One of our problems stems from Lumumba's intransigence at the end of last season. Had we been able to sort out his departure in good time then we might have also been able to pick up an extra player in the drafts to fit our needs such as tall KPP who could also ruck. This would have been handy in light of injuries to Gawn/Spencer/Hogan.

Stupid thread is stupid.

You'd be singing a different tune if he didn't get hurt in the Tigers game.

Bit like the back up kickers and punters in NFL not to mention the quarter backs.

Imagine spending your life as the ball holder for the kicker/punter.

At least Spencer gets a game for Casey.

Will be interesting to see how the position evolves. Frankly I would prefer to have 4 back up forwards/backmen on my list than 4 back up ruckmen. List management does not justify the devotion of 10% of your list to one position. If you have a great ruckman... sure it makes a difference but on balance does it matter. I cannot remember Jamar giving us much of an advantage in his later years.

They could bring back the third man up on the basis that it helps ease congestion. If that happened the ruck position would almost certainly disappear over time.

 

One thing the season highlights is that there is no point having a back up ruckman that is injury prone and therefore is unable to complete the role he has on our list. I have no doubt we will be out there looking to recruit another back up ruckman come this years draft. Spencer might get another shot this year and will need to be very good in those games

10 minutes ago, Demons1858 said:

One thing the season highlights is that there is no point having a back up ruckman that is injury prone and therefore is unable to complete the role he has on our list. I have no doubt we will be out there looking to recruit another back up ruckman come this years draft. Spencer might get another shot this year and will need to be very good in those games

Injury prone? His time to shine came, bloody unfortunate but he got injured, doesn't shout injury prone to me.

Spencil didn't knock the door down with his performance at Casey.

We play a team without a big ruck option, that often even pinch hit in ruck contests with midfielders

We won with the current setup last week

The urgency to select Jake was low. 

Against the Swans I expect Max or Spencil to be in.  In that order of preference.

1 hour ago, Cards13 said:

Injury prone? His time to shine came, bloody unfortunate but he got injured, doesn't shout injury prone to me.

Yes, you read that correctly but don't take my word for it. 

Josh Mahoney said in 2016 ... "He's had a frustrating run with injuries, but we think having Jake as part of our ruck division is important for the club, given his age and experience." Mahoney said.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-05-12/melbourne-resigns-back-up-ruckman-jake-spencer-for-another-season

Dave Misson said in 2014 ... “He had a further scan and review with a surgeon last week, who said that the crack in his ankle had actually increased, so he’ll actually have to get that surgically repaired and [he] will miss the rest of the season unfortunately."

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2014-06-17/spencer-out-for-season-hogan-progressing

He's had plenty of other injuries also not least of which is a knee reco in 2011.

I can go on ...

Edited June 17, 20178 yr by Demons1858

22 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

I think it's simply down to one thing - we have played good footy without a recognised ruckman, and unless we have a very talented player returning (Gawn) then I don't think the FD see any reason to change it. 

I've said in other threads that Spencer doesn't necessarily improve us as a side, and although it may straighten us up a little I don't think it improves our chances of winning.  The players are used to not have one at the minute and with the Doggies only going in with a part time ruckman as well (Roughead) there is no real need to play someone like Spencer.

Exactly. We ended up doing really well in the clearances against the Pies and they have an excellent ruckman and a very good midfield.

So why change it up against the Bulldogs at Etihad, especially considering we need to be quicker around the ground and they will not have a ruckman anywhere near as good as Grundy.

 

We will get away without rucks against some teams...others will tear us open. Foolhardy to carry the gambit on any longer than required.

8 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

We will get away without rucks against some teams...others will tear us open. Foolhardy to carry the gambit on any longer than required.

I don't disagree. It's exactly what happened in the first half against the Pies, and it was ugly.

But I think this game is one in which not having a recognised ruckman won't be such an issue, particularly if it gives us more mobility/variety/run around the ground.

10 minutes ago, Ron Burgundy said:

I don't disagree. It's exactly what happened in the first half against the Pies, and it was ugly.

But I think this game is one in which not having a recognised ruckman won't be such an issue, particularly if it gives us more mobility/variety/run around the ground.

This (puppies ) may be the last of those 'getaway " games for a while me thinks

4 hours ago, beelzebub said:

This (puppies ) may be the last of those 'getaway " games for a while me thinks

True but Max will be back the following week and they will overlook Spencer altogether

2 hours ago, Demons1858 said:

True but Max will be back the following week and they will overlook Spencer altogether

Perhaps, there is word that the selection committee want to hold him back until the Swans at the G. In which case Spencer could be a very good chance against the Eagles. 

10 minutes ago, Pates said:

Perhaps, there is word that the selection committee want to hold him back until the Swans at the G. In which case Spencer could be a very good chance against the Eagles. 

I would be happy with this arrangement. We need Tmac in defence vs. the Eagles and can save Max from thrombosis in a cramped seat across the Nullarbor. 

(Just noticed your favourite-players listings Pates. You should add Bont and Dahlhaus for this week).

4 hours ago, Skuit said:

(Just noticed your favourite-players listings Pates. You should add Bont and Dahlhaus for this week).

Haha Juice Newton was the first player I put in my favourites, then Trengove and Scully. That didn't turn out very well did it!

I am a fan of Bont actually! 

On 6/16/2017 at 8:02 PM, chook fowler said:

Spence just doesn't do enough around the ground. That doesn't cut it in modern day footy.

And there you have it.

On ‎17‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 2:41 AM, DominatrixTyson said:

...Spencer was reckless in getting injured. Did not need to be diving with his shoulder into the oncoming Richmond player.  We didnt need TWO ruckmen acting like midfielders.

With all due respect, I think that's pretty harsh on Spencer.  Goodwin's philosophy is to bring high pressure all over the ground, and in order to do your job (whether forward line or ruck) you need to be executing to stay in the team. 

You can't really pick and choose when you contest the ball and then say in the team review on Monday that you didn't go in hard at the contest because you're the ruckman.  That would be as good as asking to be dropped straight back to the 2s.  Spencer might have been a bit reckless in his approach to that contest, however you can't criticise the guy for doing the team thing, impacting the contest and trying to win the ball.  If there were 10 seconds left in the game and it was a game saving contest we'd be praising him for being so selfless...

Yes he's had a lot of injuries over the year (much like any young ruckman whose body is developing) however his form last year at Casey was great and in my opinion he has a role to play on our list.