Not sure whether it's been discussed but could Mitch King become our Forward/Ruck??

I see he is listed as 4kg's heavier than Joe Daniher at the same height. 

Obviously he would need more time to develop but perhaps he could be a project player for early to mid next year as a forward?

8 minutes ago, rjay said:

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

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

I'm just querying the argument that it was obvious, before the season, that we didn't have sufficient ruck depth on our list.

Some clubs have more ruckmen than us. Probably more clubs have more rather than fewer. But some seem to have a similar number to us, and some fewer. So I'm just not convinced that it was so obvious, before the season, that we should have had an extra ruckman on our list. It's not, for example, as if we are an outlier in terms of numbers.

I certainly think there are arguments for and against it but I don't think it was this obvious, glaring error as some are suggesting.

Maybe the question ought to be whether our list is, generally, too short? That our talls/key position players are shorter than other clubs'? So that the problem maybe isn't a lack of ruckmen on the list but, instead, the problem is that players like Weideman, Pedersen and Smith, who nominally appear to be KPFs, are too short and therefore we find ourselves in this position where we can't rely on them to fill the ruck void? But that's a different question and debate to the argument that we should have listed another ruckman like Petrie.

Long story short.

FD rolled the dice

5 & 2

On 25/04/2017 at 8:30 AM, rjay said:

What also hasn't helped us is we don't have any tall key position players who could go into the ruck and give a contest.

Watts has battled manfully and many have called for Pedders to come and or Frost to take over. Watts 196cm, Pedders 193cm, Frost 194cm, Weid 195cm, Hogan 195cm, Tommy Mc 194cm....

 

 

30 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Maybe the question ought to be whether our list is, generally, too short? That our talls/key position players are shorter than other clubs'? So that the problem maybe isn't a lack of ruckmen on the list but, instead, the problem is that players like Weideman, Pedersen and Smith, who nominally appear to be KPFs, are too short and therefore we find ourselves in this position where we can't rely on them to fill the ruck void? But that's a different question and debate to the argument that we should have listed another ruckman like Petrie.

This is the point I made in the original post.

It's the overall composition of our list that's a problem...

All the talk of not using Watts as a relief ruck following last season by Mahoney and co came to nothing after the draft trade period when it was obvious that that is exactly what he was going to be doing again this year.

We drafted/traded mid size flankers and a development ruck kid.

5 hours ago, Skuit said:

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.

You can only draft so many players each year.

Our focus has been building our midfield. I reckon we've done a brilliant job of it. One or two pieces still missing, but ruck/forwards will probably be high on the shopping list this year.

6 minutes ago, A F said:

You can only draft so many players each year.

Our focus has been building our midfield. I reckon we've done a brilliant job of it. One or two pieces still missing, but ruck/forwards will probably be high on the shopping list this year.

Mids, mids, mids was the absolute right call. And we've done superbly in putting together an exciting young midfield (although we're probably still short one or two elite mid talents). But we've also brought in a fair number of small and mid-sized forwards in the past few years - and the latter was said to be the focus of the last draft - and contrary to Roos' often repeated wisdom, we spent big on one of them. When Mitch Clark walked out the door we made no attempt to replace him.

The other way of looking at this is if we get our No.1 and No.2 injured in any position, we're going to struggle. If, for example, Hogan & Watts were injured at the same time, or T-Mac & Frost, then you could say the same thing about the lack of depth of tall forwards or tall defenders.

And you could make a hindsight-based argument that we should have foreseen this and recruited someone good enough to make up for the loss of Hogan and Watts but who was happy to spend the whole year at Casey if Hogan and Watts were not injured.

As someone pointed out, any club loses their No.1 & No.2 ruck, they're going to be struggling for the next alternative. 

And how well did Spencer do against Sandi? About as well as Goldstein did, but without the soft frees.

On 25/04/2017 at 5:02 PM, Pennant St Dee said:

As a rookie yes he costs us nothing . Many Demonlanders said coming in we were light on in the ruck department. We always believed it could be a possibility that if Gawn went down we could be in some trouble.

 I have spoken to people in the FD at meth Coast and can tell you if the 3rd man up rule had been done earlier they would have traded and drafted a little differently 

In what way do you think WCE might have recruited differently?

It is certainly a rule that has restricted the flexibilty of a list and of weekly team selections. 

WCE experience and our current predicament puts a strong case for the AFL to announce rule changes before the trade/draft period. 

Edited April 26, 20178 yr by Lucifer's Hero

As a club we have always struggle when it comes to managing ruckmen.

1. We had White and Jolly and let Jolly walk. This hurt us in 2008-2009 when our only viable option was Jamar.

2. We were forced into recruiting slow fringe players (Johnson) to compliment our rucks. 

3. We traded Martin -- who had game day experience -- because we thought Jamar, Gawn and Spencer (the last two with no experience at the time) would suffice.

4. We dump Jamar. Martin flourishes elsewhere.

5. Gawn flourishes but goes down. As too does Spencer. 

Whereas other clubs have managed their ruck stocks and found a way to include 2 on game day, we played Russian roulette by playing a single ruckman. 

There wouldn't be a single Melbourne supporter that didn't once think, "Gee I hope Gawn doesn't go down."

I find it funny that the club is now saying they need to get creative with the ruck. Did they not see this or plan for it? 

I do think we made a LM error not recruiting a 200cm fwd-ruck, but I don't think it's fatal and I think it only applies this year.  We've had bad luck that both Max and Jake have been injured at the same time for lengthy periods and as someone pointed out - at the start of the year before say Mitch King could build some game-time, match fitness and momentum in the VFL.

This time next year Mitch King (barring further interruptions) will have a full VFL year as first ruck and a full pre-season so he should be ready to play AFL if required.  Lochie Filipovic will be more advanced than where King is now because he will have had similar.  And Weed will have another year of physical development and should be ready to do some relief rucking.

This could easily turn into a knee-jerk LM issue - with Max and Jake (or a mature replacement if Jake leaves as UFA) we should be fine next year.

9 minutes ago, praha said:

As a club we have always struggle when it comes to managing ruckmen.

1. We had White and Jolly and let Jolly walk. This hurt us in 2008-2009 when our only viable option was Jamar.

2. We were forced into recruiting slow fringe players (Johnson) to compliment our rucks. 

3. We traded Martin -- who had game day experience -- because we thought Jamar, Gawn and Spencer (the last two with no experience at the time) would suffice.

4. We dump Jamar. Martin flourishes elsewhere.

5. Gawn flourishes but goes down. As too does Spencer. 

Whereas other clubs have managed their ruck stocks and found a way to include 2 on game day, we played Russian roulette by playing a single ruckman. 

There wouldn't be a single Melbourne supporter that didn't once think, "Gee I hope Gawn doesn't go down."

I find it funny that the club is now saying they need to get creative with the ruck. Did they not see this or plan for it? 

I think there's a fair bit of revisionism going on here:

1. The club didn't "let Jolly walk" - I'm lead to believe it was filthy about it at the time, but felt it had little choice once the player said "I'm outta here". What are you meant to do in that situation? You can't hold the player prisoner.

2. Martin was a conundrum. He was capable as a first ruck, but we didn't need a first ruck and he was hopeless as a forward, a position we did need filled. In addition to the personal issue at the club he faced, he wasn't going to stick around waiting for Jamar to get injured (Spencer is the only player I've ever known to spend a whole career waiting). If Martin had been on the list last year he'd have played every game in the VFL. Do you think a player with AFL aspirations would have settled with that?

It's easy to say too few rucks = poor management, but in reality it's the most complex position to manage, because you only ever need one ruck specialist in your side at once. Good rucks forced to wait in the seconds are eventually going to tire of waiting and leave. 

19 minutes ago, Nasher said:

I think there's a fair bit of revisionism going on here:

1. The club didn't "let Jolly walk" - I'm lead to believe it was filthy about it at the time, but felt it had little choice once the player said "I'm outta here". What are you meant to do in that situation? You can't hold the player prisoner.

2. Martin was a conundrum. He was capable as a first ruck, but we didn't need a first ruck and he was hopeless as a forward, a position we did need filled. In addition to the personal issue at the club he faced, he wasn't going to stick around waiting for Jamar to get injured (Spencer is the only player I've ever known to spend a whole career waiting). If Martin had been on the list last year he'd have played every game in the VFL. Do you think a player with AFL aspirations would have settled with that?

It's easy to say too few rucks = poor management, but in reality it's the most complex position to manage, because you only ever need one ruck specialist in your side at once. Good rucks forced to wait in the seconds are eventually going to tire of waiting and leave. 

100% true and correct. I might add that Neeld was a major contributor to him leaving.

2 hours ago, Nasher said:

I think there's a fair bit of revisionism going on here:

1. The club didn't "let Jolly walk" - I'm lead to believe it was filthy about it at the time, but felt it had little choice once the player said "I'm outta here". What are you meant to do in that situation? You can't hold the player prisoner.

2. Martin was a conundrum. He was capable as a first ruck, but we didn't need a first ruck and he was hopeless as a forward, a position we did need filled. In addition to the personal issue at the club he faced, he wasn't going to stick around waiting for Jamar to get injured (Spencer is the only player I've ever known to spend a whole career waiting). If Martin had been on the list last year he'd have played every game in the VFL. Do you think a player with AFL aspirations would have settled with that?

It's easy to say too few rucks = poor management, but in reality it's the most complex position to manage, because you only ever need one ruck specialist in your side at once. Good rucks forced to wait in the seconds are eventually going to tire of waiting and leave. 

Of course there is revisionism Nash it is Demonland.

I am truly sorry we never ever got Hannath and Robbie Warnock, two mistakes right there that were benoaned at the time on here, absolutely tearing it up at AFL level

We had Gawn, Spencer, Mitch King (will be a player when fit) Filipovic (project) and backups in Pedersen, Watts and Frost who are all capable of pinch hitting,and Keilty who can be developed into Ruck/Fwd option

But only 1 can play

We have been unlucky (Gawn, Spencer, Garland, VDB,  Tim Smith) and stupid (Vince, Lewis and Hogan)

Change any of the above and the results may have changed

Most of calls for another ruck came from the perception that Spencer was incapable of filling in for Gawn if something untoward happened

He proved he was capable until he deliberately got himself injured

I think the issue with the Ruck stocks is there's now NO immediate fillip ( npi ) 

If it had been staged so that another lad was able to step up, if ill-experienced but at least capable at AFL level then this discussion would be moot.  But theres a gap...a big one ( again npi )

Thats the problem

9 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

I think the issue with the Ruck stocks is there's now NO immediate fillip ( npi ) 

If it had been staged so that another lad was able to step up, if ill-experienced but at least capable at AFL level then this discussion would be moot.  But theres a gap...a big one ( again npi )

Thats the problem

Option 3 went down with a season ended knee injury first game last year and has now completed one game at Casey bb.

Timing is a [censored] two more weeks and he might have been an option but not on Sunday

3 hours ago, Nasher said:

 

It's easy to say too few rucks = poor management, but in reality it's the most complex position to manage, because you only ever need one ruck specialist in your side at once. Good rucks forced to wait in the seconds are eventually going to tire of waiting and leave. 

I have followed the career of Daniel Currie very closely because i know him well.

He was number 2 ruck to Goldstein at North for a number of years and was simply dominating at VFL level but unable to get a game due to being behing Goldstein who was All Australian at the time. North offered him another contract but he sought opportunities elsewhere. He told his manager not to bother speaking to Melbourne because they had Gawn.

He ended up going to the Gold Coast and cementing the number 1 ruck position last year only to break his hand 3 times in a row each in different spots each in different freak accidents and all requiring surgery. Gold Coast have now recruited Witts and he is back to 2nd ruck.

It can be a cruel game.

You simply can't recruit mature age AFL or borderline AFL quality ruckman if you have a dominant ruckmen. They want to make their own luck elsewhere.

 

10 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

I have followed the career of Daniel Currie very closely because i know him well.

He was number 2 ruck to Goldstein at North for a number of years and was simply dominating at VFL level but unable to get a game due to being behing Goldstein who was All Australian at the time. North offered him another contract but he sought opportunities elsewhere. He told his manager not to bother speaking to Melbourne because they had Gawn.

He ended up going to the Gold Coast and cementing the number 1 ruck position last year only to break his hand 3 times in a row each in different spots each in different freak accidents and all requiring surgery. Gold Coast have now recruited Witts and he is back to 2nd ruck.

It can be a cruel game.

You simply can't recruit mature age AFL or borderline AFL quality ruckman if you have a dominant ruckmen. They want to make their own luck elsewhere.

 

Thanks for the insight - just proved what I was saying. 

Spencer is a rare case. I know the cynics on here will say it's because he's no good, but he never seems to have even considered testing the waters out there. As I said in another thread it's an unusual case of the club and player sticking together for a very long time.

2 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

Most of calls for another ruck came from the perception that Spencer was incapable of filling in for Gawn if something untoward happened

I'm not going to do the numbers, but a lot of the calls were based around us going into the season with 2 fit AFL ready ruckmen which is not good planning.

If King wasn't coming off the knee it would look a bit different, but he is.

2 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

backups in Pedersen, Watts and Frost who are all capable of pinch hitting,and Keilty who can be developed into Ruck/Fwd option

...and only capable of pinch hitting, nothing more.

We don't have a real option if our only ruckman goes down during the game...and by the way that is in no means a knock on Watts, he's really stood up.

This is a problem with our list.

3 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

Of course there is revisionism Nash it is Demonland.

I am truly sorry we never ever got Hannath and Robbie Warnock, two mistakes right there that were benoaned at the time on here, absolutely tearing it up at AFL level

We had Gawn, Spencer, Mitch King (will be a player when fit) Filipovic (project) and backups in Pedersen, Watts and Frost who are all capable of pinch hitting,and Keilty who can be developed into Ruck/Fwd option

But only 1 can play

We have been unlucky (Gawn, Spencer, Garland, VDB,  Tim Smith) and stupid (Vince, Lewis and Hogan)

Change any of the above and the results may have changed

Most of calls for another ruck came from the perception that Spencer was incapable of filling in for Gawn if something untoward happened

He proved he was capable until he deliberately got himself injured

That is a dilemma for all teams, especially given the three up rule and the construction of the bench. 

It had been suggested at least by some here that both Max and Spence play in the earlier games.    It can never be known, but I guess one could speculate that were they both there would either or both have suffered these particular injuries.  Was Max "overtired" when he did him hamstring?  Was Spence "fatigued" when he did his shoulder?  One can and will never know. 

Bring back Mitch!

Obviously we should have added another ruckman in hindsight, but I hope there is not a knee jerk over-reaction to this by the club. Carrying a decent quality second or third string ruckman on the list reduces the salary cap space we have available to spend elsewhere. And I feel Watts does an excellent job in the relief ruck role and gives us extra mobility as a team.

One other thing to point out in this debate is that the third man up ban rule was changed after the lists were finalised. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-12-21/third-man-up-gets-the-chop-in-radical-rule-change The current predicament would be less of an issue for us now without the rule change. Perhaps the decision would have been different if they had known this when the list management decisions were being made.

 

So presume our best spine is Frost, Tom Mc, Gawn, Hogan, Watts. How have we assembled the depth talls:

We needed young talls for the future so we have drafted Oscar, Hulett and Weeds.

Because that depth is so young we've kept Pedersen because the reality is we needed a key forward good enough to play if one of ours went down and the youngsters didn't perform. He'll likely play as the tall forward this week.

We've kept Garland because we had to after signing him for 3 years. If we didn't have him we might have a taller experienced depth defender.

We've kept Spencer because he's the best available back up we've got.

But because Spencer isn't much chop and to avoid having to trade a good pick for a guy who won't play each week we've added Mitch King and Flippers - both of these guys recruited to become back ups in a few years then maybe starters. Unfortunately Max King didn't make it as even a back up so they pulled the pin.

We added Tim Smith because we thought he could play as 3rd tall and push the best 22 and be valuable depth in the short term. With a very late rookie spot we added Keilty because he has versatility and to add another tall prospect.

Pretty much we kept Spencer and Pedersen and added young tall rucks and Keilty because we are still trying to develop the list for future success compared to adding back ups for now. Then Tim Smith because he could complement the current players.

In an ideal world we'd have a 3rd ruck like a Shaun McKernan instead of Pedersen or one of Flippers/Mitch King. But also in an ideal world we'd have Weeds and Mitch King ready to play as back ups right now so there wouldn't be a need for a McKernan/Pedersen type at all. We've been punished for trying to fit back ups and kids on the same list, a very difficult juggling act that reflects where we are - no longer rebuilding but far from full development.

I full understand the club taking the risk because we need as much talent on the list as possible because we are still trying to find youngsters who are up to the grade. That's why we've seen Hannan and Joel Smith in round 1. There's still plenty of sorting through running players, yet alone the talls.

Unfortunately there's a pretty obvious answer as to where we could've had an extra list spot that isn't getting used and could've seen a ready made 3rd ruck added to the list and that's Lumumba's spot.

 

20 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

 

Unfortunately there's a pretty obvious answer as to where we could've had an extra list spot that isn't getting used and could've seen a ready made 3rd ruck added to the list and that's Lumumba's spot.

 

And unless someone knows something about it, it appears we accepted the AFL ruling without complaint, or argument.

Also if we had bigger key forwards, like Daniher, Boyd, Patton, Hawkins etc, they could ruck a bit, but ours aren't, so that exacerbates our current problem.

 

Edited April 27, 20178 yr by Redleg

You can't replace your best players. 

We are arguing over a D grade replacement ruckman or repurposed more useful players. 

Minson et al might not even be selected above a McDonald/Watts or Pedersen/Watts tandem.

Frankly, it would be bad list management to have three pure, developed rucks on the list. 

The real problem is what we have all decried for a few years now - the lack of an adequate back up ruck that can play forward.

Watts is doing it but we really don't want him doing that.

Edited April 28, 20178 yr by rpfc

2 hours ago, rpfc said:

You can't replace your best players. 

We are arguing over a D grade replacement ruckman or repurposed more useful players. 

Minson et al might not even be selected above a McDonald/Watts or Pedersen/Watts tandem.

Frankly, it would be bad list management to have three pure, developed ticks on the list. 

The real problem is what we have all decried for a few years now - the lack of an adequate back up ruck that can play forward.

Watts is doing it but we really don't want him doing that.

Watts is not "an adequate back up ruck who can play forward" but rather a very creative forward who can play back up ruck (surprisingly effectively).  But the Geelong, the Freo and the Richmond games have shown us just how much we need him up forward, and what a gaping hole he leaves there when required to do any other than brief relief ruck work.