 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jackcass 
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| melliot wrote: | I think our ruck conundrum is an interesting one.
1) Witts + White (or other as the part timer for 10% ruck duties)
2) Grundy+ White (or other as the part timer for 10% ruck duties)
3) Witts + Grundy (where one or both have to play 50% forward)
You can also add Cox to that mix, but I don't think that would change the mix up greatly IMO.
Clearly this year playing option 3 has not worked on the basis that neither play the forward role well enough and simply don't take enough contested marks or compete heavily enough in that area. Thus allowing the smaller/faster/agile opposition back line to whisk the ball away with relative ease. Until wiits or Grundy can clunk some contested marks in the F50, or possibly the sub is abolished, we can't play both with the view that we have the most competitive selected balance on the field.
So that leaves option 1 OR 2. Neither is a clear difference in advantage IMO. Grundy is better around the ground and with the crash and bash. Witts is better in the tapwork. But both do well as the No.1 ruck regardless and show plenty of room for improvement.
And here is my point...........
Why do we have to stick with one OR the other?
The Ruck is a battle weary position. So why not rotate them. One week in, one week out. Keep them fresh for each game. Share the load of the season. Why commit to one set up only, when rotating both could be the best outcome/performance for the team overall.
Other sports such as NBA and Soccer have rosters to share the heavy schedule of games rather than wearing the best team into the ground. Why not consider a similar approach for singular positions/roles where we have two or more adequate players? |
I think if we were genuinely in contention for a top 4 spot I'd be more concerned about it. Given we aren't we have 2x developing ruckmen and the rule of thumb is that they don't start to really hit their peak until 24-25 so both these guys still have time on their side. I just think we'll be better placed to maximise their output if we can get them to that 24-25 years with 50-100 senior games under their belts and the easiest way to expedite that is where possible play both in a year we aren't really a contender. |
|
|
|
 |
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
For mine and assuming Cloke is fit...
IN: Cloke, White, Karnezis
OUT: Moore, Blair, Maynard (stiff, stays if Cloke doesn't get up)
Grundy lucky to keep his spot over Witts but I think stability won't hurt. |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| jackcass wrote: | | melliot wrote: | I think our ruck conundrum is an interesting one.
1) Witts + White (or other as the part timer for 10% ruck duties)
2) Grundy+ White (or other as the part timer for 10% ruck duties)
3) Witts + Grundy (where one or both have to play 50% forward)
You can also add Cox to that mix, but I don't think that would change the mix up greatly IMO.
Clearly this year playing option 3 has not worked on the basis that neither play the forward role well enough and simply don't take enough contested marks or compete heavily enough in that area. Thus allowing the smaller/faster/agile opposition back line to whisk the ball away with relative ease. Until wiits or Grundy can clunk some contested marks in the F50, or possibly the sub is abolished, we can't play both with the view that we have the most competitive selected balance on the field.
So that leaves option 1 OR 2. Neither is a clear difference in advantage IMO. Grundy is better around the ground and with the crash and bash. Witts is better in the tapwork. But both do well as the No.1 ruck regardless and show plenty of room for improvement.
And here is my point...........
Why do we have to stick with one OR the other?
The Ruck is a battle weary position. So why not rotate them. One week in, one week out. Keep them fresh for each game. Share the load of the season. Why commit to one set up only, when rotating both could be the best outcome/performance for the team overall.
Other sports such as NBA and Soccer have rosters to share the heavy schedule of games rather than wearing the best team into the ground. Why not consider a similar approach for singular positions/roles where we have two or more adequate players? |
I think if we were genuinely in contention for a top 4 spot I'd be more concerned about it. Given we aren't we have 2x developing ruckmen and the rule of thumb is that they don't start to really hit their peak until 24-25 so both these guys still have time on their side. I just think we'll be better placed to maximise their output if we can get them to that 24-25 years with 50-100 senior games under their belts and the easiest way to expedite that is where possible play both in a year we aren't really a contender. |
Agree with Jack. I think next year we'll need to look for a more optimal rotation, but for this season I was fine with playing them together as much as possible.
The question now will be whether playing them together will work into the future or whether one of them potentially becomes expendable.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
BBHS
bbhs
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Location: Bellarine
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| franklin out helps |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man 
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| BBHS wrote: | | franklin out helps |
But what does that do to our Back Structure
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
BBHS
bbhs
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Location: Bellarine
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Hopefully more attacking on that small ground |
|
|
|
|
melliot
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dave The Man wrote: | | BBHS wrote: | | franklin out helps |
But what does that do to our Back Structure |
Our back structure is fine. It's Franklin's back that 's no good! |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dave The Man wrote: | | BBHS wrote: | | franklin out helps |
But what does that do to our Back Structure |
Nothing. They still have Tippett, Reid and Goodes. It's not a short forward line.
If Franklin was playing, I might have though about playing Moore in defense (though the opposition is probably too good). But with no Franklin I don't think there's a spot for him.
So, my changes (I think I forgot White last time):
in: White, Cloke, De Goey
out: Moore, Maynard, Marsh
If De Goey's not ready then Marsh as sub or out for Goldsack.
Need our future stars (Scharenberg and De Goey) in for this game and those who aren't quite ready for the big stage (Maynard) to miss. Moore would play if we didn't have better suited options.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
MagpieBat
Joined: 27 Nov 2010
Location: Brooding in a cave... somewhere... maybe...
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dave The Man wrote: | | BBHS wrote: | | franklin out helps |
But what does that do to our Back Structure |
1st key defender goes to Reid, 2nd key defender goes to Nankervis/Goodes and so on, unless Pike returns, in which case the 1st defender goes to Tippett and the 2nd to Reid, and so on...
_________________
I am vengeance. I am the night. I am MagpieBat.
Last edited by MagpieBat on Wed Aug 12, 2015 7:09 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^^Ah Tippet's been playing in the ruck. Now DTM's question makes more sense.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
Magpietothemax 
magpietothemax
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I know that we are almost certainly not playing finals, but while it is mathematically possible to get there, we should go all out to do so. Therefore, we need to select the side with maximum chances of winning. I would therefore select White to replace Moore. I would select Cloke naturally and out would go one of the young defenders, probably Marsh. If Taylor Adams is not fit, then I would select De Goey. I would love to see Karnezis get a crack, but I just think that if our gun midfielder Tay Adams is out, we cannot afford to go into this game without replacing him with another midfielder. We need to make sure that we compete ferociously with Sydney in the midfield to win this one. With Cloke back in, as now seems on the cards, we have a real chance to win this one. |
|
|
|
|
piedys
Heeeeeeere's Dyso!!!
Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Location: Resident Forum Psychopath since 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Magpietothemax wrote: | | With Cloke back in, as now seems on the cards, we have a real chance to win this one. |
As long as he doesn't spend all night cuddling Ted in wrestling matches.
The AFL's precious Ted can do NO WRONG. Don't expect any frees there.
Get this dud cold on the lead, and drag him out of the F50.
_________________
M I L L A N E 4 2 forever |
|
|
|
|
Piethagoras' Theorem
the hypotenuse, is always a cakewalk
Joined: 29 May 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| roar wrote: | | Can someone explain the Scharenberg out calls? |
Yeh, but I'm more perplexed about the calls on Marsh? He's had a great vfl season and an impressive debut, why would you drop him?
_________________
Formally frankiboy and FrankieGoesToCollingwood. |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| FrankieGoesToCollingwood wrote: | | roar wrote: | | Can someone explain the Scharenberg out calls? |
Yeh, but I'm more perplexed about the calls on Marsh? He's had a great vfl season and an impressive debut, why would you drop him? |
Good match up for Goodes really. |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| jackcass wrote: | | FrankieGoesToCollingwood wrote: | | roar wrote: | | Can someone explain the Scharenberg out calls? |
Yeh, but I'm more perplexed about the calls on Marsh? He's had a great vfl season and an impressive debut, why would you drop him? |
Good match up for Goodes really. |
For me, it's not because he deserves to be dropped, his debut game was good enough to hold his spot in normal circumstances.
But, I'm treating Friday night's game, and any game till our finals hopes are over, as do or die. That means picking our best team possible. I favour Scharenberg over Marsh as he looks perfectly composed at the senior level and has shown a knack for picking up possessions. We made the mistake of keeping Moore in the team for the Port game and going too tall, we need to be careful not to make another selection on sentiment.
If De Goey's not ready, I'd maybe have Marsh as the sub but I think it's a risk to give him a full game against the Swans.
I want all of Cloke, White and De Goey to come in. Finding players to make way for these three is difficult as I don't think there's any who deserve to be omitted. Assuming everyone's fit, the only players I see as possible omissions are:
Marsh (only played the one game but acquitted himself well)
Maynard (going well but has made some howlers)
Moore (not getting a lot of the ball but competing strongly)
Blair (good game last week)
Scharenberg (has not put a foot wrong since debuting)
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
