On 18/10/2011 at 12:33, H_T said:

Being 200cm - any rucking duties will be a fringe benefit for the team and club.

I hope it is a benefit only used when one of Jamar and Martin are injured in-game.

He is a massive investment, and to be thrown into the ruck would be a risk I wouldn't take.

I would choose Jamar, Martin, and Gawn before Clark to put in the ruck.

I don't want him to spend 5 minutes there.

  On 18/10/2011 at 12:25, Dappa Dan said:

Surprised to see the investment question not weighted more towards the key ruck question. I'd pay 700k and pick 12 for any of the top ruckmen going round. Sandi, Leuie, Cox, Goldie, Mummy... even some of the better younger ones like Smith could ask that much I reckon as pure ruckmen.

As opposed to $700k for Buddy, Cloke, Jonny Brown, etc? Especially consdiering our ruck stocks were fine and we needed a key forward?

Clark has been recruited as key forward - they play 90%+ game time. Rucks usually play about 70% game time, that means for at least 30% of the time all 3 are on the ground - with probably 2 of them starting in the forward line. Martin is very mobile so this might not be a problem - we can get a marking target up towards the wing for the long kick out and still have a marking target deep.

  On 18/10/2011 at 22:20, billy2803 said:

As opposed to $700k for Buddy, Cloke, Jonny Brown, etc? Especially consdiering our ruck stocks were fine and we needed a key forward?

He's talking in the abstract.

The question doesn't stipulate Melbourne's current situation, only if the position warranted such investment.

I would pay that for Sandilands so I say it does.

  On 18/10/2011 at 22:38, rpfc said:

He's talking in the abstract.

The question doesn't stipulate Melbourne's current situation, only if the position warranted such investment.

I would pay that for Sandilands so I say it does.

Apologies - I forgot we could select more than 1 option for that answer!

If it were one or the other, I'd pay $700k for Buddy before I paid $700k for Sandi.

I'd play Clark permanent forward and rucking Jamar and Martin. The alternative is to ruck Jamar 65% of the time, Clark 35% of the time - you might get an extra 10% Jamar game time forward and an extra 40% Clark game time forward but that only gives you 50% of game time with a long tall option.

With all 3 in the side we end up with them all on the ground for a third of the game. This is where Martin provides an advantage with his mobility - Gawn or Spencer can't work in this equation and are alternatives to Jamar IMO.

  On 18/10/2011 at 22:52, old55 said:

I'd play Clark permanent forward and rucking Jamar and Martin. The alternative is to ruck Jamar 65% of the time, Clark 35% of the time - you might get an extra 10% Jamar game time forward and an extra 40% Clark game time forward but that only gives you 50% of game time with a long tall option.

With all 3 in the side we end up with them all on the ground for a third of the game. This is where Martin provides an advantage with his mobility - Gawn or Spencer can't work in this equation and are alternatives to Jamar IMO.

Will depend on Stef's next 2 seasons in my view. If he continues to develop and improve, he may just hold down a key position (other than ruck). If they caan groom him to become that CHB over the next 2 years, there's no reason why Jamar and Gawn can't share ruck duties (rotating between ruck/forward pocket). It may also be a way of getting an extra couple of years out of Jamar.

It will also depend a lot on Watts, and where he (in 2 seasons) is playing his best footy (and how much he grows).

To be honest i don't understand this thread. The club have made it clear we got him for the express purpose of filling the gaping hole up forward. He will be a permanant forward with some rucking duties at stoppages in the 50.

  On 18/10/2011 at 23:03, binman said:

To be honest i don't understand this thread. The club have made it clear we got him for the express purpose of filling the gaping hole up forward. He will be a permanant forward with some rucking duties at stoppages in the 50.

This thread is for those to that say 'Martin is in trouble now that Clark is here.'

Clark is not a second ruck and may do some rucking in the fwd 50, as you say.

But he is not destined for a back-up role to Jamar and he should rarely, if ever, go into the centre bounces.

The tought makes me cringe the same way it does for Watts in the centre square.

Just trying to get people to explore their thoughts.

  On 18/10/2011 at 22:59, billy2803 said:

Will depend on Stef's next 2 seasons in my view. If he continues to develop and improve, he may just hold down a key position (other than ruck). If they caan groom him to become that CHB over the next 2 years, there's no reason why Jamar and Gawn can't share ruck duties (rotating between ruck/forward pocket). It may also be a way of getting an extra couple of years out of Jamar.

It will also depend a lot on Watts, and where he (in 2 seasons) is playing his best footy (and how much he grows).

From what I saw at the end of last year Tom McDonald looks very good for KPD - Frawley, McDonald, with Rivers genuine 3rd up and Garland playing that attacking Harry O style that he played at the end of last season looks good to me.

I reckon Martin has to stay as a ruckman. His strength is to run and jump. He doesn't excel at any of the other skills of the game. Note, when he was a backman, he did ok as a designated spoiler but his marking ability was not quite there. Imo, This rules him out as a forward. The ruck gave him a great chance to use his athletic skills and it paid off massively.

Funnily enough, we don't need that much from Mitch Clark. If he competes hard and kicks the odd goal things will fall into place.

I would have thought it's pretty obvious what we intend to do with Clark. He'll play KPF the majority of the year with occasional ruck duties inside forward 50. If one of our ruckmen go down then he might be forced to play that role, but I doubt it. More likely they'll bring Gawn or Spencer in. The entire point of trading for Clark was to get a KPF.

As soon as you start looking at selecting the forward line next year you realise what an excellent choice he is. Instead of shuffling Watts, Petterd, Green, Howe, Jurrah, Dunn, Bate, Morton, Sylvia and Bennell about to try and fill in the 6 positions, suddenly with the inclusion of Clark there is structure. Selecting the forward line is now more a question of who to leave out rather than who to put in.

Will do some forward rucking but will otherwise remain a KPF.

If only there was a small forward to stand beside him

I think the underlying thought I'm feeling through a lot of threads is that with Clark in the side, is the lineup too tall with Martin in too, even if they are playing different roles. I am excited to see how this eventuates...

  On 19/10/2011 at 01:48, Bringbackbarassi said:

I think the underlying thought I'm feeling through a lot of threads is that with Clark in the side, is the lineup too tall with Martin in too, even if they are playing different roles. I am excited to see how this eventuates...

Watch any game when Collingwood had Cloke, Dawes, Jolly and Brown playing in it (probably their premiership last year). When you're finished doing that, watch the replay of this year's grand final when Geelong had Pods, Hawkins, Ottens and West. Admittingly Pods went down early, but it worked most of the year for them!

We'll be fine. B)

  On 18/10/2011 at 22:14, rpfc said:

I hope it is a benefit only used when one of Jamar and Martin are injured in-game.

He is a massive investment, and to be thrown into the ruck would be a risk I wouldn't take.

I would choose Jamar, Martin, and Gawn before Clark to put in the ruck.

I don't want him to spend 5 minutes there.

Agree. If he's to become a good full forward, he needs to spend every second he's got perfecting that role. Can't expect the bloke to kick bags if he's only there half the time.

  On 18/10/2011 at 22:52, old55 said:

I'd play Clark permanent forward and rucking Jamar and Martin. The alternative is to ruck Jamar 65% of the time, Clark 35% of the time - you might get an extra 10% Jamar game time forward and an extra 40% Clark game time forward but that only gives you 50% of game time with a long tall option.

With all 3 in the side we end up with them all on the ground for a third of the game. This is where Martin provides an advantage with his mobility - Gawn or Spencer can't work in this equation and are alternatives to Jamar IMO.

The opposition will have trouble finding a good opponent for Martin if he rests forward, now that they have to cover Clark. I love the domino effect this big fella is going to cause. I'm also rapt that the club has finally accepted that Jurrah is not a key position player.

  On 19/10/2011 at 02:20, Barry Dawson said:

The opposition will have trouble finding a good opponent for Martin if he rests forward, now that they have to cover Clark. I love the domino effect this big fella is going to cause. I'm also rapt that the club has finally accepted that Jurrah is not a key position player.

I think the club may have believed Jurrah not to be suited to that role but if you are a mid and you run toward our forward line whose head do you put it on?

Jurrah was head and shoulders the best option.

Now he is genuinely the second forward and that is great.

He can go where he wants around Clark and may even be our small forward option (or one of them).

I think that Clark will make Jurrah walk a little smaller...

And it's a good thing.

Neeld has made it clear, he will define roles and expect them to be delivered.

That is the clear strategy. So Clark plays forward.

Then we move onto tactics, on game day if Neeld sees Clark needs to be freed up he will move him out of the goal for a run.

A bit like Buddy does from time to time. We may also see Neeld use the mobility of Watts and Clark to find a way to goal by letting them run free at stages in the game. Imagine Martin resting in the pocket with clark and watts leading out either side.

We still need Martin and Jamar and from time to time Gawn will come in to fill an injury niggle.

What I like most about this move is that it gives some attitude to the club we haven't had.

  On 19/10/2011 at 01:57, billy2803 said:

Watch any game when Collingwood had Cloke, Dawes, Jolly and Brown playing in it (probably their premiership last year). When you're finished doing that, watch the replay of this year's grand final when Geelong had Pods, Hawkins, Ottens and West. Admittingly Pods went down early, but it worked most of the year for them!

We'll be fine. B)

My question is whether Martin is as a capable forward as any of those players. He hasnt exactly set the world on fire down there, even after Baileys persistent effort to make him into a KPF.

Geelong only played the last few games with West in the side as well. Really only as their game plan changed to increased long-kicking and contested possession marking. LOTS of reliance on midfielders in that case to win the contested possession regularly. Not sure we have that capability yet....

  On 19/10/2011 at 02:53, Bringbackbarassi said:

My question is whether Martin is as a capable forward as any of those players. He hasnt exactly set the world on fire down there, even after Baileys persistent effort to make him into a KPF.

Geelong only played the last few games with West in the side as well. Really only as their game plan changed to increased long-kicking and contested possession marking. LOTS of reliance on midfielders in that case to win the contested possession regularly. Not sure we have that capability yet....

With Clark there all he has to do is sit in the square and bring the ball to the ground.

  On 19/10/2011 at 02:53, Bringbackbarassi said:

My question is whether Martin is as a capable forward as any of those players. He hasnt exactly set the world on fire down there, even after Baileys persistent effort to make him into a KPF.

Geelong only played the last few games with West in the side as well. Really only as their game plan changed to increased long-kicking and contested possession marking. LOTS of reliance on midfielders in that case to win the contested possession regularly. Not sure we have that capability yet....

Bailey's persistent effort? Stef played 21 games this season - with a majority of those as 2nd ruck, and in the other 29 games (over a period of 2 1/2 seasons), he played multiple positions. FFS, it took Tom Hawkins 3 1/2 years to arrive as a KPF, and he was a highly touted pick (it it weren't for the father/son selections). It takes more than 2 games and a quarter to make someone a KPF.

And for the record, between West and Vardy, their 2nd ruck played 18 games for the season (9 each). Pretty sure 2012/2013 we could do similar with Gawn/Fitzpatrick if need be.

Then I hope he can do that. And I hope a small forward pops up to take it off his feet too....

  On 19/10/2011 at 04:15, billy2803 said:

Bailey's persistent effort? Stef played 21 games this season - with a majority of those as 2nd ruck, and in the other 29 games (over a period of 2 1/2 seasons), he played multiple positions. FFS, it took Tom Hawkins 3 1/2 years to arrive as a KPF, and he was a highly touted pick (it it weren't for the father/son selections). It takes more than 2 games and a quarter to make someone a KPF.

And for the record, between West and Vardy, their 2nd ruck played 18 games for the season (9 each). Pretty sure 2012/2013 we could do similar with Gawn/Fitzpatrick if need be.

Only if Martin takes a full-time KP.

Before Martin had to take 1st Ruck position this year he did play a lot of different positions, but mainly was tried up forward. Which overall, I didn't see as a natural position for him. He seemed much more at home defensively, but obviously with our backline the way it is, thats not really needed at the moment, so not surprisingly he was used forward. But yes, I totally agree with you that you can't make a KPP from a couple of games, so maybe he needs to be in these positions full-time a bit more. I don't know how that would work, but we'll see.

  On 18/10/2011 at 22:38, rpfc said:

He's talking in the abstract.

The question doesn't stipulate Melbourne's current situation, only if the position warranted such investment.

I would pay that for Sandilands so I say it does.

Bingo...

And have I ever talked in the literal?