I guess the definitive view is that Clark will be a key forward. And only a key forward.

With that in mind - there is no need to try and turn Martin back into a defender.

He's a back-up ruckman and a part time 'bring the ball to ground' forward in the square.

I reckon Clark will have up times and down as a KP forward. And when the down times come, people will call for him to go back to the ruck where he made his name for himself.

Injuries, as always, will play a big part too. If the guy is playing like crap as a forward, and we're low on good ruckmen, expect him to play portions of seasons in the midfield.

  On 22/10/2011 at 15:46, Dappa Dan said:

I reckon Clark will have up times and down as a KP forward. And when the down times come, people will call for him to go back to the ruck where he made his name for himself.

Injuries, as always, will play a big part too. If the guy is playing like crap as a forward, and we're low on good ruckmen, expect him to play portions of seasons in the midfield.

I can see it too, the thing in his favour, is unless MN wants to sacrifice our forward line then he is our only genuine flexible ruck solution, he is very versatile in his ability

  On 18/10/2011 at 23:44, WAClark said:

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.

Don't forget though that the year he did so (reasonably) well as a backman was his first, and he was still learning th game. Were he to play back now his improving ball skills, his awareness and vision would make him both a spoiler and a set up defender.

For what it is worth, in the article in today's Sunday H-S Mark Neeld repeatedly talks of Clark as the power forward, with no mention of a ruck man.

Now I know he isn't going to reveal all his cards, but he has spoken repeatedly of 'roles' and deficiencies, so to me that is the answer.

Of course he will be required to do some forward ruck work, and may need to 'have a run on the ball' when things don't go as planned, but we needed to big strong forward an we now have one.

I think it is quite obvious that Clark is seen as a forward by the club, and he sees himself as a forward.

We are crying out for one.

If he spends extended time outside of the forward line then this venture will be a massive waste for all concerned.

They must fashion a forward line that suits Clark's strengths and allows us to score goals even when he is out of form.

We have to commit to him here, there is no going back.

To understand the full potential of what someone like Clark will do imagine we were playing agianst ourselves. More often than not your best defender goes to there best foward so Frawley goes to Clark. Second best to second best and so on so Rivers to Watts... now things start getting interesting, Garland to Green? which would leave Macdonald to Jurrah... its the match ups for jurrah and green and petterd and and these blokes where we can really exploit other sides

Right now, full forward marking target.

Just the occasional contribution to rucking when the ball is up forward, just so the primary ruck at the time doesn't have to sprint to get to the throw-in/ball-up.

However, Jamar is 28 years old, Gawn a lanky 19 years old, and let's say at 5kg a year Watts and Cook are nicely filled out in a couple more years to fill the big as well as the mobile tall target roles.

So, in two years Clark's positional value will begin to shift to being the primary, mature-bodied ruck, from 25-26 years old and on, while still offering a FF option.

Clark and Martin's versatility will create a great evironment for developing Gawn, who surely will be a primary ruck when his time comes.

But when you look at the way Clark will be positionally useful in different ways at different times, you can start to see the value the club placed on getting him. A 'needs filled' acquisition with an eight-year or more return.

  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.

I'd play Clark as Key Forward and play the two rucks when required. I suppose my fringe benefit comment covered if there presented a situation where one ruck couldn't make a throw in deep forward (the other ruck off), Clark couldbe utilised if necessary.

Essentially agree, wouldn't want to spend 5 minutes there either.

Can he not change with Stef Martin as a ruck/forward? I would have thought that would be a likely scenario.

  On 23/10/2011 at 05:46, Return to Glory said:

Can he not change with Stef Martin as a ruck/forward? I would have thought that would be a likely scenario.

Why would Martin need the chop-out?

He is the chop-out.

So Jamar rucks for two-thirds of the game and Clark and Martin share a third?

So Martin now rucks for a sixth of the game? 20 mins? Martin isn't a good enough forward to spend so little time in the ruck.

And we let Sandilands and co. the chance to cut Clark in half for 20 mins a game?

I don't like this at all.

  On 18/10/2011 at 09:41, vanlo said:

He plays forward. He only kicked 27 goals this year, but that was as the 2nd ruckman also. He could quite easily kick 50+ for us next year. Calculation below:

Mitch kicked 27 goals in 17 games. If he played 22 games, at this average he would've kicked 35 goals.

Now Mitch played 2nd ruck as well as forward, so lets assume that Mitch spent 70% of his game time forward, and 30% in the ruck. If he'd spent 100% of this time forward, at the average he had based on time forward he then kicks 50 goals.

Add another 10-20% from playing in the one position, and playing in a better team, and he kicks 55-60 goals. I think we'd all be happy with a return like that from Mitch, wouldn't we?

We're more than capable in the ruck, this sort of return from Clark doesn't seem ridiculous if he stays fit, and plays forward for the entirety of matches... Will make a big difference for us...

I would hope he's get maybe 45 next Year. Anymore may be too much. I'd like to see our inside 50's, being shared around, rather than have a token main goal kicker, just for the bragging rights.

I hope we see Watts getting more goals, and Howe and Jurrah sharing in some running goals.

I'd also hope to see our Rucks getting more goals deep, with our forwards sharing the space.

West Coast play Cox, Naitanui, Lynch and Kennedy in the same team, with Darling as an extra key forward.

I don't see why we can't play Jamar, Martin and Clark in the same team. You certainly didn't see Q Lynch do too much ruckwork this year. Nor do I expect to see Clark in the ruck.

If Clark gets 30 goals and others get 30 from the fall of a solid marking contest, that's a win.

If Clark draws the primary defender and let's Watts, Jurrah, Petterd and any other of our agile, young, mostly light bodied forwards play to their strengths and develop, then that is a win too.

If Clark is available to competitively ruck for periods of games where the primary ruck is unavailable or had to be subbed off, then that is a win.

That'd be basically the three main criteria Clark would need to fulfil to be worth the investment the club has put in, in my eyes.

up fwd imo

  On 22/10/2011 at 07:29, rpfc said:

With that in mind - there is no need to try and turn Martin back into a defender.

Why?

Garland, Frawley and Rivers all need time to rest during a game and Martin is the perfect player to "replace" them. I'm also of the view that Martin could be our best player on the gorilla. If we were playing Collingwood tomorrow Martin would be in my thinking for Cloke. Martin has the speed to match him, the height to spoil him and the agility to negate Cloke when the ball hits the ground.He is also one of the strongest at the club. His endurance is an issue but he has the attributes.

With Martin being able to play a number of roles it makes the Clark issue easier to deal with. If Fitzpatrick develops as the FD expect things will get very interesting.....

  On 26/10/2011 at 01:12, Fan said:

Why?

Garland, Frawley and Rivers all need time to rest during a game and Martin is the perfect player to "replace" them. I'm also of the view that Martin could be our best player on the gorilla. If we were playing Collingwood tomorrow Martin would be in my thinking for Cloke. Martin has the speed to match him, the height to spoil him and the agility to negate Cloke when the ball hits the ground.He is also one of the strongest at the club. His endurance is an issue but he has the attributes.

With Martin being able to play a number of roles it makes the Clark issue easier to deal with. If Fitzpatrick develops as the FD expect things will get very interesting.....

What 'Clark' issue?

He's a forward. A power forward if you want to agree with Neeld's bball/footy jargon.

Martin is a back-up ruck. I highly doubt that we will suddenly pull him out of the ruck to play on Cloke a couple of times a year, unless you are saying he should be groomed for a significant role in the backline?

Because if he is a part-timer in the backline - why would we trust him to beat Cloke but no-one else?

Frawley, Garland, and Rivers (with McDonald as back-up) will attempt to deal with all scenarios and if it is required that Martin spend some time down there, I doubt it will be anything more than as a loose ruck the way Daniher used to waste..er..play White.

He is a massive find in the ruck and I would have him own that position again this year and cement his position in the team and the AFL.

  On 26/10/2011 at 02:40, rpfc said:

What 'Clark' issue?

He's a forward. A power forward if you want to agree with Neeld's bball/footy jargon.

Martin is a back-up ruck. I highly doubt that we will suddenly pull him out of the ruck to play on Cloke a couple of times a year, unless you are saying he should be groomed for a significant role in the backline?

Because if he is a part-timer in the backline - why would we trust him to beat Cloke but no-one else?

Frawley, Garland, and Rivers (with McDonald as back-up) will attempt to deal with all scenarios and if it is required that Martin spend some time down there, I doubt it will be anything more than as a loose ruck the way Daniher used to waste..er..play White.

He is a massive find in the ruck and I would have him own that position again this year and cement his position in the team and the AFL.

You may have missed the fact that Martin played back quite a bit last year to rest the tall backs. He did it pretty well.

He started his career there playing on talls and smalls and did well before he lost his way in 2010 and he was squeezed out by our other key backs. It's good for the "Clark issue" because Neeld has the option to play Martin in the team and not have a need to play him forward if that unbalances the forwards or he wants to change things around.

I'm surprised you seem so blinkered when it comes to Martin's use, the flexibility he offers and how that can integrate with Clark.

  On 26/10/2011 at 03:01, Fan said:

You may have missed the fact that Martin played back quite a bit last year to rest the tall backs. He did it pretty well.

He started his career there playing on talls and smalls and did well before he lost his way in 2010 and he was squeezed out by our other key backs. It's good for the "Clark issue" because Neeld has the option to play Martin in the team and not have a need to play him forward if that unbalances the forwards or he wants to change things around.

I'm surprised you seem so blinkered when it comes to Martin's use, the flexibility he offers and how that can integrate with Clark.

Clark is a power forward and is paid accordingly.

To see him in the ruck would be a nervous shame for me as a supporter.

And if you say Martin was sqeezed out of the backline, how is it so easy to squeeze him back in?

Martin will play down there from time to time, but as I said - he is a far better back-up ruck than he was a defender and he should maintain that position.

The only way Clark's arrival impacts on Martin is that it allows Neeld a wonderful opportunity to be flexible. I doubt that we've even scratched the surface of what Martin can deliver. 6 years of aussie rules and 50 games of an AFL career combined with his high intelligence and drive (not to mention his size and mobility) will result in something a lot more than a 2nd ruck.

  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.

How much would you play Clark as a forward?

  On 18/10/2011 at 04:32, billy2803 said:

It's not about the massive investment RPFC, it's about getting stability in our structure, and looking at what are our current strengths/weaknesses.

Our ruck division, made up of (in order) 1. Jamar 2. Martin 3. Gawn is healthy. Healthy doesn't mean elite, healthy means bloody healthy! When we need everyhing to be "elite", which will be 2013-onwards, I have no doubt our ruck stocks will achieve that level (we're not that bloody far from it!).

Our forward line structure is the most important "work in progress" for 2012. We start getting it right, we start winning more games than we lose. Clark is a massive + in this area.

Maybe we invest in a quality mid at the end of 2012, maybe we don't. A lot will be determined by what players step up next season. Imagine if Sylvia has the consistency we are crying out for, and if Trengove takes another step forward, and if Jones establishes himself as a true top 5 at the club. All of a sudden, we may not need to spend big on a quality mid - they may already be on our list.

where has the idea come from that gawn is going to be a topline ruck? i dont get it. i dont see it either. Yes , hes 208cm. but what else? he looks extremely unco to me. perhaps he will come good, but please tell me all this hope isnt soley based on his height???

  On 13/10/2012 at 09:17, Munga said:

where has the idea come from that gawn is going to be a topline ruck? i dont get it. i dont see it either. Yes , hes 208cm. but what else? he looks extremely unco to me. perhaps he will come good, but please tell me all this hope isnt soley based on his height???

All very tall young players look unco and useless for a few years.

eg P Salmon,J Madden, D Cox,J Stynes.

But Gawn doesn't look so unco to me.

  On 28/10/2011 at 12:40, jayceebee31 said:

How much would you play Clark as a forward?

One hundred percent of the time...especially now he has had the foot fracture, why the hell risk it further in the hurly burly of regular ruck work? Sure, the odd deep forward encounter, but NO routine ruck work. He is far too good at what he does up forward.

  On 13/10/2012 at 09:45, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

All very tall young players look unco and useless for a few years.

eg P Salmon,J Madden, D Cox,J Stynes.

But Gawn doesn't look so unco to me.

This is exactly it, Gawn in the few games he played looked great, and it is extremely rare to get a ruckman who looked as good as him at such a young age. Can't wait to see the big fella out on the park.

To address the OP, can't believe people would want Clark in the ruck after his performances up forward this year.