Rhino Richards said:

The problem with Bell is that he is not good enough to consistently hold his place in the side.

It would be worth trying Bell as a run-with in the midfield if he's over his OP problems. He has pace and strength and has done some good stopping jobs in the backline but further upfield his tendency to panic a bit wont be exposed so much. Bartram is a very good run-with but I reckon he may struggle to run out games after his knee problems. Dunn I think offers more as a defensive forward on the attacking half-back e.g. Hodge.

Dunns value up forward has to outweigh that of the midfield. A run in the middle may help Bell with his decision making and make him a better 1/2 back. Bartram I think will have to be used deep in the backline in the near distant future as well.

  montasaurus said:

Dunns value up forward has to outweigh that of the midfield. A run in the middle may help Bell with his decision making and make him a better 1/2 back. Bartram I think will have to be used deep in the backline in the near distant future as well.

I really like Bartram but his kicking is a worry deep in the backline and if he can't train/run hard and long on his knee (which I read is bone-on-bone) then he loses one of his attributes for run-with and he may struggle for a role. The coaches clearly like him with his high finish in the B&F last year and he was named as one of this preseason's highlights in something I read - so hopefully it will pan out for him.

  old55 said:

Dunn I think offers more as a defensive forward on the attacking half-back e.g. Hodge.

That's a great call. The role you talk about is becoming more and more important with each year. Dunn has shown he has the strength and mental toughness to play a negating role and he certainly possesses good 'footy smarts' when he has the pill and can certainly kick a goal when forward. Hodge, Gilbee, Kenelly, Milburn, Goddard, McLeod, Scotland; there's plenty of jobs for him. He certainly needs a position and this appears to be his best shot. With game time and confidence the offensive side of his game would hopeful grow and evolve.

"Ruckmen get about 30 taps a game and about 10% are effective."

I've often wondered why rucks have such a difficult time being effective (re taps).

Maybe I'm being too harsh or maybe it's a remnant from my basketball days but woeful comes to mind hearing 10%.

Tap work 'aint that hard. It's one on one in the centre. Even elsewhere, to be credited an ineffective tap

means that you got in a position to do something and failed. Nine times out of ten. Boggles my mind.

clark keating style is the way to go..just hit the thing forward! he showed in the lions flags that that is the way to go

  Rhino Richards said:

But Cox and Sandliands do that week in and week out and WCE and Freo still lose. Without a top midfield a good ruckman does not have a significant impact.

Wow. Sandilands ...for an entire game...no kidding. And you know why they did not beat the Cats with such a dominant ruckman?.........their inferior midfield. The Cats won the game even thought they got smashed in the ruck becasue they had a better midfield. Have a look at Freo's results over a couple of seasons and Sandilands dominance at the centre bounce means diddlysquat when you dont have a quality midfield. Have a look at WCE without Cousins and Judd. Cox is still there.

My comment on Johnson is that IMO he is not good enough to stop the opposition ruckman getting consistent first use of the ball in the centre and to provide first dibs clearance for his midfielders. His inability to effectively compete is an assessment of his weakness not a support of the importance of ruckman. We need him to be competitive to nullify the opposition ruckman. Neither Jamar or PJ do that consistently or effectively.

Hawthorn won the flag on the back of a top quality midfield (lead by Hodge) and your facile pumping of two competent ruckman as "quality" only supports the view that ruckman are not as important as they once were and that they are not as critical in the victory as a quality midfield. Campbell and Taylors job was to nullify the impact of Ottens and Blake ans they did that. No ruckman had an impact on the final result. It was won and lost as it has been for some years in the midfield. Interesting that the Hawks were prepared to trade Taylor but there were no takers for the "quality".

And to top it off you had to use the highlights of possibly the bet midfielder in the past 10 years in Judd to support your argument. Priceless. The clip most adequately highlights the need to nullify the opposition ruckman to prevent sod easy taps to elite midfielders like Judd. Here's a tip replace Pattison (26) from Richmond in the clip with PJ and you might get an idea of my issue with PJ. I dont rate Pattison and would prefer PJ around the ground.

You don't rate ruckman as important yet lament PJ's inability to negate the opposition. I still don't get it. I openly said that ruckman are not the be all and end all, but without a decent on it puts your team at a disadvantage - which is EXACTLY what you're saying PJ does

  Eastie Boyz said:

You don't rate ruckman as important yet lament PJ's inability to negate the opposition. I still don't get it. I openly said that ruckman are not the be all and end all, but without a decent on it puts your team at a disadvantage - which is EXACTLY what you're saying PJ does

The ruck debate for me is simple. Your ruckman does one of three things:

a) wins the ruck;

b loses the ruck;

c) breaks even in the ruck.

When Rhino "laments" the inability of PJ to negate the opposition, he's suggesting that he falls into category 'b' regularly and fails to even reach category 'c' enough. Rhino, Old and others don't rate the importance of ruckman because they analyze football with a premiership template in mind. Look at the recent premiers and we see that a break even ruck duo gets the job done, particularly when a star-studded midfield is awaiting the all too predictable ruck contest that more often than not favours neither side. A dominant ruckman certainly doesn't go astray but if you're looking at how to win a premiership, finding a champion midfielder takes priority over a champion ruckman. Watts over Naitanui every time.

We all marvel at PJ's mobility and ability around the ground but unless he can "break even" a little more often, he's just another NQR. He's definitely worth persisting with. He has shown plenty of evidence to suggest that he has the scope for improvement. His overhead marking is a good example. Given his run of injuries, I'll back PJ in to improve his ruck work just enough to break even more often than not. And that's all we need him to do.

  Goodvibes said:

The ruck debate for me is simple. Your ruckman does one of three things:

a) wins the ruck;

b loses the ruck;

c) breaks even in the ruck.

When Rhino "laments" the inability of PJ to negate the opposition, he's suggesting that he falls into category 'b' regularly and fails to even reach category 'c' enough. Rhino, Old and others don't rate the importance of ruckman because they analyze football with a premiership template in mind. Look at the recent premiers and we see that a break even ruck duo gets the job done, particularly when a star-studded midfield is awaiting the all too predictable ruck contest that more often than not favours neither side. A dominant ruckman certainly doesn't go astray but if you're looking at how to win a premiership, finding a champion midfielder takes priority over a champion ruckman. Watts over Naitanui every time.

We all marvel at PJ's mobility and ability around the ground but unless he can "break even" a little more often, he's just another NQR. He's definitely worth persisting with. He has shown plenty of evidence to suggest that he has the scope for improvement. His overhead marking is a good example. Given his run of injuries, I'll back PJ in to improve his ruck work just enough to break even more often than not. And that's all we need him to do.

Right on the money, Vibes.

  Eastie Boyz said:

I openly said that ruckman are not the be all and end all, but without a decent on it puts your team at a disadvantage - which is EXACTLY what you're saying PJ does

You have tried to make a case that quality ruckman influence a team's performance and plucked the odd quarter/game and a utube filmclip to back your argument when the evidence and the flimclip actually suggest the premierships and top sides are based on superior midfields. No one is doubting the benefit of having a Cox over a Pattison. Its just that difference is not what makes or breaks a side. A superior midfield does that.

If you read Goodvibes succinct and easy to read explanation of where things are at.

  Freak said:

clark keating style is the way to go..just hit the thing forward! he showed in the lions flags that that is the way to go

Well done Ace. Lions last won a flag in 2003 with a midfield of Voss, Aker, Lappin, Black (NSM), Hart and Power. Back then Keating was a nice to have in one of the best all time midfields. And Collingwood's ruck that day was barely competent.

As good as the defensive pressure by a forward is overrated theory. Good grief!

  Rhino Richards said:

You have tried to make a case that quality ruckman influence a team's performance and plucked the odd quarter/game and a utube filmclip to back your argument when the evidence and the flimclip actually suggest the premierships and top sides are based on superior midfields. No one is doubting the benefit of having a Cox over a Pattison. Its just that difference is not what makes or breaks a side. A superior midfield does that.

If you read Goodvibes succinct and easy to read explanation of where things are at.

Totally agree atm re midfield and agree goodvibes has hit the nail on the head.

However we have rule/interpration changes just around the corner in relation to tight/heavy tagging. I really believe if this becomes over umpired like it is likely to become as most flavor of the mths are, the re-imergance of quality tap work to advantage will happen.

Unfortunately right now this is close to our biggest weekness, the days of simply negating the other ruckman for a nil all rugby type ruck/maul are likely to have passed us. Therefore in 2009+10 ruckman could well become one of or the most important component in a side once again. Therefore what we are going to have to do in a real hurry is to learn to take away for the oppersition taps then rely on hits to adv.

Just speculating but maybe one of the reasons we struggled so much last year in the middle was that we have had white for so long and have spent too much times on drills hits to adv due to his general tap dominance over the years?

  montasaurus said:

However we have rule/interpration changes just around the corner in relation to tight/heavy tagging. I really believe if this becomes over umpired like it is likely to become as most flavor of the mths are, the re-imergance of quality tap work to advantage will happen.

Any changes re tagging are uinlikely to impact of quality tap ruckwork. What it may do is remove the negative barriers or restrictions to quality players winning the contest ball and utilising it better.

  montasaurus said:

Unfortunately right now this is close to our biggest weekness, the days of simply negating the other ruckman for a nil all rugby type ruck/maul are likely to have passed us. Therefore in 2009+10 ruckman could well become one of or the most important component in a side once again. Therefore what we are going to have to do in a real hurry is to learn to take away for the oppersition taps then rely on hits to adv.

No Our biggest weakness is the ability to consistently win the ball in the midfield and use it effectively. As many posters have identified we have a bottom tier quality midfield that is not helped by having a non competitive ruck. Even if we had a Sandilands our shortcomings in the midfield would still be there.

The issue of tagging is more to do with the negative tactics to prevent/remove/restrict the ability of better players to participate for the contested ball. A number of such tactics have been cast up to 10 to 15 metres from the ball and the AFL is keen to remove such barriers.

The issue with being competitive in the ruck is that if you cant win the ruck hit out you prevent the opposition getting an uinrestricted, unpressured first contact with the ball to advantage. I think the role of ruckman will actually be challenge by the introduction of 4 boundary umpires which means that the ball is likely to be brougth back into play quicker meaning the ruckman will have to have greater mobility and that ruckwork at the flanks will taken by tallish athletic forward or backman who are better located at the throw in.

  montasaurus said:

Just speculating but maybe one of the reasons we struggled so much last year in the middle was that we have had white for so long and have spent too much times on drills hits to adv due to his general tap dominance over the years?

Yes its just speculating nothing else.

White has not had tap dominance since the rule change in 2004.

We have not had a top quality midfielder since Scott Thompson and it shows badly.

  Rhino Richards said:

We have not had a top quality midfielder since Scott Thompson and it shows badly.

Correct. But as part of 'our' new year's resolution, can we not mention his name again this year? I can't help but think "what if"....or "if only".....

  Rhino Richards said:

Any changes re tagging are uinlikely to impact of quality tap ruckwork. What it may do is remove the negative barriers or restrictions to quality players winning the contest ball and utilising it better.

Re contested ball totally agree, but I think you could be under estimating the benifit of a free run at a tap to advantage under tagging pressure vs a tap to advantage under zone pressure. 1-2m of space could be the difference from a handpass to a player 5m in the clear v 0-1m space under pressure to a clanager - A LA the buckley issue with clangers last year.

  Rhino Richards said:

The issue of tagging is more to do with the negative tactics to prevent/remove/restrict the ability of better players to participate for the contested ball. A number of such tactics have been cast up to 10 to 15 metres from the ball and the AFL is keen to remove such barriers.

Totally agree, I think this supports all of the above both contested ball and disposals to advantage. We could really see brock and jones step up this year as I feel they are players that have really suffered from close attention.

  Rhino Richards said:

I think the role of ruckman will actually be challenge by the introduction of 4 boundary umpires which means that the ball is likely to be brougth back into play quicker meaning the ruckman will have to have greater mobility and that ruckwork at the flanks will taken by tallish athletic forward or backman who are better located at the throw in.

Or middies who have a good vertical leap, allowing the main ruck to zone back or attack forward.

  Rhino Richards said:

We have not had a top quality midfielder since (XXXXXX) and it shows badly.

Lets not go there!!!! :angry: or we might bring up that [other_bloke] who now plays for [vi$y] 2nd's

  montasaurus said:

Re contested ball totally agree, but I think you could be under estimating the benifit of a free run at a tap to advantage under tagging pressure vs a tap to advantage under zone pressure. 1-2m of space could be the difference from a handpass to a player 5m in the clear v 0-1m space under pressure to a clanager - A LA the buckley issue with clangers last year.

Its got nothing to do with the tap but the freedom of movement of players. Its the physical retardation of the midfielder not the growing importance of the ruckman.

  montasaurus said:

Totally agree, I think this supports all of the above both contested ball and disposals to advantage. We could really see brock and jones step up this year as I feel they are players that have really suffered from close attention.

Maybe but I dont think we have the midfield ATM to really hurt other sides if given latitiude.

  montasaurus said:

Or middies who have a good vertical leap, allowing the main ruck to zone back or attack forward.

Only as an exception. If the midfielder commits to ruck contest on a flank who picks up his direct opponent. The whole point is that the main ruck (unless quite mobile) wont have the time to zone or move forward or back.

  montasaurus said:

Lets not go there!!!! :angry: or we might bring up that [other_bloke] who now plays for [vi$y] 2nd's

Believe me I wont!

  Rhino Richards said:

Well done Ace. Lions last won a flag in 2003 with a midfield of Voss, Aker, Lappin, Black (NSM), Hart and Power. Back then Keating was a nice to have in one of the best all time midfields. And Collingwood's ruck that day was barely competent.

As good as the defensive pressure by a forward is overrated theory. Good grief!

its irrelevent because keating was regarded as one of the top performers in all of the grand finals. if it was all because of the midfield then Keating wouldnt have been named in the best players and regarded as one of the most influential players in all of the finals.

  montasaurus said:

Lets not go there!!!! :angry: or we might bring up that [other_bloke] who now plays for [vi$y] 2nd's

The player taking the field for Visy seconds is far from the quality level of skill of 'the player' who went home to Adelaide after 2004. That's it...enough said. Stop mentioning him.

  Freak said:

its irrelevent because keating was regarded as one of the top performers in all of the grand finals. if it was all because of the midfield then Keating wouldnt have been named in the best players and regarded as one of the most influential players in all of the finals.

Keating was important to the Lions flags.

In 2001 (with McDonald) and particularly in 2003 (with Charman) he dominated the ruck and that reinforces Phoenix's coment where Alessio-Barnes and then poor Josh Fraser virtually one-out were unable to make an even contest.

In 2002, in the close one against Collingwood he had to ruck all day by himself becasue McDonald was injured, but he was still able to defeat McKee and Rocca - not exactly Lade and Brogan. Collingwood's weak rucks really helped Brisbane.

In 2004 Lade and Brogan at least broke even with Keating and McLaren who was a weak link in the contest.

If you alow a ruck combination to dominate it can have devastating effects in big games. It's important to provide a consistent contest in the ruck and that means having two competent ruckmen - you cannot afford weak rucks. Keating was a better version of Jamar - he had a total of 13 kicks and only 27 possessions in 4 GFs. A player like Jamar has the ability to negate Keating's ruck dominance if he has a solid partner and rucking becomes a nil-all draw. It's about application of limited resources - I'd rather force a nil-all draw in the ruck and concentrate on winning the other areas which have more impact.

  old55 said:

Keating was important to the Lions flags.

In 2001 (with McDonald) and particularly in 2003 (with Charman) he dominated the ruck and that reinforces Phoenix's coment where Alessio-Barnes and then poor Josh Fraser virtually one-out were unable to make an even contest.

In 2002, in the close one against Collingwood he had to ruck all day by himself becasue McDonald was injured, but he was still able to defeat McKee and Rocca - not exactly Lade and Brogan. Collingwood's weak rucks really helped Brisbane.

In 2004 Lade and Brogan at least broke even with Keating and McLaren who was a weak link in the contest.

If you alow a ruck combination to dominate it can have devastating effects in big games. It's important to provide a consistent contest in the ruck and that means having two competent ruckmen - you cannot afford weak rucks. Keating was a better version of Jamar - he had a total of 13 kicks and only 27 possessions in 4 GFs. A player like Jamar has the ability to negate Keating's ruck dominance if he has a solid partner and rucking becomes a nil-all draw. It's about application of limited resources - I'd rather force a nil-all draw in the ruck and concentrate on winning the other areas which have more impact.

It's a very good point Old.

Poor Mark cops a fair pasting. We have a number of unknown quantities in Meesen or Spencer. As Phoenix stated, mobile talls with good skills like PJ might become the norm for rucks in the future, but ATM he doesn't provide much of a ruck contest and that's the challenge for him. Jamar is a good ruckman, he doesn't do much else, but he does at least provide an even ruck contest. If the trend of having fast boundary throw in's continues though, I can see PJ and perhaps even a Stef Martin being used more and more around the ground.

  old55 said:

It would be worth trying Bell as a run-with in the midfield if he's over his OP problems. He has pace and strength and has done some good stopping jobs in the backline but further upfield his tendency to panic a bit wont be exposed so much. Bartram is a very good run-with but I reckon he may struggle to run out games after his knee problems. Dunn I think offers more as a defensive forward on the attacking half-back e.g. Hodge.

Absolutely. Belly's too suspect the closer he gets to goals. He's got good pace, he's strong and importantly he's very disciplined. There's a question over his ability to read the play though and that might be the knock on him playing regularly as a run with player, but I've argued for a while it's worth a trial at least.

Good discussion on the rucks, one question for everyone.

when was the last time a team won a flag with a weak ruck division?

Hawthorn 2008? I don't really rate Brown, Taylor or Renouf.

All you really need is to be serviceable in the ruck, to counter any special rucking ability in your rucking oponent, and then become a damaging player around the ground i.e. ability to take marks and kick the ball accurately

  Jarka said:

Good discussion on the rucks, one question for everyone.

when was the last time a team won a flag with a weak ruck division?

Define 'weak' ..?

Campbell, Taylor & Renouf were serviceable but not great.

Jolly & Ball the same.

Alessio & Barnes were far from spectacular.

But none I would class as 'weak'.

At the same time I don't see any reason why, with 2 or three years' development, our ruck division couldn't be the equal of one of those pairings.

  old55 said:

Keating was important to the Lions flags.

There are other things to be considered as well.

Collingwood got to two GF's without a ruckman's bootlace. They nearly won one but for a debatable goal umpiring decision. How important was a dominant ruckman?

But the real change is in the way the game is played. Since 2003 the average number of disposals in a game has increased from about 290 to 360 per game. Short kicks have increased significantly, close to 100%. Stoppages, which were the domain of the Swans gameplan, are being umpired out of the game with holding the ball interpretations. When there is a stoppage outside the CS there are about 30 players around it. This makes it extraordinarily difficult for a ruckman to be effective.

Geelong have set a new standard with possession footy. The game will change in the future and nobody really knows where it will go, but the AFL want a fast game with fewer stoppages. Vale the ruckman.

Centre square clearances are now the best opportunity for a ruckman to influence games. But teams have become masters at creating a "secondary stoppage", a term that didn't exist 24 months ago.

The "ruckman" debate is one of the great one's of footy ATM, it will be interesting to see where it finishes.

My opinion is ruckmen are all sizzle and no sausage.