2 hours ago, stuie said:

One of our biggest assets is that we have a big mobile ruckman with a good tank which frees us up somewhat to play more runners.

Why would we decrease that advantage by playing another tall who is not versatile enough to do much else other than ruck?

 

Because our game plan relies a lot on winning the centre clearance.

1 minute ago, McQueen said:

Because our game plan relies a lot on winning the centre clearance.

And Spencer is going to do that?

 

Edited May 18, 20169 yr by stuie

Just now, stuie said:

And Spencer is going to do that?

 

I'm hoping so. He's tall enough and athletic enough. As I said in my earlier post, if his ruck craft can progress then I think he'll do well enough.

The game style has changed and Jake hasn't had a shot of contributing in a game. Who knows how well he might do?

Why are you only too happy to write him off?

5 minutes ago, stuie said:

And Spencer is going to do that?

 

Spencer rucking against most teams second string ruck men would do that. 

9 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

To protect Gawn from burnout for one.

If Spencer players it must be on the basis he is used extensively in the ruck, say 40% of the time and plays forward say 25% of the time.  Gawn rucks 60% and plays forward 20%.

It works if Spencer can ruck effectively and Gawn can play forward effectively.  Spencer is surprisingly quick and he is also physical in stoppages. 

Max looked cooked to me on Sunday, couldn't jump or get around the ground.  He's rucked in 11 games straight with no help. I can't see it's a bad idea to give him a rest this week and play Spence as well.  Pedo is a workhorse but rarely plays well against good teams so he's not the long term answer. Reality is we are filling time until one of the King boys makes it.

Problem is it doesn't work 'Bob'...this is part the reason Max has taken so long to develop. 

Having both these guys at Casey, meant Max ( not a forward but the better of the 2) had to spend more time forward and didn't get the development time even though he was the superior ruck.

Max needs to spend at least 80% of time on ball, he will kick goals drifting into the forward line. He won't do much more that get in the way as a resting forward.

I agree with 'stuie' on this, if Max needs a rest. Give him a week off and play Spencer.

Just now, McQueen said:

I'm hoping so. He's tall enough and athletic enough. As I said in my earlier post, if his ruck craft can progress then I think he'll do well enough.

The game style has changed and Jake hasn't had a shot of contributing in a game. Who knows how well he might do?

Why are you only too happy to write him off?

I'm not writing Spencer off, I'm just concerned about using two players to play one role now that the game is favouring teams that can run longer.

There might be times it works to play both for matchups, but they'll be rare. If Gawn needs a rest then let him have a proper one and have a week off rather than using up 2 spots for 1 job.

 

2 minutes ago, GCDee said:

Spencer rucking against most teams second string ruck men would do that. 

But most team's second tier ruckman would provide more versatility than Spencer IMO.

 

How are people expecting that by playing a second ruckman that will nullify the jumping into Gawn?

Are we going to play Gawn forward all day as whenever he goes into the ruck they will still jump into him.

If we play Spencer in the ruck they can also jump into him as well, so basically we play 2 ruckman and the opposition just jump into both of them, we end up playing our best ruckman forward and our ummm lets call him our insurance in the ruck all day and he gets beaten comprehensively.

5 minutes ago, stuie said:

I'm not writing Spencer off, I'm just concerned about using two players to play one role now that the game is favouring teams that can run longer.

There might be times it works to play both for matchups, but they'll be rare. If Gawn needs a rest then let him have a proper one and have a week off rather than using up 2 spots for 1 job.

 

Like I said, I think the game plan would benefit by having tall timber rucks at each and every ball-up. Pedo, Frost, Dawes etc just hope they can get a hand to it and we win the clearance.

Gawn has shown his worth in the fwd line already this year so if he's not resting there he's having a spell on the bench whilst the other ruck is winning the contests.

1 minute ago, stuie said:

But most team's second tier ruckman would provide more versatility than Spencer IMO.

 

I agree with you there, but as has been said most of scores are generated by winning the clearances, having Maxy up and about this year has helped us immensely in winning the clearances (I believe we are number 1 in the league for center clearances)  but no ruck man can withstand playing on the ball 100% of the time. So I can see the benefit of having Spence in the team giving Gawn a Chop out for 25-30% of game time in the center and he will crush most teams make shift ruckmen who in reality is just their 2nd forward in most teams cases giving us first access (in most games) most of the time, generating more i50's. 

 

While Gawn or Spence are in the goal square taking the biggest full back trying to clunk a mark or two and if the ball is sat on either of our rucks heads there will be a minimal amount of times they are out marked so we have the likes of Kent, Kennedy and Garlett at their feet. 

 

But again I agree with you RE versatility because if the plan fails there aren't too many other options for Spence around the ground like we do if Ped or Frosty were playing his role.   

2 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

No.  We can't carry two ruckmen.  Gawn had a bad game on the weekend, but it's not a reflection on his tank, more a reflection on how well the Bulldogs played him.

It might work once in a blue moon but Spencer isn't exactly an athlete and I feel like it would hurt our running game if we had both of them on the field at the same time.

 

So - as with throwing, as with ducking - "playing it well" in this context means knowing what illegal tactics you can get away with the whole game. And it's no coincidence that the teams who "game the umpires" best are riding high.

 

Gawn & Spencer can & has worked. Some want to exclude the Geelong match, why? It can work, give it another go.

Edited May 18, 20169 yr by ManDee

1 minute ago, ManDee said:

Gawn & Spenser can & has worked. Some want to exclude the Geelong match, why? It can work, give it another go.

No Hogan and little ruck competition played a big part in why it worked once. Not excluding it.

It has been tried and failed on many other occasions and not just by us (Grundy/Witts is a similar one)...and as I've said it was a once in a blue moon event, lets hope we pick the next blue moon event if we try it again as this combination won't work week in week out.

Just now, Akum said:

 

So - as with throwing, as with ducking - "playing it well" in this context means knowing what illegal tactics you can get away with the whole game. And it's no coincidence that the teams who "game the umpires" best are riding high.

 

I wouldn't say that - I think many of their players ducked and used some illegal tactics to get free kicks, but their ruckmen just played Gawn very well.  

3 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

No.  We can't carry two ruckmen.  Gawn had a bad game on the weekend, but it's not a reflection on his tank, more a reflection on how well the Bulldogs played him.

It might work once in a blue moon but Spencer isn't exactly an athlete and I feel like it would hurt our running game if we had both of them on the field at the same time.

Hawthorn have won the last 3 flags playing two ruckmen.

49 minutes ago, rjay said:

Problem is it doesn't work 'Bob'...this is part the reason Max has taken so long to develop. 

Having both these guys at Casey, meant Max ( not a forward but the better of the 2) had to spend more time forward and didn't get the development time even though he was the superior ruck.

Max needs to spend at least 80% of time on ball, he will kick goals drifting into the forward line. He won't do much more that get in the way as a resting forward.

I agree with 'stuie' on this, if Max needs a rest. Give him a week off and play Spencer.

I'm worried about Max burning out.  He looks cooked to me.  So if Spencer plays ruck then who do you want.  Pedo or Gawn.  You're assuming Gawn can't play effective tall forward but he is marking much better this year than last and would take a lot of pressure off Hogan - more so than Pedo.

I don't see it as black and white as you and others. It would be worth trailing in a development year.

1 hour ago, Baghdad Bob said:

It works if Spencer can ruck effectively and Gawn can play forward effectively.  Spencer is surprisingly quick and he is also physical in stoppages. 

Spencer would be more effective than Frost was forward and actually offers something in the ruck..

Edited May 18, 20169 yr by Fifty-5

Just now, Fifty-5 said:

Hawthorn have won the last 3 flags playing two ruckmen.

So you're saying they've won the last 3 flags because they played 2 ruckmen?

If only it were that simple.

For the record - the Hawks can afford to do it with excellent players AND an excellent game plan.  We haven't come close to reaching those heights yet and, therefore, we can't afford to have two ruckmen in the same side at the moment.

1 minute ago, Baghdad Bob said:

I'm worried about Max burning out.  He looks cooked to me.  So if Spencer plays ruck then who do you want.  Pedo or Gawn.  You're assuming Gawn can't play effective tall forward but he is marking much better this year than last and would take a lot of pressure off Hogan - more so than Pedo.

I don't see it as black and white as you and others. It would be worth trailing in a development year.

Against Brisbane I'd be happy to have Spencer 1st ruck with Gawn at FF and Hogan CHF - No Pedo or Frost or Dawes. Imagine Gawn against their second ruck!

7 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Hawthorn have won the last 3 flags playing two ruckmen.

Ohhhhhh so that's all you need to win a flag?! Bring Spencer in this week then, the premiership is ours now!

 

8 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

So you're saying they've won the last 3 flags because they played 2 ruckmen?

If only it were that simple.

For the record - the Hawks can afford to do it with excellent players AND an excellent game plan.  We haven't come close to reaching those heights yet and, therefore, we can't afford to have two ruckmen in the same side at the moment.

They didn't win in solely because they played 2 ruckmen but that was an integral part of the very successful combination and game plan they went in with.  They definitely had the option of going with one and rucking Roughy part time a la Pedo but they didn't.

Edited May 18, 20169 yr by Fifty-5

10 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

I'm worried about Max burning out.  He looks cooked to me.  So if Spencer plays ruck then who do you want.  Pedo or Gawn.  You're assuming Gawn can't play effective tall forward but he is marking much better this year than last and would take a lot of pressure off Hogan - more so than Pedo.

I don't see it as black and white as you and others. It would be worth trailing in a development year.

If Max is cooked than he needs a break, Spencer can take the number 1 role.

Max is not a forward and would get in Hogan's way...not so much about being black and white, it has been tried before by many including us. It hasn't worked, it doesn't work.

15 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Hawthorn have won the last 3 flags playing two ruckmen.

Much more flexible than our combination and so is their forward setup when Rougy is up and about...Hale has been a loss for them too by the way, he was a smart player who was more then handy around goal.

Just now, Fifty-5 said:

They didn't win in solely because they played 2 ruckmen but that was an integral part of the very successful combination and game plan they went in with.  They definitely had the option of going with one and rucking Roughy part time a la Pedo but they didn't.

I don't necessarily argue that it wasn't an integral part, but the Hawks had the personnel that made it work.  They didn't just pick two ruckmen and it magically worked, they had the right mix that made it work.

If we had a few more runners, even a few more blokes who could hit some bullet passes, then we could do it.  But at this point I think Spencer would end up being more of a liability than someone who will add some wins to our season.

2 minutes ago, rjay said:

Max is not a forward and would get in Hogan's way...not so much about being black and white, it has been tried before by many including us. It hasn't worked, it doesn't work.

 

Lots of things change rjay and particularly as players develop and learn their roles with new game plans.

 I don't think you can leave Max out of the team if he is fit, you'd lose too much, but I do think you can give him a break with Spencer playing.

Anyway it will be interesting to see if the FD try it at some stage.

I'm unconvinced that McEvoy-Hale is a quantum better than a Gawn-Spencer combination that we've hardly tried.

Quite frankly, to channel Hannibal, I'd prefer we're headed towards a premiership structure in 2019, than winning games right now.