Having a look at other clubs' lists there appears to be a lot of ruckmen on them. As far as we are concerned we can either trade for one at the end of this year or draft another one either in the main draft or as a rookie.

We can also continue our search for better midfielders and key forwards. Then again 4 wins or less this year will give us access to one of each with the first two picks in the 2009 draft. Sorry I mentioned that.

List management isn't just about the 'now', and perhaps it was that very same argument that meant we did nothing to bolster our ruck stocks further at a time when the fruits of the labour would be reaped now.

Agree. Re-read my posts. That is what I have been arguing re the lead time for a ruckman and where the problems first arose that have lead us to where we are now.

My initial response was to Hoopla was that drafting/rookieing a ruckman now would not have addressed the problems we have now. He then changed his initial assertion from the now to three years. I have no qualms.

It's not enough.

With a ruck division of Jamar (we tried to trade him away), PJ (seemingly written off as 'first ruck' potential), Meesen (treading water) and Spencer (a rookie) it's still too thin.

Agree its diabolical. But even if we drafted/rookied one more we will still be thin now but potentially better in 3 years time if they work out.

While it may not have helped us right now, I disagree with your assertion.

If we take it that Meesen is no good, as you've said, that PJ isn't going to play the 'number one' ruck role, as Bailey has hinted, that leaves Jamar on the primary list (and no one else).

You are arguing the situation that is now and apply solutions that flower in 3 years time. Our situation now is a shambles and has been so for 3 years. The solution back then was to bolster ruck stocks. We didn't and we are paying the price Its doubtful that a drafted or rookied ruckman would have addressed that problem. What would you have done in this situation? What were the alternatives? Traded for MacIntosh (NM) and what would you have given?? Pick 1??? Or would you have used pick 1 on Natanui or Vickery?? Unfortunately, Niknat wont be platying for a while.

Plenty of teams have as many or more rucks than we do.

The issue is not numbers of rucks but the quality. Richmond have six on their list. Aside from Simmonds they have a real problem with their ruck quality.

...and yet you argue that we can't pick up a second rookie ruck because, with five ruck options across the primary and rookie list, the first-year rookie ruck may not be gauranteed a spot in the VFL 1sts?

Be good if you actually followed the argument. My concern is that he may get limited development time because IMO Meesen is a VFL 2nds quailty ruckman that may compete with the 2nd rookie for game time in his first year. The interest of MFC in blooding the rookie may not be the same as Casey that may prefer to use a fallen "star" like Meesen. Meesen's failure has exacerbated an already pressing problem

Each to their own...

Clearly

Correct except for denying midfielder opportunities. Our ruck weakness is glaring. It takes time to develop them. Midfielders more often show their ability early. They can be turned over each year or two if they are not good enough. We have many midfielder types on our list but few rucks. Good rucks are far scarcer.

To me this is the guts of the issue.

It takes time to develop young ruckmen and the odds of success are almost certainly less than 'one in four'. In the last three years , we've only tried two ruckman - one of which ( Meeson) is almost certainly a dud. In the same period we've taken about 15 midfielders. The fact that rucks take longer to develop (and may fail) is a reason to take more young ruck prospects - not less.

I don't understand why we took 3 small rookies this year. The fact is that we will only need them if the majority of our recent midfield draftees fail. But going forward we will need to bolster our ruck stocks - and I don't think it is a sound strategy to rely on rejects from other clubs .The rookie list is an ideal place to turnover young big-men. I know this thread started as a thread about this year's problems - but this year's problems are going to be next year's problem....and the next years.....

We all think Meeson is a waste of space ...and Deano's own comments on Meeson's pre-season were less than flattering. But surely we expected something from him when we went into the draft? The fact that we didn't promote Spencer from the rookie list suggests that we expected to give him another year in the VFL. I can't believe that we expected Jamar and PJ to play 22 games each!

At some stage not long ago , Bailey, Connolly and Prendegast must have expected Meeson to be good enough for a senior game this year. This is the only way our list management strategy makes any sense.

I heed Rhino's warning - "Don't hold your breath on Meeson" - but he's the one we need

At some stage not long ago , Bailey, Connolly and Prendegast must have expected Meesen to be good enough for a senior game this year. This is the only way our list management strategy makes any sense.

Your forgetting our needs at the conclusion of last season. The need for speed.

Another VERY important or significant factor in our list management strategy, is 'contracts'. Meesen has two years left. Bailey & Co. would also prefer to see more of him this year, for that must be a given as no one saw him last year. Meesen will come under intense scrutiny this season with his development.

Your forgetting our needs at the conclusion of last season. The need for speed.

Actually I'm not forgetting that at all. We needed speed skill height and muscle. In 2007, we went for speed ( and run and skill) with Morton, Grimes and Maric After Watts , we had another 6 cracks at speed and skill again last year. Of the next 3 picks (the rookies), I reckon we should have balanced this up with a bit of height and muscle.

Our young runners ( and Watts) are going to need protection and we haven't factored that into this year's list. Our smalls are going to need some talls to help bring the ball to the ground.

If we are going to be contenders in 2011, we are going to need to find at least another 3 or 4 quality talls in the next 3 years. If we get a good run with injuries only one or two of them will be in the senior side each week , but you need depth to get through a long season and every player needs to know that someone is pressing for his position

That wouldn't concern me as much if we weren't facing a series of compromised drafts.

Sad but true , we need Meeson to step up ( and its a b- big step !)

Again..its important to be competitive..but you canstil play good footy without winning th eruck per se..justas long as you make a contest of it and can attack the pill !!..Then hard bodies with agility and speed will wineverytime out of the middle. Thats where we're heading first.. To dominate in teh ruck wil lbe a bonus that might come later

Actually I'm not forgetting that at all. We needed speed skill height and muscle. In 2007, we went for speed ( and run and skill) with Morton, Grimes and Maric After Watts , we had another 6 cracks at speed and skill again last year. Of the next 3 picks (the rookies), I reckon we should have balanced this up with a bit of height and muscle.

Our young runners ( and Watts) are going to need protection and we haven't factored that into this year's list. Our smalls are going to need some talls to help bring the ball to the ground.

If we are going to be contenders in 2011, we are going to need to find at least another 3 or 4 quality talls in the next 3 years. If we get a good run with injuries only one or two of them will be in the senior side each week , but you need depth to get through a long season and every player needs to know that someone is pressing for his position

That wouldn't concern me as much if we weren't facing a series of compromised drafts.

Sad but true , we need Meeson to step up ( and its a b- big step !)

Granted, we needed more than just speed, we had a shopping list a mile long in actual fact at the end of 2008 season. With Jamar, Johnson, Meesen and Spencer and probably another emergency ruckman in Martin, other items on the list took priority after Warnock fell through. It's sure to be assessed in 6 months time.

One of the big things over pre season, which Bailey has indicated, was the need to add more kgs of muscle so the players don't get pushed aside like a rag doll. They have to some degree, achieved some of this, although the first year players will need more time and perhaps the second year players need more kgs too.

Make no mistake, the coming draft will be just as important for the rest of 'our shopping list.'

Sorry I mentioned that.

Don't be Red, it is our un/fortunate reality !!!

Where does Jolly fit into all of this, surely he was the heir apparent to Jeff White, not a bad one at that. Losing him put the Russian up a notch in the pecking order and the team has not adjusted since that time. If Jolly was still in the Red and Blue we would be well set. It just goes to show how hard it is to find a quality ruckman.

Where does Jolly fit into all of this, surely he was the heir apparent to Jeff White, not a bad one at that. Losing him put the Russian up a notch in the pecking order and the team has not adjusted since that time. If Jolly was still in the Red and Blue we would be well set. It just goes to show how hard it is to find a quality ruckman.

The AFL has a lot to answer for on the Jolly-Jmar saga. At the time we did the deal on Jolly ,the second circle didn't exist and Jeff White was the best ruckman in the league. Jamar could jump. Jolly appeared dispensable . A week or two after the draft, the AFL changed the rules. White became an ordinary ruckman - and Jolly's relative height made him a more valuable commodity. I'd like to think that if the AFL had left the rules alone, our ruck strategy wouldn't have looked so bad.

Anyway- the lesson is there. Good rucks ARE hard to find

The AFL has a lot to answer for on the Jolly-Jmar saga. At the time we did the deal on Jolly ,the second circle didn't exist and Jeff White was the best ruckman in the league. Jamar could jump. Jolly appeared dispensable . A week or two after the draft, the AFL changed the rules. White became an ordinary ruckman - and Jolly's relative height made him a more valuable commodity. I'd like to think that if the AFL had left the rules alone, our ruck strategy wouldn't have looked so bad.

Anyway- the lesson is there. Good rucks ARE hard to find

When the Jolly deal was done, Jolly had spat the dummy at MFC and wanted more game time in a year when he was competing with a dominating AA ruckman. Jolly sulked towards the end of 2004 to the extent that his performances resulted in an ordinary raw ruckman in Jamar being preferred in the 2004 EF. Jolly was traded to the Swans

Jolly took 3 years to establish himself as a competent AFL ruckman at Sydney all be it with limitations. Given Jolly wanted to leave MFC in 2004 we would have still had the ruck issues anyway. This should have been address by recruiting another ruckman through trade, draft or rookie at that time.

Good competent rucks are hard to find!

Agree its diabolical. But even if we drafted/rookied one more we will still be thin now but potentially better in 3 years time if they work out.

I don't need to re-read your posts.

If we don't take action we'll continue to have this problem forever!

At some stage you need to bite the bullet.

You are arguing the situation that is now and apply solutions that flower in 3 years time. Our situation now is a shambles and has been so for 3 years. The solution back then was to bolster ruck stocks. We didn't and we are paying the price Its doubtful that a drafted or rookied ruckman would have addressed that problem.

What would you have done in this situation? What were the alternatives? Traded for MacIntosh (NM) and what would you have given?? Pick 1??? Or would you have used pick 1 on Natanui or Vickery?? Unfortunately, Niknat wont be platying for a while.

Use low picks/rookie picks on (tall) ruck options, as I've said each draft time I've posted on here.

A while ago I had a look at the two rucks for each Club and how they came into the AFL system (clearly I had too much free time back then). Many of them were picked up as speculative picks late in the draft or as rookie choices.

Given that rucks develop later than smalls this makes sense.

The issue is not numbers of rucks but the quality. Richmond have six on their list. Aside from Simmonds they have a real problem with their ruck quality.

Be good if you actually followed the argument. My concern is that he may get limited development time because IMO Meesen is a VFL 2nds quailty ruckman that may compete with the 2nd rookie for game time in his first year. The interest of MFC in blooding the rookie may not be the same as Casey that may prefer to use a fallen "star" like Meesen. Meesen's failure has exacerbated an already pressing problem

There is an issue with numbers when you claim that it's pointless to have another ruckman on the list because we won't be able to find game time for him.

As you agree, other Clubs have as many or more ruck options so I'm sure we can ask them how to deal with this 'problem'.

You also assert that many young rucks are poor and yet complain that they may have to play VFL 2nds, which you indicate would be terrible.