Roos on SEN

[Bitter but optimistic 21,580]

My god, talk about revisionism! Jamar had a fuckenn lousy season, one of the biggest culprits for the below VFL performances earl season and he is finished. Some of you people still swinging your [censored] about his 2010 season. Get over it. It's done, he's finished. It is naive to believe jamar wasn't up for trade. No bites, not even a nibble. Jamar seems a good bloke maybe even a great club man but this is not 2010. He is with out a doubt one of the biggest spuds on our list. [censored] loads of hit outs, yeah, but right down the oppositions throat. Can't clunk a mark to save himself, though better than pedo, and gets 1 or 2 kicks a game. He's gone!

Or, on top of his own feet. Nicely put Munga. (BTW you are still ugly)

[deeko 937]

Well to play Devils advocate here. Something definitely doesnt either add up, or bear relation.. We are 6th at hitouts ? yet we're 2nd last on the ladder.

You infer winning hit outs correlates to clearances. But our effective clearances in 13 were shizen.

If you have a good ruck /roving set up you ought to win the ball and use it to advantage, thats the theory. Thats old footy too. There are in reality only a couple of exceptional rucks out there, what every team needs to do is win/shark the ball and gain control that way. You are better off in reality only forcing a contest and disallowing the opponent carte blanch but pouncing on the dregs as they occur. Any coach worth his salt will realise the likely hood of the tap and instruct his minions to close off opposition paths and to play to their strengths. Watching the game there are incredibly few clean directed winning hitouts.

As I said in a previous post, the reason we are so ordinary in clearances as we only have one mid (as we were playing two stoppers lots of the time) in the guys vs the oppositions 3.

[rpfc 27,689]

Well to play Devils advocate here. Something definitely doesnt either add up, or bear relation.. We are 6th at hitouts ? yet we're 2nd last on the ladder.

You infer winning hit outs correlates to clearances. But our effective clearances in 13 were shizen.

If you have a good ruck /roving set up you ought to win the ball and use it to advantage, thats the theory. Thats old footy too. There are in reality only a couple of exceptional rucks out there, what every team needs to do is win/shark the ball and gain control that way. You are better off in reality only forcing a contest and disallowing the opponent carte blanch but pouncing on the dregs as they occur. Any coach worth his salt will realise the likely hood of the tap and instruct his minions to close off opposition paths and to play to their strengths. Watching the game there are incredibly few clean directed winning hitouts.

As I said in a previous post, the reason we are so ordinary in clearances as we only have one mid (as we were playing two stoppers lots of the time) in the guys vs the oppositions 3.

Deeko answered with what I had already said - but that's fine...

[beelzebub 22,718]

Deeko answered with what I had already said - but that's fine...

to invert the argument ..and render your ruck scenario next to moot is clearances come down to the mids...not the rucks. You CAN clear without winning the ruck.

Its far more important to have mids, than any particular class of ruck , unless you have the best.

Our best ruck option is the one that makes a contest and has other attributes to his game. Being a ruck alone is akin to prehistoric.

[rpfc 27,689]

to invert the argument ..and render your ruck scenario next to moot is clearances come down to the mids...not the rucks. You CAN clear without winning the ruck.

Its far more important to have mids, than any particular class of ruck , unless you have the best.

Our best ruck option is the one that makes a contest and has other attributes to his game. Being a ruck alone is akin to prehistoric.

[scoff] Of course it is far more important to have a midfield. [scoff]

I am telling you that there remains a direct correlation between the best rucks and the best clearance teams - as in they are exactly the same.

Rucking is important.

You can 'invert the argument' all you like but you would be rejecting the fact that HOs beget clearances.

[beelzebub 22,718]

I do reject that absolute..Hit outs beget clearances...youve already proved it.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

[scoff] Of course it is far more important to have a midfield. [scoff]

I am telling you that there remains a direct correlation between the best rucks and the best clearance teams - as in they are exactly the same.

Rucking is important.

You can 'invert the argument' all you like but you would be rejecting the fact that HOs beget clearances.

Hawthorn's ruck department wasn't exactly dominant. Hence their joy at getting McEvoy

[rjay 24,187]

[scoff] Of course it is far more important to have a midfield. [scoff]

I am telling you that there remains a direct correlation between the best rucks and the best clearance teams - as in they are exactly the same.

Rucking is important.

You can 'invert the argument' all you like but you would be rejecting the fact that HOs beget clearances.

My argument is that taps and clearances are only a part of what the ruck man needs to do. We need a ruck man that can get his own ball, not just tap it. We have one in Clark but prefer to use him forward so we need to find another.

There is also an argument that clearances are not as important with a lot of teams relying more on the counterpunch.

[Nasher 33,246]

My argument is that taps and clearances are only a part of what the ruck man needs to do. We need a ruck man that can get his own ball, not just tap it. We have one in Clark but prefer to use him forward so we need to find another.

There is also an argument that clearances are not as important with a lot of teams relying more on the counterpunch.

Does the ruckman really need to be able to get the ball that much? Which AFL ruckmen currently get stacks of the ball?

Picking a selection of first rucks, with their max disposals in 2013 and their disposals average for 2013:

Aaron Sandilands: Max disposals in 2013: 14, average: 9.2

Sam Jacobs: 20 (next best 14), 11.27

Matthew Leuenberger: 21, 13.5

Matthew Kreuzer: 18, 11.4. Want to see how Robbie Warnock went?

Tom Bellchambers: 17, 10.28

Jonathan Giles: 16, 10.5

Max Bailey: 15, 8.89

Todd Goldstein: 20, 11.95

Mark Jamar:16, 8.11

Max Gawn: 18, 8.92

Jake Spencer: 15,10.00

....

These stats are very boring to produce and probably even more boring to read, so I won't go any further, but the punch line is that pretty much all the chief ruckmen in the side had very similar stats in terms of amount of the ball they get, and that includes good ruckmen like Sandilands. I only did very rough numbers from that point onwards, but the only ruckmen who had numbers for disposals in the midfield/flanker range (~15 average) were Dean Cox and Will Minson. The rest were very much in the 10-12 average range.

I don't see a lot of evidence supporting any assertions that getting the ball is an important aspect of a ruckman's game.

[rpfc 27,689]

Does the ruckman really need to be able to get the ball that much? Which AFL ruckmen currently get stacks of the ball?

Picking a selection of first rucks, with their max disposals in 2013 and their disposals average for 2013:

Aaron Sandilands: Max disposals in 2013: 14, average: 9.2

Sam Jacobs: 20 (next best 14), 11.27

Matthew Leuenberger: 21, 13.5

Matthew Kreuzer: 18, 11.4. Want to see how Robbie Warnock went?

Tom Bellchambers: 17, 10.28

Jonathan Giles: 16, 10.5

Max Bailey: 15, 8.89

Todd Goldstein: 20, 11.95

Mark Jamar:16, 8.11

Max Gawn: 18, 8.92

Jake Spencer: 15,10.00

....

These stats are very boring to produce and probably even more boring to read, so I won't go any further, but the punch line is that pretty much all the chief ruckmen in the side had very similar stats in terms of amount of the ball they get, and that includes good ruckmen like Sandilands. I only did very rough numbers from that point onwards, but the only ruckmen who had numbers for disposals in the midfield/flanker range (~15 average) were Dean Cox and Will Minson. The rest were very much in the 10-12 average range.

I don't see a lot of evidence supporting any assertions that getting the ball is an important aspect of a ruckman's game.

Exactly. We all want the ruckmen to be more involved but if we are talking about a few kicks and handballs, it is almost irrelevant.

The ruckman's job first and foremost is in the job title. Everything else is peripheral.

[titan_uranus 23,195]

Does the ruckman really need to be able to get the ball that much? Which AFL ruckmen currently get stacks of the ball?

Picking a selection of first rucks, with their max disposals in 2013 and their disposals average for 2013:

Aaron Sandilands: Max disposals in 2013: 14, average: 9.2

Sam Jacobs: 20 (next best 14), 11.27

Matthew Leuenberger: 21, 13.5

Matthew Kreuzer: 18, 11.4. Want to see how Robbie Warnock went?

Tom Bellchambers: 17, 10.28

Jonathan Giles: 16, 10.5

Max Bailey: 15, 8.89

Todd Goldstein: 20, 11.95

Mark Jamar:16, 8.11

Max Gawn: 18, 8.92

Jake Spencer: 15,10.00

....

These stats are very boring to produce and probably even more boring to read, so I won't go any further, but the punch line is that pretty much all the chief ruckmen in the side had very similar stats in terms of amount of the ball they get, and that includes good ruckmen like Sandilands. I only did very rough numbers from that point onwards, but the only ruckmen who had numbers for disposals in the midfield/flanker range (~15 average) were Dean Cox and Will Minson. The rest were very much in the 10-12 average range.

I don't see a lot of evidence supporting any assertions that getting the ball is an important aspect of a ruckman's game.

Well that's not fair to take off Cox and Minson. There are two of the best ruckmen in the game, and their disposal average is double Jamar's.

At any rate, Jamar's the worst on your list. He averages around two fewer disposals than every ruckman you've got there except Bailey. So he's at the bottom of that pile and could improve that area of his game.

The stats rpfc showed indicate a strong correlation between hit outs and clearances, but breaking that down into centre clearances, the correlation weakens significantly (GWS, Essendon and Hawthorn are top 5 in centre clearances despite not being 7th, 9th and 13th in hit outs). This suggests to me that there is a lot more to winning centre clearances than simply the ruckman getting the hit out. This then suggests to me that ruckmen are not the be all and end all of the centre clearance game, which means I want more from my ruckman than simply hit outs.

Yes, the statistics indicate that Jamar ranks comparably with the others, and that's mainly because he's not as bad as some on here suggest. However, statistics only ever tell part of the tale - the hit outs stat doesn't tell us where the hit out was on the ground (e.g. centre v not centre), which opponents they were against (e.g. Jamar only played a few games, one of which would have been against GWS) and so on. From having seen games, Jamar offers us little other than his tap work in centre clearances, so I'd like to see him get more involved in the centre square.

[rjay 24,187]

the only ruckmen who had numbers for disposals in the midfield/flanker range (~15 average) were Dean Cox and Will Minson. The rest were very much in the 10-12 average range.

I don't see a lot of evidence supporting any assertions that getting the ball is an important aspect of a ruckman's game.

Exactly. We all want the ruckmen to be more involved but if we are talking about a few kicks and handballs, it is almost irrelevant.

The ruckman's job first and foremost is in the job title. Everything else is peripheral.

I think you might find that Will Minson was AA for a reason this year and Cox is a multiple AA ruck. I know you will bring up Jamar but out of interest can you stats people let me know his average disposals in his AA year, not being a stat-o-phile my guess is more than than the last couple. Marks around the ground are also very important and I know Jamar was taking them in his AA year.

I hold the Grant Thomas line that a ruck man is useless....unless he does more than tap the ball.

[beelzebub 22,718]

Mark Jamar 2010

Year Team # GM (W-D-L) KI MK HB DI GL BH HO TK RB IF CL CG FF FA BR CP UP CM MI 1% BO GA

010 Melbourne 40 22 (8-1-13) .66 .69 .207 .273 .12 ...4 ...643 ..39 ...8 ...12 ..65 ..61 ...45 ...44 ....5 ..168 .100 ..31.. .11 ..34 ........ ..7

( hopefully this doesnt jumble..lol )

Edited November 8, 2013 by beelzebub

[McQueen 17,864]

If your midfield players aren't real good your Ruckman is always going to look pretty sht.

[Nasher 33,246]

Well that's not fair to take off Cox and Minson. There are two of the best ruckmen in the game, and their disposal average is double Jamar's.

At any rate, Jamar's the worst on your list. He averages around two fewer disposals than every ruckman you've got there except Bailey. So he's at the bottom of that pile and could improve that area of his game.

Two points:

1) I'm not arguing for or against Jamar - I'm just arguing that it can't be that important for ruckmen to get the ball if hardly any of them do. I don't think you'd get much disagreement from anyone if you asserted that Jamar had a dog of a year.

2) I didn't "take off" Cox or Minson, I just stopped producing the numbers before I got to them because it was tedious and boring typing in numbers that were essentially the same. I also raised them in my discussion, so I think I have been sufficiently complete in my very crude study. I also don't think it's fair to use arguably the top 2 ruckmen in the competition as the bar for "par".

[rjay 24,187]

Two points:

1) I'm not arguing for or against Jamar - I'm just arguing that it can't be that important for ruckmen to get the ball if hardly any of them do. I don't think you'd get much disagreement from anyone if you asserted that Jamar had a dog of a year.

2) I didn't "take off" Cox or Minson, I just stopped producing the numbers before I got to them because it was tedious and boring typing in numbers that were essentially the same. I also raised them in my discussion, so I think I have been sufficiently complete in my very crude study. I also don't think it's fair to use arguably the top 2 ruckmen in the competition as the bar for "par".

...and I am saying we should be aiming above par and shooting for the best.

[beelzebub 22,718]

Some good teams have done quite well with average rucks.. they play to their strengths ( as a team ) which is getting the ball..and using it well.

[titan_uranus 23,195]

Two points:

1) I'm not arguing for or against Jamar - I'm just arguing that it can't be that important for ruckmen to get the ball if hardly any of them do. I don't think you'd get much disagreement from anyone if you asserted that Jamar had a dog of a year.

2) I didn't "take off" Cox or Minson, I just stopped producing the numbers before I got to them because it was tedious and boring typing in numbers that were essentially the same. I also raised them in my discussion, so I think I have been sufficiently complete in my very crude study. I also don't think it's fair to use arguably the top 2 ruckmen in the competition as the bar for "par".

What I meant was that if you want to see how Jamar stacks up against ruckmen, you would want to see what the best are doing first; Jamar's going at half the rate of the best. That's not definitive of anything on its own, but it does show that there is a lot of room to improve in terms of his involvement in general play. Just like you can't compare him to the worst ruckmen going around, neither can you compare him to the best, but for a former AA ruckman, noting that he's a fair way back off the best going around indicates there is significant scope for him to lift his game.

[Nasher 33,246]

...and I am saying we should be aiming above par and shooting for the best.

Sure, we should be shooting for the best in every aspect. It goes without saying.

Though in 2013, the "best" played in teams that finished 13th and 16th. It's a luxury but ranks low in importance I think.

[rjay 24,187]

Sure, we should be shooting for the best in every aspect. It goes without saying.

Though in 2013, the "best" played in teams that finished 13th and 16th. It's a luxury but ranks low in importance I think.

The games changing 'Nasher', we can beg to differ on this one.

Give me a Peter Moore or Jim Stynes any day.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Interesting points.

Stats aside, the trends suggest that ruckmen of Jamar's type will slowly die out as the game becomes faster.

Nic Nat will is like having an extra midfielder after the ball is bounced or thrown up so I imagine teams will place more importance on bringing in athletic players who can still be fantastic tap ruckman, but can also contribute greatly to the team when te pill is in dispute.

As for now, clearly it's not a major issue.

[olisik 4,060]

Can we rename this thread please.

[rpfc 27,689]

The games changing 'Nasher', we can beg to differ on this one.

Give me a Peter Moore or Jim Stynes any day.

Where are they on our list?

This debate started because Jamar had been named as 1st ruck by posters.

Jamar/Spencer/Gawn

The above are our options. With Clark mooted for a FF/2nd ruck by Roos.

I have argued that the importance of a ruckman at stoppages is still important and that the vast majority of ruckmen do not do much 'around the ground' and that it does not create enough of a point of difference to remove Jamar.

[deanox 8,977]

This is fantastic discussion. Congrats guys. Genuine debate and discussion in good spirits!

Can I throw a spanner in the works with the stats? You can't measure some thing, and some of them are the things I don't think Jamar does well. Shepparding and bullocking and blocking at stoppages is important; Sandilands is the master of this. Jamar sort of taps then stands there.

[Nasher 33,246]

The games changing 'Nasher', we can beg to differ on this one.

Give me a Peter Moore or Jim Stynes any day.

Agree to disagree, though my parting comment is to point out that what you have asked for is two Brownlow medalists, once again indicative that what you want is way beyond what could reasonably be expected.