He was already playing Aussie rules by 18. He played both Aussie rules and basketball in U 18's.

Roughead, Blair (talk about a short basketballer he could run through their legs), Thomas (I presume you were referring to the Dale variety) & Dal Santo had such auspicious basketball careers it is not even mentioned on their Biogs.

Jesse quit basketball at 16. Says it all really.

Yes basketballers do generally have a very good vertical leap. But to say that basketball tactics can translate to footy, sorry but not without multiple tweaks and most tactics don't work because of the nature of the two games, one contact and the other non contact. I coached a premiership in junior basketball and the tactics I used were very different to Aussie rules tactics. Some tactics cross over but they do in all sports and therefore are not essentially belonging to one or the other.

You have a real problem with people that don't agree with you. Instead of debating your point and acknowledging anothers POV, you arrogantly argue it like you are right and everyone else is stupid and you never give any credence to anyone elses opinions.

[ernie koala]

I don't get what your on about here Wolfie, Stellation was just making a valid point about players time management being done in a similar manner.

As for basketballers becoming AFL players. I think you'll find most AFL coaches, and development coaches, would rate it behind only Gaelic footy as a reasonable grounding for a non footy kid to play.

It's not just vertical leap, another very important attribute is developing 360 degree spacial awareness in tight situations. Plus quick decision making, and quick hands.

These are all attributes a basketballer will bring to the table.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

This is why we let Mummy go too. We couldn't play both him and Pyke with an interchange cap.

Yawn, is it that time of year already? The annual "You can't play two ruckmen because of . . . . . substitute rule/capped interchange/running game/etc. etc."

I dont want anyone to see me as baiting or trawling you Dr. Its just this particular idea, to my certain knowledge it's been doing the rounds for decades.

Those that declare the superfluity of the second ruckman are like the fundamentalist loonies that are always predicting the end of the world. In the case of the latter, every year the world fails to end - and they make the prediction for next year.

In the case of the former, every year the granny gets won by a team boasting two ruckman - and next season the ruckman doom sayers grasp at the next straw and exclaim "this time for sure!"

FWIW I suspect our coach is going to give this one-ruckman only folly another damn good try (in his defence, Kurt is at least most definitely ruckman sized). Interesting to see how it goes on this latest occasion.

[Ajn]

Flexible lineup also make for a difficult matchup, this year we tested how many bigs can fit in a line up and it probably failed.
Consider though who matches up on Goodes, Tippett, Franklin, etc when they swap positions....

Also look forward to seeing the slingshot with Buddy, Rohan and Jetta running back with the flight of the ball, not sure there are many sides that would be able to match them stride for stride (except Danger..)

[Doctor]

Yawn, is it that time of year already? The annual "You can't play two ruckmen because of . . . . . substitute rule/capped interchange/running game/etc. etc."

I dont want anyone to see me as baiting or trawling you Dr. Its just this particular idea, to my certain knowledge it's been doing the rounds for decades.

Those that declare the superfluity of the second ruckman are like the fundamentalist loonies that are always predicting the end of the world. In the case of the latter, every year the world fails to end - and they make the prediction for next year.

In the case of the former, every year the granny gets won by a team boasting two ruckman - and next season the ruckman doom sayers grasp at the next straw and exclaim "this time for sure!"

FWIW I suspect our coach is going to give this one-ruckman only folly another damn good try (in his defence, Kurt is at least most definitely ruckman sized). Interesting to see how it goes on this latest occasion.

No worries, and thanks for the clarification. For the record, I should have made it clear that my comment was related to "the thinking" rather than my own opinion.

Personally, I think the issue with interchange caps and player suitability is more related to mobility and engine than height. Pyke can certainly cope with it and Mummy probably could have. I'm not sure what Coach Longmire's thoughts are but it does appear that the 2012 ruck combination wasn't his initial thought. I'd like to think he changes his thinking rather than it being forced on him by necessity but ultimately it doesn't matter cos we won the Flag (I never get tired of saying that)!

[Bloodthirsty]

Flexible lineup also make for a difficult matchup, this year we tested how many bigs can fit in a line up and it probably failed.
Consider though who matches up on Goodes, Tippett, Franklin, etc when they swap positions....

Also look forward to seeing the slingshot with Buddy, Rohan and Jetta running back with the flight of the ball, not sure there are many sides that would be able to match them stride for stride (except Danger..)

How about QBE or Citibank hands out actual slingshots to the crowd at the SCG and see how the opposition teams cope with that?

[Ludwig]

Yawn, is it that time of year already? The annual "You can't play two ruckmen because of . . . . . substitute rule/capped interchange/running game/etc. etc."

I dont want anyone to see me as baiting or trawling you Dr. Its just this particular idea, to my certain knowledge it's been doing the rounds for decades.

Those that declare the superfluity of the second ruckman are like the fundamentalist loonies that are always predicting the end of the world. In the case of the latter, every year the world fails to end - and they make the prediction for next year.

In the case of the former, every year the granny gets won by a team boasting two ruckman - and next season the ruckman doom sayers grasp at the next straw and exclaim "this time for sure!"

FWIW I suspect our coach is going to give this one-ruckman only folly another damn good try (in his defence, Kurt is at least most definitely ruckman sized). Interesting to see how it goes on this latest occasion.

That's a rather extreme call.

Max Bailey was in and out of the lineup all year. Hawthorn won plenty of games rucking Hall and Roughy. And Hall is about as much of a ruckman as Tippett is. He's actually pretty good, and so is Tippett. Geelong had one of the worst ruck divisions in the comp.

I don't think there is an exact formula for what works. A team has to play to its strengths. The Swans are gradually shifting from a dominant inside game to one that is more balanced inside-outside. We've been drafting speedy players for several years now, and Buddy will add to the offensive emphasis of our game plan. This is why we allowed Mummy to look elsewhere.

It's pretty obvious that we think we are fine in the ruck with Pyke and Tippett. We'll see after the draft period how much ruck depth the coaches think we need going into next year.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

That's a rather extreme call.

Which bit?
Bestowing the epithet "Loonie" to fundamentalists? Or the bit about needing two genuine ruckmen to win a granny?

Lets assume the latter and look at the record . . .

YEAR - Ruckman Count - Notes

2013 - 2v2 - Hale/Hall & Bailey win
2012 - 2v1 - Mummy & Pyke win (Losers used P/T second ruck, Roughy)
2011 - 2v1 - West & Ottens win (Losers used P/T second ruck, Dawes/Brown)
2010 - 1v1 - Jolley & Dawes/Brown win
2009 - 2v2 - Ottens & Blake win
2008 - 2v2 - Campbell & Renouf win
2007 - 2v2 - King & Ottens win
2006 - 2v2 - Seaby & Cox win
2005 - 2v2 - Ball & Jolley win
2004 - 2v1 - Lade & Brogan win (Losers used P/T second ruck, McLaren)
2003 - 2v1 - Keating & Charman win (Losers used P/T second ruck, Walker)
2002 - 2v1 - Keating & McDonald win (Losers used P/T second ruck, Rocca)
2001 - 2v2 - Keating & McDonald win
2000 - 2v2 - Barnes & Alessio win
1999 - 2v1 - McKernan & Capuana win (Losers used P/T second ruck, Manton)
1998 - 2v2 - Pittman & Rehn win
1997 - 2v1 - Pittman & Rehn win (Losers used P/T second ruck, Sierakowski)
1996 - 2v2 - Capuano & McKernan win
1995 - 1v1 - Madden & Manton
1994 - 2v1 - Ball & Hynes (Losers used P/T second ruck, Handley)
1993 - 2v1 - Somerville & Salmon (Losers used P/T second ruck, Spalding)

I could go back further, but we're already back in the era of only 2 interchange players and surely the pattern is established. The team with two recognised ruckmen always beats a team that doesn't.

But I do see your point Ludwig, this rule does not apply to home and away games.

Brisbane in it's heyday had a ruckman, Clark Keating, who only played intermittently through the home and away season, but was a permanent feature in September.

[Ludwig]

Which bit?
Bestowing the epithet "Loonie" to fundamentalists? Or the bit about needing two genuine ruckmen to win a granny?



The point of contention is whether the 2 genuine ruckmen is the reason for winning a GF.

Even in the past 2 Grannys: Hawthorn beat the team that clearly had the best ruckmen, who were quite dominant on the day. We may have won the GF with 2 ruckmen, but Mummy was injured and useless on the day. We actually lost the hitouts 60 to 44.

It's like saying that if we get to the GF next year, we should replace Tippett with Naismith, because Naismith is a recognised ruckman, while Tippett is classified as a ruck/forward, and the team with the 2 genuine ruckmen always wins.

I don't think analysing the ruck balance more deeply is "Loonie."

In fact, flatly stating the you need 2 genuine ruckmen to win a Granny is what might be called '2 Ruckmen Fundamentalism" as it is a rather dogmatic position.

[Ajn]

Need to allow for the change of rules in our thinking though

[Ruck'n'Roll]

The point of contention is whether the 2 genuine ruckmen is the reason for winning a GF. That is not the point of contention Ludwig, because it's simply not an assertion I have made. It's simply one that you have ascribed to me.


Even in the past 2 Grannys: Hawthorn beat the team that clearly had the best ruckmen, who were quite dominant on the day. The assertion that whoever has the best ruckmen was not mine either, just something you threw up, presumably for rhetorical purposes.


We may have won the GF with 2 ruckmen, but Mummy was injured and useless on the day. We actually lost the hitouts 60 to 44. There's much more to being a ruckman than hitouts, Grant Birchell had 18 taps in the '12 granny, it doesn't make him a ruckman. As to Mummy being "useless" - I can't tell if that's post-Mummy-departure-revisionism or a lack of understanding.


I don't think analysing the ruck balance more deeply is "Loonie."
Nor I. however your post is not analysis (deep or otherwise), it's opinion. Not that I would criticise you for espousing opinions contrary to my own, this is RWO after all.


In fact, flatly stating the you need 2 genuine ruckmen to win a Granny is what might be called '2 Ruckmen Fundamentalism" as it is a rather dogmatic position.
Dogma doesn't usually come with twenty odd years of quantified evidence Ludwig. However denying such a strong positive correlation seems like contraryness. In any case, the evidence clearly shows you can win a granny without 2 genuine ruckmen, just so long as your opponent doesn't either.

[barry]

I suspect that if we had reid, lrt and goodes available all season, mummy probably would have struggled to get a game being the least mobile if our rucks

[Ludwig]

That is not the point of contention Ludwig, because it's simply not an assertion I have made. It's simply one that you have ascribed to me.

The assertion that whoever has the best ruckmen was not mine either, just something you threw up, presumably for rhetorical purposes.

There's much more to being a ruckman than hitouts, Grant Birchell had 18 taps in the '12 granny, it doesn't make him a ruckman. As to Mummy being "useless" - I can't tell if that's post-Mummy-departure-revisionism or a lack of understanding.


Nor I. however your post is not analysis (deep or otherwise), it's opinion. Not that I would criticise you for espousing opinions contrary to my own, this is RWO after all.


Dogma doesn't usually come with twenty odd years of quantified evidence Ludwig. However denying such a strong positive correlation seems like contraryness. In any case, the evidence clearly shows you can win a granny without 2 genuine ruckmen, just so long as your opponent doesn't either.

I think we just have a difference of opinion on the value of ruckmen. The value of a ruckman is not easy to quantify, as would be the case for any type of player. Similarly, you can't judge a forward solely by the number of goals kicked.

Maybe I misinterpreted what you were saying, but I got the impression that you strongly supported us having 2 genuine ruckmen, as opposed to what is looking like something different with a Pyke/Tippett combination.

This combination is not going to be as strong in the ruck as Natanui/Cox, for example, but it doesn't mean that the Swans cannot win against the Eagles. If we had those 2 WCE ruckmen, I would play them too.

In fact, I don't think there is any set rule for what combination of player types will produce a winning team and which will not. I think there is value in statistics, but most would agree that it doesn't tell the whole story. For many years we played a kind of game that was based on winning the ball at stoppages. Certainly we still want to win the stoppages, but it seems our game plan is migrating away from that to more of an offensive outside game. It's not a total changeover, just a migration. I have no problem with this. It should produce a higher scoring, more exciting brand of football, and one just a capable of winning a premiership.

[sharp9]

IMHO the reason we tend to use 2 ruckmen is because we HAD 2 ruckman who were well and truly worth their spot on the paddock and were not keeping another weapon (Reid, Goodes, LRT) out of the side. We had 2 ruckmen who could both play well in the same team on the same day...so we did it. Essendon (for example) have talented ruckmen in Ryder and Bellchambers but seem to struggle to make them work in the same side on the same day. On the other hand if Norf want to play a second ruck they have to sacrifice a better player to do it....so they tend to just have the one (as long as he is not getting beaten, then why not?)

And on my third hand....I will be surprised if we play 2 ruckmen AT ALL next season....we'll use Pike or Naismith with Tippett/LRT/Reid as second ruckman....'cos that is the combination that will give us the maximum number talented/useful players on the park

[Ludwig]

IMHO the reason we tend to use 2 ruckmen is because we HAD 2 ruckman who were well and truly worth their spot on the paddock and were not keeping another weapon (Reid, Goodes, LRT) out of the side. We had 2 ruckmen who could both play well in the same team on the same day...so we did it. Essendon (for example) have talented ruckmen in Ryder and Bellchambers but seem to struggle to make them work in the same side on the same day. On the other hand if Norf want to play a second ruck they have to sacrifice a better player to do it....so they tend to just have the one (as long as he is not getting beaten, then why not?)

And on my third hand....I will be surprised if we play 2 ruckmen AT ALL next season....we'll use Pike or Naismith with Tippett/LRT/Reid as second ruckman....'cos that is the combination that will give us the maximum number talented/useful players on the park

This is pretty much my position. Thanks Sharp for putting it so well.

[sharp9]

This is pretty much my position. Thanks Sharp for putting it so well.:tears_of_joy:

[Bloodthirsty]

Just curious....has any team ever deliberately played no ruckman at all? ie. Played one or two more midfielders instead?

[dimelb]

Just curious....has any team ever deliberately played no ruckman at all? ie. Played one or two more midfielders instead?

The ressie watchers might be able to tell you!

[Ludwig]

In 2012 Jason Blake was the Saints #1 ruckman against us and they beat us. Also beat us in the ruck contests, IIRC. I think that was due to injury, but the outcome was enlightening. I'd like to try the no ruckmen as a surprise tactic by withdrawing the ruckman at the last minute and bringing in a midfielder emergency, so the opposition don't have a counter plan. Maybe it would be a good tactic against Freo, where we would have little chance of winning the ruck contests anyway.

[stellation]

Was Saddo ever backup to Goodesy in his Brownlow ruck year?

[Ajn]

IMHO the reason we tend to use 2 ruckmen is because we HAD 2 ruckman who were well and truly worth their spot on the paddock and were not keeping another weapon (Reid, Goodes, LRT) out of the side. We had 2 ruckmen who could both play well in the same team on the same day...so we did it. Essendon (for example) have talented ruckmen in Ryder and Bellchambers but seem to struggle to make them work in the same side on the same day. On the other hand if Norf want to play a second ruck they have to sacrifice a better player to do it....so they tend to just have the one (as long as he is not getting beaten, then why not?)

And on my third hand....I will be surprised if we play 2 ruckmen AT ALL next season....we'll use Pike or Naismith with Tippett/LRT/Reid as second ruckman....'cos that is the combination that will give us the maximum number talented/useful players on the park

This is the way of the future, however not sure Naismith is backup ready ....yet

[sharp9]

Only Naismith 'cos he's our only other ruckman....I guess we could go with KT as first ruck....but I wouldn't (or LRT)

[Auntie.Gerald]

can BJ amaze us all and be part of the 22 in 2014 ?

I am having trouble ignoring his penetrating first season and his contained confidence !

SwansTV: Brandon Jack season wrap - sydneyswans.com.au (http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/video/2013-10-14/swanstv-brandon-jack-season-wrap)

Sure we may say who do we drop but the kid is so bloody determined and in my opinion has shown so much talent in his first season that players like Lambie etc have to become true midfielders to survive

[Meg]

can BJ amaze us all and be part of the 22 in 2014 ?

I am having trouble ignoring his penetrating first season and his contained confidence !

SwansTV: Brandon Jack season wrap - sydneyswans.com.au (http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/video/2013-10-14/swanstv-brandon-jack-season-wrap)

Sure we may say who do we drop but the kid is so bloody determined and in my opinion has shown so much talent in his first season that players like Lambie etc have to become true midfielders to survive

I too was most impressed by that interview. He is a very mature 19 yo and obviously both intelligent and a quick learner. Nice to hear him pay tribute to Jude as his mentor.

[wolftone57]

In 2012 Jason Blake was the Saints #1 ruckman against us and they beat us. Also beat us in the ruck contests, IIRC. I think that was due to injury, but the outcome was enlightening. I'd like to try the no ruckmen as a surprise tactic by withdrawing the ruckman at the last minute and bringing in a midfielder emergency, so the opposition don't have a counter plan. Maybe it would be a good tactic against Freo, where we would have little chance of winning the ruck contests anyway.

Blake early in 2012 against the developing Mike Pyke 29, LRT 8 & Benny 1. Must have been pretty easy to get HO's that day as Benny got one so did Lenny Hayes 3, Dal Santo 2 and Koschitzke 9. They impeded and jumped over Pyke all day, one of the reasons the AFL got tough on second up players and umpires now ask who is officially doing the ruck. kozie played the dummy and Blake just jumped over the top. The Hawks use Hodge the same way, also only 185cm

- - - Updated - - -


Only Naismith 'cos he's our only other ruckman....I guess we could go with KT as first ruck....but I wouldn't (or LRT)

Big Sammy isn't ready yet but is developing nicely. Why don't you have a look at the NEAFL Eastern Final and the NEAFL GF. He played pretty well in each. But will have to push it up a level to play seniors. He is a big boy, 203cm and really mobile though and the signs are there. Another thing just like BJ this young bloke is extremely determined and he is a NSW kid.

- - - Updated - - -

We have two retirements; Marty & Jude. Mummy is moving on. Brownie has been moved on. Looks like Dre will end up at GWS which I think is a mistake as it would have been better to move Rhyce on due to his age. He is very little value to us as he is now 34. Jed Lamb is supposed to be out of contract but I read somewhere the club had already sealed that deal? I am confused now.

So at this time we have 4 spots on the seniors list with the possibility of five being vacant. Rampe will fill one.

[Jewels]

We have two retirements; Marty & Jude. Mummy is moving on. Brownie has been moved on. Looks like Dre will end up at GWS which I think is a mistake as it would have been better to move Rhyce on due to his age. He is very little value to us as he is now 34. Jed Lamb is supposed to be out of contract but I read somewhere the club had already sealed that deal? I am confused now.

So at this time we have 4 spots on the seniors list with the possibility of five being vacant. Rampe will fill one.

We had three retirements - Jude, Marty and Mitch and Rhyce turned 32 yesterday and I for one am so happy that we treat our players with respect and don't just "move them on" when they are getting on a bit like Geelong did with Chappy and Pods.

[annew]

Rhys is only 32 not 34

[Ajn]

spots are going to be filled easily with promotions, question of how many live picks