1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

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

Pining, no.  Practical, yes.  The reigning premiers took him for a very good reason.  Third/4th tier insurance.  Last year he got them into the top 4. 

Read earlier posts and you'll see that the most of last year's top 6 clubs had ruckman depth that went 3/4 deep.  The lower teams including us don't have that depth.   It was high risk.  It didn't pay off.  No hindsight required.

1 hour ago, Akum said:

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.

If we had recruited another ruckman I suggest he would have been second tier to Max rather than third tier to Gawn and Spencer.   I agree those three would probably not look at us but there were other ruckman available as FA's perhaps not as good, that would get a game before Spencer.

If we had recruited a ruck/forward he would be playing on a regular basis. 

Very few teams go into a game without 2 ruckman or 1 ruckman with 1 ruck/forward.  Especially when one or two of the tall forwards each week have played < 5 games.  We are using Watts as our ruck/forward but it is a game of 'rob peter to pay paul' and that selection strategy has cost us two games. 

2 hours 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.

Having Jack Fitzpatrick might have helped us in the short-term but I can't see how he helps us win a Premiership. Or, to put it another way, I never thought we'd win the flag in 2017 and I'd rather another player develop in Fitzpatrick's place for when that chance arrives...hopefully in 2018 or 2019 (or both, of course). 

2 hours 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.

Jeepers. This thread has officially jumped the shark.

5 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Having Jack Fitzpatrick might have helped us in the short-term but I can't see how he helps us win a Premiership. Or, to put it another way, I never thought we'd win the flag in 2017 and I'd rather another player develop in Fitzpatrick's place for when that chance arrives...hopefully in 2018 or 2019 (or both, of course). 

Agree LDC we would not have been able to play the Weid!!

2 minutes ago, old dee said:

Agree LDC we would not have been able to play the Weid!!

Cryptically ironic, od...

4 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Cryptically ironic, od...

Sorry LH I could not help myself. Not sure if there is one MFC supporter who would have thought keeping Fitz was the right way forward.

The Weid is a totally different problem.

9 minutes ago, Nasher said:

Jeepers. This thread has officially jumped the shark.

Nash, how often have we bailed on a young ruckman for it to bite us later? Fitzpatrick would have been cheap insurance. Any how I'm off, sharks to jump.

We probably shouldn't have delisted Juice Newton, he could have played ruck.

Just now, old dee said:

Sorry LH I could not help myself. Not sure if there is one MFC supporter who would have thought keeping Fitz was the right way forward.

The Weid is a totally different problem.

Just having a laugh od.

No I don't think we shouldn't have kept Fitzy. 

I think the point ManDee was making was lack of depth with only 2 ruckman because we didn't replace him with another 3/4 tier ruckman.

In my mind that was exacerbated by not having a ruck/forward. 

 

31 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Having Jack Fitzpatrick might have helped us in the short-term but I can't see how he helps us win a Premiership. Or, to put it another way, I never thought we'd win the flag in 2017 and I'd rather another player develop in Fitzpatrick's place for when that chance arrives...hopefully in 2018 or 2019 (or both, of course). 

The problem is that we don't have another player to develop in place of Fitzy and we haven't recruited one.

3 minutes ago, Skuit said:

The problem is that we don't have another player to develop in place of Fitzy and we haven't recruited one.

Isn't that the point of having recruited Weideman, King, Filipovic, Frost and Keilty?

2 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Isn't that the point of having recruited Weideman, King, Filipovic, Frost and Keilty?

We need a forward/ruck.

2 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

...

If we had recruited another ruckman I suggest he would have been second tier to Max rather than third tier to Gawn and Spencer.   I agree those three would probably not look at us but there were other ruckman available as FA's perhaps not as good, that would get a game before Spencer.

If we had recruited a ruck/forward he would be playing on a regular basis. 

Very few teams go into a game without 2 ruckman or 1 ruckman with 1 ruck/forward.  Especially when one or two of the tall forwards each week have played < 5 games.  We are using Watts as our ruck/forward but it is a game of 'rob peter to pay paul' and that selection strategy has cost us two games. 

If we recruited a ruckman good enough to play second tier to Max, Spencer as third tier would simply have left, rather than to play second ruck for Casey! As it was, we only signed him for a one-year contract, whether that was the club's initiative or, more than likely, his initiative. So back to square one. If we get another ruck and Spencer stays, again we risk losing a whole season of opportunity to develop young rucks of the promise of Mitch King, Flip & perhaps Kielty for the future.

Recruiting a 200cm player who is worth his place in the team as a forward who can also do reasonably well in the ruck is very very difficult. And it could be argued that we're getting more from Watts in that role - because far better than any 200cm second string ruckman at gathering the ball and using it effectively around stoppages, and also dropping back into defence for the last 5 minutes of the quarter - than any other team gets from their second-string ruck. But we do need another effective tall forward, which one day will be Weid.

And it's just wrong to say "that selection strategy has cost us two games". In both games, against undefeated teams in top form, we could hold them for almost two quarters without our first ruck, but we couldn't hold them for more than half the game. What cost us those two games was that first they were injured, and second they were both injured so early in the game (well before half-time) and it was the resulting loss of rotations over such a long period of the game that killed us.

There's also the factor that we lost them both so early in the season, when the VFL season has only just started.

15 minutes ago, Skuit said:

The problem is that we don't have another player to develop in place of Fitzy and we haven't recruited one.

200cm+ players who are good enough to hold their place as a 1st or 2nd forward don't grow on trees. That's why they cost 1 mill per year for 7 years.

10 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Just having a laugh od.

No I don't think we shouldn't have kept Fitzy. 

I think the point ManDee was making was lack of depth with only 2 ruckman because we didn't replace him with another 3/4 tier ruckman.

In my mind that was exacerbated by not having a ruck/forward. 

 

WE have four ruckman on the list LH but the best two are injured and the next two are a new addition and the other has played  total 1.5 games at Casey. Not sure we could do more than that.

 

1 hour ago, Akum said:

200cm+ players who are good enough to hold their place as a 1st or 2nd forward don't grow on trees. That's why they cost 1 mill per year for 7 years.

This is true. But they come from somewhere. The drafts. We haven't been drafting or recruiting young forwards with developing potential ruck capabilities in mind.

Spencer was an excellent choice as backup ruckman but how foolish of our list managers not to foresee (i) Max stricken  down with a new injury and (ii) Jake, who performed very well against a freak in his comeback game, would also get a new injury!

Will someone please give them a crystal ball!

Shocking run or really bad luck.  

But for this cruel run of injury the mystery mature ready to roll ruckman alluded to by some here would have been bored to tears at Casey and have blocked King and Flipper's development 

 

On 25/04/2017 at 9:06 AM, 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 was also worried about the lack of ruck depth at the end of the trade and draft period. Its not hindsight just because I didn't post it at the time. Its an important position and I didn't think we had enough coverage. You always need a plan, a backup plan, and a backup to your backup. I liked what I saw of Flip at the Maroochydore session, can't comment at all on King. They are just not ready yet to be viable options. 

6 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Pining, no.  Practical, yes.  The reigning premiers took him for a very good reason.  Third/4th tier insurance.  Last year he got them into the top 4. 

Read earlier posts and you'll see that the most of last year's top 6 clubs had ruckman depth that went 3/4 deep.  The lower teams including us don't have that depth.   It was high risk.  It didn't pay off.  No hindsight required.

Yeah?  And how did he go when it mattered?  He wouldn't give us anything better than Pedersen would in the ruck.  He was average in there at best and poor everywhere else.  The fact we are even trying to be 'practical' about a bloke who hasn't been on our list in a few years is taking things too far.  Should we have tried to coax Jeff White out of retirement to run around at Casey in case of an emergency?  It might have been high risk, but a risk I was happy with.  I'd rather a Hannan on our list than the lumbering form of Will Minson.

On 25/04/2017 at 9:09 AM, rjay said:

It was a known fact that King was injured so of course you can plan for that.

Yes, but who could the club have recruited? They would have been the third ruckman, most unlikely to get a game. Would, for example, Minson have accepted such an offer on pretty minimal rates?

however I do agree that we went short in our overall recruitment. It would be great if we had some kpps with more aptitude in the rucks. Frost appeared a good choice.

If one considers the situation at the beginning  of 2016 we had Gawn, Spencer, King  Frost and Pedersen. Looked adequate. Not certain that anyone recruited in 2017 could have assisted at present.

23 hours ago, mo64 said:

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.

McKernan's 196cm (and also awful as a ruckman). No more than a stopgap option.

Keeffe is a defender. 200cm but otherwise no more a ruckman than Frost or OMac.

Having said that, clearly overlooked Daw and I have no knowledge of Brisbane's list, so there's two clubs with slightly deeper ruck stocks than us. And I'm sure if I went through the rest there would be plenty with more talent than us.

The general premise, though, is that I don't think our list is so different to the other 17 clubs' that it could readily be said that we did something stupid with our list management. 

6 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Pining, no.  Practical, yes.  The reigning premiers took him for a very good reason.  Third/4th tier insurance.  Last year he got them into the top 4. 

Read earlier posts and you'll see that the most of last year's top 6 clubs had ruckman depth that went 3/4 deep.  The lower teams including us don't have that depth.   It was high risk.  It didn't pay off.  No hindsight required.

If we had recruited another ruckman I suggest he would have been second tier to Max rather than third tier to Gawn and Spencer.   I agree those three would probably not look at us but there were other ruckman available as FA's perhaps not as good, that would get a game before Spencer.

If we had recruited a ruck/forward he would be playing on a regular basis. 

Very few teams go into a game without 2 ruckman or 1 ruckman with 1 ruck/forward.  Especially when one or two of the tall forwards each week have played < 5 games.  We are using Watts as our ruck/forward but it is a game of 'rob peter to pay paul' and that selection strategy has cost us two games. 

Well here is the acid test. Please name the ruckman we could gave recruited in late 2016 who would have become ruckman number 2, and thus making Spencer number 3. Likely to play no games in the ones

I do agree that a forward pocket / ruck would gave been useful. Wasn't that Frost? Or Pedersen?

11 hours ago, poita said:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Which "ready made ruck"? Prepared to be number 3. Forget the possibility he would have supplanted Spencer. Gawn kept raving about Spencer, regarded him as a great knock ruckman

7 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

McKernan's 196cm (and also awful as a ruckman). No more than a stopgap option.

Keeffe is a defender. 200cm but otherwise no more a ruckman than Frost or OMac.

Having said that, clearly overlooked Daw and I have no knowledge of Brisbane's list, so there's two clubs with slightly deeper ruck stocks than us. And I'm sure if I went through the rest there would be plenty with more talent than us.

The general premise, though, is that I don't think our list is so different to the other 17 clubs' that it could readily be said that we did something stupid with our list management. 

You're arguing for the sake of it 'titan'.

Most other teams have better ruck coverage than us as other posters have pointed out.

6 minutes ago, Farmer said:

Well here is the acid test. Please name the ruckman we could gave recruited in late 2016 who would have become ruckman number 2, and thus making Spencer number 3. Likely to play no games in the ones

I do agree that a forward pocket / ruck would gave been useful. Wasn't that Frost? Or Pedersen?

Minson, Hannath, Cameron, Petrie for a start.

Spencer is not a protected species, Minson creamed him in the VFL GF....he has been handed the number 2 slot with no competition.

My original post was about more than our current ruck problem. It's a list balance problem I believe.

Apart from Max and Spence (and the 2 kids) we have no tall (in current football terms) KPP's...we have Watts at 196cm and the rest 193cm to 195cm...

Despite 'titans' protestations, other clubs have coverage and can throw their KPP's into the ruck if need be. Boyd at the dogs, Roughead at the dogs, Daniher at EFC...the list goes on. They have 200cm KPP's who can give a chop out or take the role if need be.

..by the way Goody is looking for a left field solution but is hamstrung by the lack of height at the club. Pedersen at 193/194 will get absolutely flogged if we bring him in as our number 1 man.

4 minutes ago, Farmer said:

Which "ready made ruck"? Prepared to be number 3. Forget the possibility he would have supplanted Spencer. Gawn kept raving about Spencer, regarded him as a great knock ruckman

Forget what Max says, I'm not sure he raved but was backing up a teammate as you would expect. There were better options out there, some named above who would have walked into the number 2 slot.

How did the great knock ruckman go against Freo, battled and he was struggling before injury on Monday night.

Given our list overall, we went into this season light on in the ruck division.

If you can't see that....

1 hour ago, monoccular said:

Spencer was an excellent choice as backup ruckman but how foolish of our list managers not to foresee (i) Max stricken  down with a new injury and (ii) Jake, who performed very well against a freak in his comeback game, would also get a new injury!

Will someone please give them a crystal ball!

Shocking run or really bad luck.  

But for this cruel run of injury the mystery mature ready to roll ruckman alluded to by some here would have been bored to tears at Casey and have blocked King and Flipper's development 

 

Mono no crystal ball needed here. The thread is about list management, my translation is contingency planning; planning for the worst, while hoping for the best, of course. We went into the season with two experienced ruckman, both of whom have had injuries over the years. The backup was Mitch King who would not be ready till mid season at best following his knee reco. The question was asked of the club As I remember it about bringing in an experienced ruck journeyman thru the trade period but Josh Mahoney replied we would go thru the draft for a ruck. It turned out to be Filipovic, a skinny kid, miles away from AFL.

So here we are with 2 injured rucks, one young ruck still in rehab, an 18 year old playing in the development league and no other player on the list at 200 cm who can at least compete physically. 

For heavens sake this is the MFC, always expect the worst, at least I have since 1994 and been proven right most years. As I pointed out in an earlier post the Hawks, who traditionally don't get many injuries, have 6 ruck options on their list! They have kept Fitzy going around with no intention of playing him, he is just insurance, while brining in Vickery. These players don't claim to be ruckman but they are 200 cm plus bodies who can play that role. 

Again I say unacceptably poor list management by MFC for 2017 and it is going to cost us finals. And can I also add that playing finals this year would have been an important stepping stone and experience for our team to push toward a flag