It's a pretty good case to make.  With the development of mobile rucks like Nic Nat, Matin, Grundy and Ryder along with giants like Sandilands and Gawn there are some very good players running around. 

Not sure it's a golden age but switching to 1 ruckman and banning the 3rd man up has helped the good rucks.

The good rucks now play 80% game time and don't have to deal with a 3rd player jumping all over them. 

And without teams carrying a 2nd ruck in the side we've seen an even distribution of the best players. Along time ago now but Stef Martin went to Brisbane. Witts to the Gold Coast. Port got Ryder and Bellchambers grew in to his spot. Nankervis to Richmond. 

Players moving for opportunity will spread the talent evenly so the position has depth across the clubs and then there's always the top quality guys and the in form guys and the trade off is they get to play head to head against the out of form guys

Late 70's had (off the top of my head) Mike Fitzpatrick, Peter Moore, Simon Madden, Ron Alexander, Ian Hampshire, Rod Blake, Don Scott, Gary Baker, Gary Dempsey, Mark Lee, Barry Round. Not all superstars but some big names and plenty of quality.

Pure Ruckmen are finished. 

Ruckmen/ Forwards that can go forward and kick goals have been saved by the 3rd man up rule. Reduces injuries. 

However, think it’s only a matter of time before teams start playing 2 x Sean Griggs type players and concede the tap in the centre square. 

  On 09/04/2018 at 13:06, DaveyDee said:

Pure Ruckmen are finished. 

Ruckmen/ Forwards that can go forward and kick goals have been saved by the 3rd man up rule. Reduces injuries. 

However, think it’s only a matter of time before teams start playing 2 x Sean Griggs type players and concede the tap in the centre square. 

You think? Big men don't get smaller as the game goes on. It's no co-incidence that whenever Gawn has been resting or injured other sides get their run on. Sure you can win without a gun ruck, but only a fool wouldn't want one.

There's only 1 ruckman and that's GAWN BABY

Judd is on drugs saying Grundy is better than him and Kruezer is in the top 5.

  On 09/04/2018 at 12:56, Mazer Rackham said:

Late 70's had (off the top of my head) Mike Fitzpatrick, Peter Moore, Simon Madden, Ron Alexander, Ian Hampshire, Rod Blake, Don Scott, Gary Baker, Gary Dempsey, Mark Lee, Barry Round. Not all superstars but some big names and plenty of quality.

Correct. And I remember the likes of Nicholls who influenced the result of so many games.

  On 09/04/2018 at 13:31, Uncle Fester said:

You think? Big men don't get smaller as the game goes on. It's no co-incidence that whenever Gawn has been resting or injured other sides get their run on. Sure you can win without a gun ruck, but only a fool wouldn't want one.

Yeah yeah we heard all these arguments  .. when Hawks won 3 flags without a reckonised Ruckman, Bulldogs & Tigers did the same. Proved you wrong. 

Most AFL coaches don’t rate ruckmen - too slow,  too injury prone not reliable when you most need them. 

The game is evolving - only a fool would not recognise that.  

“Big men” ie Ruck/forwards that can go forward and kick goals and impact the scoreboard - still have a place in the game. 

 

  On 09/04/2018 at 21:38, Demonland said:

 

They may both be right 

1/ Maxy - ability to impact the scoreboard 

1/ Nic Nat - ability around the ground to impact the contest 

I would rate Maxy as a ruck/forward and Nic Nat as a ruck/mid-field ulility. 

  On 09/04/2018 at 19:55, DaveyDee said:

Yeah yeah we heard all these arguments  .. when Hawks won 3 flags without a reckonised Ruckman, Bulldogs & Tigers did the same. Proved you wrong. 

Most AFL coaches don’t rate ruckmen - too slow,  too injury prone not reliable when you most need them. 

The game is evolving - only a fool would not recognise that.  

“Big men” ie Ruck/forwards that can go forward and kick goals and impact the scoreboard - still have a place in the game. 

I think you missed this bit, Doc

'Sure you can win without a gun ruck, but only a fool wouldn't want one.'

 

  On 09/04/2018 at 22:46, Uncle Fester said:

I think you missed this bit, Doc

'Sure you can win without a gun ruck, but only a fool wouldn't want one.'

 

No I did not mis it - it is irrelevant in the debate. 

Sorry, I can’t accurately predict where the game will evolve to neither can you. At best guess it’s only a opinion.  

Todays fool could be tomorrow’s genius. 

  On 09/04/2018 at 23:21, DaveyDee said:

Todays fool could be tomorrow’s genius. 

Then I expect you to become a genius tomorrow, Doc.

  On 09/04/2018 at 21:38, Demonland said:

 

With all the hype about Nic Nat and his and how the "game changing" abilities it may be worth noting how many coaches votes he got on the weekend. 10 like Max? Perhaps 5? Surely a couple at least? Nope, the commentator favourite got 0. The bloke is the definition of over rated. 

I have to say up front that I've always been a ruckman advocate while others including some significant ex players have strong views that they are a waste of time.  I've always believed that you have to at least have a competitive ruckman even if they are a lot weaker than their opponent but no ruckman at all is a massive disadvantage.

However, our run last year when Gawny was injured and we had no real ruckman and were being thrashed in hitouts but winning clearances made me sit back and think a lot harder about ruckmen's influence. I had time to kill today while waiting for the better half and pulled out the following stats on the last round's hitouts and clearances for the 6 games that had well known ruckmen.

What they tell me and what I learnt from our ruckmenless run last year is that winning hitouts is not as significant as I thought. Of course clearances are the key to stoppages but as it turns out dominance in hitouts don't often lead to dominance in clearances. Have a look. Of course all stat's are only as good as their interpretation. You might have a great ruckman but a crap midfield or visa versa or the opposition might have one of those combinations, so the stat's alone don't provide the whole picture but they're still interesting.

At the moment we're not so great on converting Max's hitout dominance into clearances. He had more than double the hitouts but we broke even on clearances.  Interestingly Eagles had almost the same amount of hitouts as us and very similar amount of clearances and even more interestingly their ratio of doubling the opposition hitouts but only matching clearances was virtually the same.  So it tells me our much vaunted midfield is not firing yet. Stef Martin's hitout dominance resulted in a higher percentage of clearances but surprisingly Port had 50% more clearances than hitouts. Funnily enough Hawks and Tigers and Freo and Suns had almost exactly the same clearances as hitouts. Suggesting every hitout resulted in a clearance. It wouldn't have probably been like that but interesting. 

Ruck Hitouts v Clearances Rd 3 2018

Melb v Nth 

52-24 Hitouts

37-36 Clearances

Lions v Port

55-22 Hitouts

41-33 Clearances

Eagles v Cats

56-27 Hitouts 

40-39 Clearances 

Hawks v Tigers 

42-30 Hitouts

39-30 Clearances 

Freo v Suns

38 - 29 Hitouts

37-29   Clearances

Hit outs are a terrible stat. I can't imagine clubs use it. 

Hit out to advantage differential seems more likely. And that would be for each potential ruck pair and for centre, throw in and ball up stoppages. 

I think intercept marks and marks from kick ins are also two important stats. 

Is there a way to measure body position/block once the ruck contest is over? That is more important than the hitout too.

  On 10/04/2018 at 08:30, It's Time said:

I have to say up front that I've always been a ruckman advocate while others including some significant ex players have strong views that they are a waste of time.  I've always believed that you have to at least have a competitive ruckman even if they are a lot weaker than their opponent but no ruckman at all is a massive disadvantage.

However, our run last year when Gawny was injured and we had no real ruckman and were being thrashed in hitouts but winning clearances made me sit back and think a lot harder about ruckmen's influence. I had time to kill today while waiting for the better half and pulled out the following stats on the last round's hitouts and clearances for the 6 games that had well known ruckmen.

What they tell me and what I learnt from our ruckmenless run last year is that winning hitouts is not as significant as I thought. Of course clearances are the key to stoppages but as it turns out dominance in hitouts don't often lead to dominance in clearances. Have a look. Of course all stat's are only as good as their interpretation. You might have a great ruckman but a crap midfield or visa versa or the opposition might have one of those combinations, so the stat's alone don't provide the whole picture but they're still interesting.

At the moment we're not so great on converting Max's hitout dominance into clearances. He had more than double the hitouts but we broke even on clearances.  Interestingly Eagles had almost the same amount of hitouts as us and very similar amount of clearances and even more interestingly their ratio of doubling the opposition hitouts but only matching clearances was virtually the same.  So it tells me our much vaunted midfield is not firing yet. Stef Martin's hitout dominance resulted in a higher percentage of clearances but surprisingly Port had 50% more clearances than hitouts. Funnily enough Hawks and Tigers and Freo and Suns had almost exactly the same clearances as hitouts. Suggesting every hitout resulted in a clearance. It wouldn't have probably been like that but interesting. 

Ruck Hitouts v Clearances Rd 3 2018

Melb v Nth 

52-24 Hitouts

37-36 Clearances

Lions v Port

55-22 Hitouts

41-33 Clearances

Eagles v Cats

56-27 Hitouts 

40-39 Clearances 

Hawks v Tigers 

42-30 Hitouts

39-30 Clearances 

Freo v Suns

38 - 29 Hitouts

37-29   Clearances

Yes, you would be amazed at how many people over value ruckmen - but it does make good click bait. 

The game has evolved and pure ruckmen are dynasours. You need your rucks to have a secondary string to their bow. 

Its why we worked so hard with big Maxy to drop the weight and the cigarettes. Now we can even base set-plays around him in final minutes of the game.

  On 10/04/2018 at 14:27, DaveyDee said:

Yes, you would be amazed at how many people over value ruckmen - but it does make good click bait. 

The game has evolved and pure ruckmen are dynasours. You need your rucks to have a secondary string to their bow. 

Its why we worked so hard with big Maxy to drop the weight and the cigarettes. Now we can even base set-plays around him in final minutes of the game.

Your contrarian stance is hauntingly familiar.

Go on say "no it's not "

  On 10/04/2018 at 20:23, Stretch Johnson said:

Your contrarian stance is hauntingly familiar.

Go on say "no it's not "

On some issues yes I’m sure it is contrarian  - but sometimes ( and I stress the sometimes ) thinking against the pack is not all foolish/ bad - it’s just different. I’m sure as hell it won’t make me popular but that’s life. I don’t read newspapers so not influenced by them my life my descision - some you get right some you get wrong but I’m never going to die wondering - happy to be challenged happy to be wrong. 

  On 10/04/2018 at 20:23, Stretch Johnson said:

Your contrarian stance is hauntingly familiar.

Go on say "no it's not "

I should also add two things - I’m not a/ a politician & b / media “junkie”  - which would make mea contrarian compared to 99% of people in Demonland. 

but I clearly stated my source on AFL pure ruckmen. Clubs dont like to draft ruckmen, they are slow, mainly in the rehab group and need a long time to develop.   

Sorry, I don’t  t rate ruckmen - but each to their own. Ruckmen in today’s game need a second role to be worthwhile- otherwise get rid of them. 

  On 11/04/2018 at 00:52, DaveyDee said:

 

Sorry, I don’t  t rate ruckmen - but each to their own. Ruckmen in today’s game need a second role to be worthwhile- otherwise get rid of them. 

Sure, if you want the game to look less and less like Aussie Rules.

AFL House would love to hire you DD.

  On 10/04/2018 at 14:27, DaveyDee said:

 dynasours. 

Now I know for sure that Dr Who is back

  On 11/04/2018 at 01:01, Petraccattack said:

Sure, if you want the game to look less and less like Aussie Rules.

AFL House would love to hire you DD.

Think you have nailed it - I’m not opposed to change . 

  On 11/04/2018 at 01:28, DaveyDee said:

Think you have nailed it - I’m not opposed to change . 

Well that was obvious when you converted to GWS then back to Melbourne.