List Management

[Macca 16,625]

3 minutes ago, Skuit said:

The issue with our ruck stock management is the tall forwards we've brought into the club. All unable (or unwilling) to ruck and not much room for development. Mitch Clark was the exception while Fitzy was jettisoned.

It's a good point you make about 'unwilling'  ... it's not the easiest task on the footy field and the role of the ruckman is probably more physically demanding than it's ever been (what with the more running involved and the increase in stoppages)

It's just a pity that the sport and the way it's played now demands that playing a 2nd ruckman is a bit of luxury and stops a team from playing a 13th or 14th midfielder. 

But do we really need that many midfielders?  And just 1 ruckman?

[Skuit 9,965]

22 minutes ago, Macca said:

It's a good point you make about 'unwilling'  ... it's not the easiest task on the footy field and the role of the ruckman is probably more physically demanding than it's ever been (what with the more running involved and the increase in stoppages)

It's just a pity that the sport and the way it's played now demands that playing a 2nd ruckman is a bit of luxury and stops a team from playing a 13th or 14th midfielder. 

But do we really need that many midfielders?  And just 1 ruckman?

The 'unwilling' was a specific dig at Dawes.

But there is another point it raises. To me, playing football is about doing what you're asked and getting on with it for the good of the team. That's why Watts is being lauded as 'manful' by just about everyone at any chance they get - despite, in my mind, not doing anything particularly special. But the players' bodies are a commodity in an economic environment. You could have a situation where Hogan for example is expecting a massive payday in a couple of years but is in discussions for a bridging contract - his management may advise that a stipulation of that contract should be at least a verbal guarantee he won't be played in the ruck. It may sound fanciful, but I'm sure it's pretty much what happened with Dawes coming to us.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Skuit

[Macca 16,625]

1 minute ago, Skuit said:

The 'unwilling' was a specific dig at Dawes.

But there is another point it raises. To me, playing football is about doing what you're asked and getting on with for the good of the team. That's why Watts is being lauded as 'manful' by just about everyone at any chance they get - despite, in my mind, not doing anything particularly special. But the players' bodies are a commodity in an economic environment. You could have a situation where Hogan for example is expecting a massive payday in a couple of years but is in discussions for a bridging contract - his management may advise that a stipulation of that contract should be at least a verbal guarantee he won't be played in the ruck. It may sound fanciful, but I'm sure it's pretty much what happened with Dawes coming to us.

I reckon there would be a few who would baulk at it if asked (rucking) ... and they probably do get asked.  Was it Frost that seemed a bit circumspect about it and mumbled something about the physical demands?

I watch the rucking fairly closely these days because I'm fascinated as to where the game is heading with regards to clearances, clean clearances and the set plays that can result from those scenarios.  It won't be long before the players will need to memorise a 'play-book' like they need to in the NFL.  I wouldn't be surprised if it's already happening (at least to a small degree)

We're at the infancy stages of the professionalism of the sport.  Taps to advantage will become more valuable much like a tip-off in basketball often allows the recipient of the tip-off to get a chance at a basket. 

 

 

[Earl Hood 6,057]

11 hours ago, rjay said:

Disagree, there were a few on here that were concerned about a ruck deficiency before the start of the season.

That's not hindsight, it's foresight and what our list management people are paid for.

...and as I pointed out, our lack of height around the ground means we don't have the luxury of using KPP in the ruck. Watts at 196cm is our tallest KPP.

As 'Red' says, we took a punt and it came unstuck.

 

 

I remember having this discussion before last year's trade period with some fellow Demon fans, we discussed how vital Max would be and if he got injured we also discussed that Spencer was a good back up but was also prone to injury, missing weeks over the past few years. We also discussed that Mitch King had done his knee and wouldn't be in contention till what mid this season? So we had 2 ruckman for 2017 really. So we hoped they would search out a mature ruck forward type in the trade period as insurance. I remember the response from the club was no we will go to the draft and we got the young and skinny Filipovic. Thus we entered 2017 with two ruck options. Forget hindsight or foresight, this is poor list management. You plan for the worst and hope for the best, that is planning, list numbers restrict your decisions but how many specialist positions are there in today's game? We can always cover midfielders, small forwards, half back flankers to a better or worse degree.  The game is about 2 rucks, 15 midfielders and a key back and a key forward. We have left ourselves exposed for the next 6 weeks with few options. And may I say it is only a matter of time before Jack Watts gets taken out physically in the ruck by a Mumford type. And that would be doubly tragic for Jack and MFC. Can I also point out that my wife who is a Hawthorn fan points out that they have 5 ruck options, McEvoy, Ceglar, another rookie plus Fitzy and this year Vickory. All players around 200 cm. In short poor planning by us. And if you add Roughy that is 6 options in an emergency. 

Edited April 25, 2017 by Earl Hood

[Wolfmother 182]

Goodwin or the list manager gambled and lost 

[KingDingAling 3,739]

Watts will be fine in the ruck. He is doing a sound job - under tough circumstances. He will just need a chop out, perhaps that comes from either Frost or Kielty. Pederson isn't mobile enough around the ground for mine. We are going to need some above average athletes to get this job done. Generally, stand alone ruckman are not very agile, they are more or less rigid with below average co-ordination. They can be exposed. I think this is a perfect opportunity to find a collective set of players capable of exposing the modern day ruck man. What also works in our favor is that midfielders are more at a stand still at stoppages - which will create easier tackling opportunities for our players. The old adage of 'first to the football' is not really applicable anymore. If the opposition doesn't have clean - one touch - midfielders, then it is nearly advantageous to be second to the contest. At the same time, a good ruck man always benefits one touch players like Oliver, so it is not all positive for us not having a ruck. It does set us back in many areas, but it is not the be all and end all, we can still win games without a traditional ruck.

[titan_uranus 24,628]

1 hour ago, Nasher said:

Anyone know off the top of their heads what ruck division looks like on other club lists?  I said so in the thread LH linked too I think, but to me 1xSenior ruck, 1xAFL capable backup and 2xJuniors seems about right (edit: I argued for only 3 in that thread - probably too few in hindsight).  Any more "AFL capable" rucks on the list and you risk hindering the development of your junior rucks - you only need one ruckman in the VFL.  In most cases it would be very rare for you to end up having to fall through to your junior rucks; in our case this is further exacerbated by the fact that one of our junior rucks also is coming off a long term injury.  

I posted a few earlier in this thread.

Looking through, some clubs have the same as us, others have one more it seems.

Essendon actually has fewer than us: Leuenberger, Bellchambers and an 18-year old called Sam Draper (with Daniher). 

Carlton has Kreuzer, Gorringe, Philips and a rookie called Korchek (with Casboult).

The Dogs have Roughead, Campbell and a 19 year old called English (with Tom Boyd).

Geelong has Smith, Stanley and Ryan Abbott (with Blicavs).

Hawthorn has McEvoy, Ceglar, Pittonet and Fitzpatrick (with Vickery).

North has Preuss, Goldstein and a 20 year old called Sam Durdin (with Ben Brown).

Brisbane has Martin and I don't even know who else (a bunch of kids it seems).

Collingwood has Grundy, Cox and an 18 year old rookie called Max Lynch.

Take the best two rucks out of these sides and you're left with teams in what appear to me to be quite similar positions to us.

[DubDee 24,399]

Fing ridiculous that you can't sign up a Vfl ruckman for half a season. Give someone a shot at the bigtime. You can't afford to have 3 good quality no 1 ruckmen as 2 of them won't play most if the time and they would leave

[mo64 5,491]

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

I posted a few earlier in this thread.

Looking through, some clubs have the same as us, others have one more it seems.

Essendon actually has fewer than us: Leuenberger, Bellchambers and an 18-year old called Sam Draper (with Daniher). 

Carlton has Kreuzer, Gorringe, Philips and a rookie called Korchek (with Casboult).

The Dogs have Roughead, Campbell and a 19 year old called English (with Tom Boyd).

Geelong has Smith, Stanley and Ryan Abbott (with Blicavs).

Hawthorn has McEvoy, Ceglar, Pittonet and Fitzpatrick (with Vickery).

North has Preuss, Goldstein and a 20 year old called Sam Durdin (with Ben Brown).

Brisbane has Martin and I don't even know who else (a bunch of kids it seems).

Collingwood has Grundy, Cox and an 18 year old rookie called Max Lynch.

Take the best two rucks out of these sides and you're left with teams in what appear to me to be quite similar positions to us.

Essendon also have Shaun McKernan who played a fair bit as their no.1 ruck last year.

North also have Majak Daw, who's more than capable.

Brisbane have Archie Smith, who is a huge talent, and played a few games ahead of Steph Martin as their no.1 ruck. Plus Oscar McInerney.

Collingwood could use Lachie Keeffe who's over 200cm.

Your final comment doesn't stack up because the 3rd (and in most cases the 4th options) of these clubs are more capable in the ruck than what we have this week.

[Lucifers Hero 38,985]

12 hours ago, Wolfmother said:

Goodwin or the list manager gambled and lost 

Agreed.

It seems we don't have a List Manager per se.  The closest is Viney whose title is Manager - Player Personnel.  Might be the same thing...

As I mentioned in an earlier post player List Management is a team effort, Trade decisions for short/medium needs are driven by the Coach.  Drafting decisions (especially at the pointy end) are driven by Recruiting for long term list balance. 

I recall Goodwin saying that Roos had allowed him to make the List Management decisions.  I assume this started for the trade/drafting period at end of 2015 as Roos wasn't there for the 2016 decisions. 

I would conclude that not getting a 'ready to go' ruckman in 2015 or 2016 was a coaches call. 

It fits the game plan in that we want to play a fast attacking style and one less ruckman equates to one more 'on-baller'.  That would be a reasonable call but it is high risk and it has backfired.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Lucifer's Hero

[poita 3,874]

Our ruck stocks have a been a glaring problem for years (probably ever since Jamar & Martin were both in form in 2011), mitigated only by Gawn's stunning form and durability last year. 

Gawn's injury history meant that he was bound to miss games at some point this year. Obviously it is less than ideal that he is missing 12 games, but there was next to no chance of him playing 22 games again given the way he plays.

Spencer himself misses far too many games, and is only a battler any way.

Having two developing ruckmen on the list is just plain dumb. Are we planning on carrying both King & Filopovic for another three years until they are capable of playing at AFL level? And then they are still behind Gawn in the pecking order. Absolutely ridiculous. Even more so given that King is taking up a spot on the senior list.

Taking Filopovic, Hannan & Johnstone instead of a ready made ruck in last year's draft was a big mistake, and it is costing us big time now. 

We have to make the best of what we are left with, and that is clearly not playing Jack Watts in the ruck each week. I would rather see Pedersen and Frost do the bulk of the work, with Watts to pinch hit.

 

 

 

 

 

[Adam The God 29,391]

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Agreed.

It seems we don't have a List Manager per se.  The closest is Viney whose title is Manager - Player Personnel.  Might be the same thing...

As I mentioned in an earlier post player List Management is a team effort, Trade decisions for short/medium needs are driven by the Coach.  Drafting decisions (especially at the pointy end) are driven by Recruiting for long term list balance. 

I recall Goodwin saying that Roos had allowed him to make the List Management decisions.  I assume this started for the trade/drafting period at end of 2015 as Roos wasn't there for the 2016 decisions. 

I would conclude that not getting a 'ready to go' ruckman in 2015 or 2016 was a coaches call. 

It fits the game plan in that we want to play a fast attacking style and one less ruckman equates to one more 'on-baller'.  That would be a reasonable call but it is high risk and it has backfired.

It's only backfired if it costs us games. At this stage, we've had both our ruckmen injured during games. If it impacts on our ability at the clearances next week and we lose as a result, then we can say this was a costly list management decision.

[drdrake 3,124]

13 hours ago, Wolfmother said:

Goodwin or the list manager gambled and lost 

You only have limited opportunities to trade in players.  We didn't have a first round pick, we brought in Hibberd and Lewis plus McKenna, we have 4 rucks on our list, unfortunately 2 developing ruckman.  Ideally we would love a 200cm tall forward that can slot into the ruck.

[Pates 9,625]

It is interesting because during the trade/draft period there was a thread discussing the hunt for a decent back up ruckman. It was discussed that the best option would be to look for a taller more genuine ruck/forward than Pederson who I'd classify as a forward/ruck. 

A lot of us seemed to identify that it was an area we're were thin in and vulnerable should we get a bad run of injuries, the club took the gamble to bank on Spencer being there for coverage. It hasn't paid off, as someone said earlier if Gawn and Spencer are fit right now this isn't registering a thought for us. 

As for Melksham, I don't know if it's because he's one of the former suspended players or what but I haven't seen him as being a terrible player for us thus far. I think it's fair that he could be in line to be dropped for Lewis but I don't get the hate towards him. 

Lumumba was a gamble to bring to the club, it definitely didn't pay off. Roos backed his ability to be able to get through to someone that's outside the box, but it didn't happen. Injuries also played a part with him. 

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Imagine if both were running around now and we had Minson lumbering around in the twos doing nothing.  This thread would have the same heading yet it would be lamenting the decision to get a third ruckman instead of another young midfielder, tall back etc.  

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[old55 22,808]

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

Imagine if both were running around now and we had Minson lumbering around in the twos doing nothing.  This thread would have the same heading yet it would be lamenting the decision to get a third ruckman instead of another young midfielder, tall back etc.  

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

IMO we should have recruited a 200cm fwd-ruck - Vardy or Cameron were available to us in the ND - we could have taken Johnstone in the RD or not taken McKenna in the trade (how many HB do we really need?).  I think rookieing an extra mature specialist ruck would have been less optimal.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,648]

17 hours ago, Macca said:

It's a good point you make about 'unwilling'  ... it's not the easiest task on the footy field and the role of the ruckman is probably more physically demanding than it's ever been (what with the more running involved and the increase in stoppages)

It's just a pity that the sport and the way it's played now demands that playing a 2nd ruckman is a bit of luxury and stops a team from playing a 13th or 14th midfielder. 

But do we really need that many midfielders?  And just 1 ruckman?

These are very good questions. Business Management 101 states that if you try to copy whoever is number 1 in the market, you're destined to end up being number 2 at best. Yet AFL clubs appear to follow the model of the most recent Premier. When you consider most AFL reporting suggests that the Premiers in each year usually have developed something new to enable them to reach number one, it's rather odd that so many teams appear to try and replicate rather than innovate. So, to answer your question, maybe it's time for someone to innovate and play two 'real' ruckmen changing in the forward line. (I realise it's not actually "new", by the way).

[Diamond_Jim 12,359]

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

These are very good questions. Business Management 101 states that if you try to copy whoever is number 1 in the market, you're destined to end up being number 2 at best. Yet AFL clubs appear to follow the model of the most recent Premier. When you consider most AFL reporting suggests that the Premiers in each year usually have developed something new to enable them to reach number one, it's rather odd that so many teams appear to try and replicate rather than innovate. So, to answer your question, maybe it's time for someone to innovate and play two 'real' ruckmen changing in the forward line. (I realise it's not actually "new", by the way).

Would be interesting to know whether any players "rest" these days on the ground. Someone into stats might be able to tell us.

In the modern game perhaps the most viable on ground resting position is around the wing as the push up forward. That being said I am not sure I would like to have that position taken by my resting ruckman ... Nic Natanui and a few others aside.

[Akum 2,660]

16 hours ago, Wolfmother said:

Goodwin or the list manager gambled and lost 

They gambled that lightning wouldn't strike twice in the same place within a short space of time. But it did.

The chance that one or both of Gawn & Spencer would be available for every game was much greater than the chance that neither of them would be available for several games. They went with the odds.

The most likely outcome of recruiting someone of similar calibre of Spencer - Petrie, for the sake of argument - is that they play the whole season as second ruck for Casey. Forcing Mitch King and Flip to play in Casey Development League, and Kielty not to ruck at all.

If the likes of Nankervis & Leuenberger & Vardy had looked at us, they would have looked at their chances of getting AFL games ahead of Gawn & Spencer, looked at the prospect of spending the whole season starring at Casey, and not given us a second thought. They're not going to come to us on the off-chance that Gawn & Spencer would both be injured at the same time. All three of them had a chequered injury history anyway. They'd look somewhere else, where if they get a good run with injury, they're more likely to challenge the No.1 ruck for an AFL spot.

If there's someone in your reserves who could walk into any other AFL club, that's what they'll do - walk into any other AFL club - rather than be "A-grade depth".

[Macca 16,625]

7 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

These are very good questions. Business Management 101 states that if you try to copy whoever is number 1 in the market, you're destined to end up being number 2 at best. Yet AFL clubs appear to follow the model of the most recent Premier. When you consider most AFL reporting suggests that the Premiers in each year usually have developed something new to enable them to reach number one, it's rather odd that so many teams appear to try and replicate rather than innovate. So, to answer your question, maybe it's time for someone to innovate and play two 'real' ruckmen changing in the forward line. (I realise it's not actually "new", by the way).

We may be reaching a tipping point ... there was a reason why teams used to play 3 ruckman back in the days before we had interchange.  And the lone ruckmen these days quite often don't go the bench anyway.  

Also, big blokes who lug around 100 -110kgs are not really built to run 10-12 kilometres every week. 

We're asking too much and that's not a hindsight observation on my part either. 

Edited April 26, 2017 by Macca

[ManDee 7,124]

We stupidly got rid of Jack Fitzpatrick. No he was not a great ruckman, no he was not a great forward, but we gave him away. He kicked five goals for Box Hill, and can play in the ruck. What do we need? A forward ruck 200cm+ blind Freddy could see it but the FD could only see tunnel ball, dikheads.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

13 minutes ago, ManDee said:

We stupidly got rid of Jack Fitzpatrick. No he was not a great ruckman, no he was not a great forward, but we gave him away. He kicked five goals for Box Hill, and can play in the ruck. What do we need? A forward ruck 200cm+ blind Freddy could see it but the FD could only see tunnel ball, dikheads.

You know things have gotten bad when we have supporters pining for the days of having Jack Fitzpatrick on the list.  

[ManDee 7,124]

2 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

You know things have gotten bad when we have supporters pining for the days of having Jack Fitzpatrick on the list.  

Wise, do you think we should have kept Fitzpatrick on the rookie list? We sure as hell could do with him now. 

I would back him in the ruck against Watts, Filipovic, King or Pedo. Clearly behind Gawn & Spencer. 

[Wiseblood 24,637]

2 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Wise, do you think we should have kept Fitzpatrick on the rookie list? We sure as hell could do with him now. 

I would back him in the ruck against Watts, Filipovic, King or Pedo. Clearly behind Gawn & Spencer. 

It's complete hindsight.  Should we have held on to Jamar as well?

And no, I wouldn't have held on to Fitzy.  He wasn't up to standard.

[ManDee 7,124]

13 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

It's complete hindsight.  Should we have held on to Jamar as well?

And no, I wouldn't have held on to Fitzy.  He wasn't up to standard.

Not hindsight I was calling for him to be held onto at the time. Not up to the standard of 3rd ruck - part time forward? Harsh but I disagree. He did play for Hawthorn last year you know, got them into the finals, any way I agree to disagree.