I wondered if we’d play Naismith and Hickey, when (if) both are fit?
I wondered if we’d play Naismith and Hickey, when (if) both are fit?
I don't think we can generally afford to play both. Better off having someone else who offers more around the field and defensively instead of second, full-time ruck. We get enough benefit from having just Hickey. The additional benefits of having Naismith too would be more than offset by the cost. If we were to play two rucks, one of them should be a forward-ruck but it seems we (at last!) have two pure rucks on our list. Naismith will be a great back-up for Hickey once he's fit and in form.
All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated, and well supported in logic and argument than others. -Douglas Adams, author (11 Mar 1952-2001)
Even if he could get himself fit enough to return to the seniors, Naismith offers absolutely nothing up forward or around the ground, he's a no.1 ruck or nothing.
I suspect Hickey is in the same boat, his effectiveness would be diminished playing forward
I would play Hickey and Naismith against a lot of clubs. Saints, Eagles, Dees to name a few.
One would rest in the forward line most of the time. Hickey has proven he can kick goals and would stretch most backlines. Agree that Naismith is like a new player and would need to prove his worth in the forward line. However if he was able to ruck 60% plus of the time, what a bonus.
Hickey would be an ok forward. He's a good mark, and great kick. I can see us playing both at the same time.
The modern ruckman needs to be able to not only tap to advantage but also win their own clearances, get around the park to support the defence and take marks in F50 and kick the odd goal. Hickey has done all this, hence his importance to the team.
Naismith is only good for hitouts. He has minimal influence elsewhere. His metrics, other then hitouts are poor, many bettered by Sinclair. There seems to be this thought that he serves it on a platter to our mids. I call BS on this. When he last played consistently for us, we had a dominant midfield that thrived at the contest. For them, it didn't matter who won the hitouts, they would invariably win the clearance. It was so strong that Tom Mitchell could barely crack a regular gig in ones.
As always, happy to be proven wrong but I can't see why Naismith is required whilst Hickey is in the side and playing like he is. Remember, he last played regular footy for us 3-4 years ago and is coming off his second ACL recon.
We'd have to have the pair of them both at 100% at the same moment in time. Which seems a bit of a long shot.
As caj23 said Naismith is a #1 ruckman, unless he's developed some new tricks while he's been injured.
Hickey's career thus far contains no evidence of him being able to share the #1 mantle - very few ruckman can.
RalphDawg's comment that Sam is "only" good for hitouts, misses the point a bit. While hitouts aren't everything, when your hitouts were as good as Sams were, I think there's a little less need to compensate with other facets.
Last edited by Ruck'n'Roll; 5th May 2021 at 07:05 PM.
Loose translation from the Latin is - I am tall, so I hit out.
If you watch old footage of Hick, he has always been pretty skillful. I didn't realise though that he had such a good tank.
I've seen no evidence of either of these with the Cray and he had the added issue of multiple ACL ruptures and soft tissue injuries.
As I said, more than happy to be proven wrong but if I had to put money on it, I'd say it ain't happening.
Hickey is also a much better kick than Naismith (better than some of our midfielders as well if truth be told).
Bookmarks