I didn't misquote you. I quoted you directly. If you weren't saying that playing in a premiership made him a better player then why did you make the point at all?

I also don't think have the worst ruck combination going around.

blah blah blah

So to summarise I'd say Brisbane, North, West Coast, Sydney, Port and maybe Adelaide have ruck divisions that are undoubtedly stronger than ours. That's six clubs. I don't think we're any worse off than any of the other nine clubs I mentioned. We're certainly not the worst.

Yes, you absolutely did misquoted me and you've done it again in this post.

Misquote one - Show me where I said that playing in a premiership team makes Jolly a better player?

I know you can't produce this piece of evidence because I didn't post it.

Misquote two - I never said that we have the worst ruck combination, I said we have one of the worst, if you can't understand the difference then that's your problem.

So to summarise that's twice you've misquoted me - do you actually want to debate the issue or would you prefer to continue with whatever the little voices in your head are saying?

Essendon: Hille and Laycock together would stack up better than what he have.

I have to disagree on this one. Whilst i like Hille as a ruckman, i dont really see a whole lot in Laycock. I'd be interested actually to know what Ash's opinion is regarding Laycock. I think Paddy Ryder will be a very very good player, but at this stage of his career he still could be anything (KP forward, back, or ruck).

Also... of all this talk of our ruckman and in particular Jamar... not one mention of Paul Johnson? I know he has been playing back recently, but could his strengths equate to him being more effective than Jamar as the #2 ruck? PJ's strengths are Jamar's weaknesses and vice-versa... i'm of the opinion that had PJ not hurt himself in this very same game v Syd last year, he would have kept Jamar out of the side for the majority of '06. Jamar played 22 games without any competition for the 2nd ruck spot, and whilst he did show some very good tap work, his nickname of 'donuts' is well justified.

I guess the question begs to be asked... what is more important to us (ie. will get us closer to a flag) in a number 2 ruckman?

Height, tap and overhead marking ability, with clear deficiencies around the ground (Jamar/Jolly/Seaby/Street/Campbell)?

Or, a natural football brain, good skill sets and ability to hurt the opposition at ground level, with deficiencies overhead and/or in brute power and grunt (P.Johnson/Longmuir/Ryder/Darcy/Fraser)?

I know Darcy and Fraser are #1 rucks, but i think they clearly represent what i mean by lack of grunt. And Darcy took a long long time to learn how to mark! Rembmer early in his career he was useless in overhead and contested marking situations (much in the same way as PJ is now).

Great discussion post so far! The talk of dwelling on past players can be a bit rubbish at times, but when lookin at it relative to our current list, i think it is a good conversation. I dont have much time these days to get on here and post, occasionally just come one here and read, but i think this is a really good topic.

Peace,

Chris

When Jolly was given his 'chance', he'd spend about 80% of the game warming the bench.

The 20% he did played he was awful. Mind you splinters has seen alot of pine at Sydney as well. Hmm that 2 coaches doing that.

He rarely played more than a handfull of games in a row and he certainly wasn't given the chances that Jamar has had after so many ordinary performances.

He would have if he was prepared to stick around. He was not. He wanted out. White is not the player he was pre 2004 and we clearly needed a good back up ruckman.

Jolly was pushed down the pecking order below Jamar and Holland, but I'm prepared to wager that at the end of all their careers only Jolly will have played in a premiership team.

Not true at all. Jolly form led to him being dropped in late 2004 and Jamar came in. Jamar was not much chop. Holland plays forward and not ruck. I dont believe Jolly can do that and has not been in competition with Holland. What is the relevance of the premiership comment?

S. Motlop has one and he was lucky and ordinary. Its a pity the symolism of Jolly's contribution to the flag was not immortalised when the medal should have been presented to Jolly sitting on a pine bench.

The 20% he did played he was awful. Mind you splinters has seen alot of pine at Sydney as well. Hmm that 2 coaches doing that.

If the 20% was so awful then why was a club prepared to give up a first round pick to get him?

Splinters got 34 touches tonight, fair effort for someone that still spends most of their time on the bench

S. Motlop has one and he was lucky and ordinary. Its a pity the symolism of Jolly's contribution to the flag was not immortalised when the medal should have been presented to Jolly sitting on a pine bench.

If you really think that all Jolly has done is to sit on the bench while he's been at Sydney then you need to start watching some games of footy.

He would have if he was prepared to stick around. He was not. He wanted out. White is not the player he was pre 2004 and we clearly needed a good back up ruckman.

Rubbish, which is only my opninion, and as you have absolutey no way of proving your statement then it's just your opinion as well.

There has been questions raised about White since way before 2004.

Not true at all. Jolly form led to him being dropped in late 2004 and Jamar came in. Jamar was not much chop. Holland plays forward and not ruck. I dont believe Jolly can do that and has not been in competition with Holland. ?

Jolly played 7 games in 2004, three at the start of the year, then four towards the end, he was hardly given the opportunity to settle into a position and develop. Whenever White played Jolly always ended up either on the bench having very little game time or in the forward, and as you've pointed out Holland was recruited as a forward so he was obviously in competition with him with seeing game time.

White has successfully seen off three competing ruckman, but were those decisions made for the best of the MFC? I have my doubts.

What is the relevance of the premiership comment?

Last time I checked this competition was about winning premierships, how could that not be relevant?

If the 20% was so awful then why was a club prepared to give up a first round pick to get him?

Given the scarcity of good ruckman in the AFL, the price which is paid for any half decent ruckman comes at a premium. There have been many 1st and 2nd round picks punted on a ruckman. Sydney have been target this period at their stanza. All they had was a 34yo ruckman Ball who had one year left. There was also no other key ruckman on offer

Splinters got 34 touches tonight, fair effort for someone that still spends most of their time on the bench

He has improved off his low base and could have done so at MFC but chose not to. FWIW, Jolly's old role is being capably filled by Peter Everitt

If you really think that all Jolly has done is to sit on the bench while he's been at Sydney then you need to start watching some games of footy.

I did and so had Paul Roos who in Jolly's first two years had spoken often about Jolly's needed development time and inability to run out a game.

Rubbish, which is only my opninion, and as you have absolutey no way of proving your statement then it's just your opinion as well.

No. Jolly went to press in late 2004/early 2005. MFC have publicly stated that Jolly wanted out prior to end of 2004 and rather risk him walking to the PSD in 2005 sought market value for him then.

There has been questions raised about White since way before 2004.

Sure. Name a ruckman where there has not been. In 2004 White was an AA ruckman. What would you have done with him and what Clubs could afford him at given a first round pick got you a developmental ruckman? How much would a Club have to give to get him?

Jolly played 7 games in 2004, three at the start of the year, then four towards the end, he was hardly given the opportunity to settle into a position and develop Whenever White played Jolly always ended up either on the bench having very little game time or in the forward, and as you've pointed out Holland was recruited as a forward so he was obviously in competition with him with seeing game time.

Jolly was injured in Rd 4 in a contest with Darcy. After coming back in Rd 17, he was ordinary with the game time he had. The reason he got so little game time forward is because he aint one. Holland only filled in for an injured Neitz in the final. He did not block Jolly up forward. I note Roos has hardly used Jolly up there especially when he has a Hall (like Neitz) in the square.

White has successfully seen off three competing ruckman, but were those decisions made for the best of the MFC? I have my doubts.

Do you understand why the decisions were made at the point of time they were? There was Jolly, Simmonds and Stynes (?). Stynes was in the sunset of his career. When we traded Simmonds we had Jolly. Now we could not have kept both as both sort a No 1 ruck role.

Last time I checked this competition was about winning premierships, how could that not be relevant?

How is it relevant when comparing White and Jolly?

I would prefer Dean Cox and Dean Brogan.

Yes, you absolutely did misquoted me and you've done it again in this post.

Misquote one - Show me where I said that playing in a premiership team makes Jolly a better player?

I know you can't produce this piece of evidence because I didn't post it.

You didn't, but by throwing in the "but I'm prepared to wager that at the end of all their careers only Jolly will have played in a premiership team", you have implied it. I ask you again, if you weren't meaning that meant he was a better player then what did you mean? I'm just trying to find a meaning to what I thought was a pointless statement. Obviously I'm not alone as Rhino came to the same conclusion.

Misquote two - I never said that we have the worst ruck combination, I said we have one of the worst, if you can't understand the difference then that's your problem.

Worst or "one of the worst", whatever, it's all semantics. Either way I don't believe it is true. I don't believe we have anything close to the worst, and in my eyes "one of the worst" and "close to the worst" mean exactly the same thing.

So to summarise that's twice you've misquoted me - do you actually want to debate the issue or would you prefer to continue with whatever the little voices in your head are saying?

Hostile little bugger aren't we?

No. Jolly went to press in late 2004/early 2005. MFC have publicly stated that Jolly wanted out prior to end of 2004 and rather risk him walking to the PSD in 2005 sought market value for him then.

What has this got to do with your original comment that Jolly would be giving the right amount of game time to develop his game? This is completely irrelevant, Jolly wanted to leave because he wasn't getting game time.

What has this got to do with your original comment that Jolly would be giving the right amount of game time to develop his game? This is completely irrelevant, Jolly wanted to leave because he wasn't getting game time.

Its very relevant because you stated I had no way of proving my position. I just stated what my basis of information was. Answered your question then you apply a different context. Great stuff.

As for the relevance issue, I think it was good sense of you not to follow up the premiership comment explanation.

You didn't,

I'm sorry, I'm confused, I'm sure that you posted this:

I didn't misquote you. I quoted you directly.

So, where is the direct quote? Why are you changing your story now?

It's because you're completely full of shiite and you've been exposed, don't misquote me to try and make your argument look better. You accused me of something that I did not post, now once again, show me where you quoted me directly.

but by throwing in the "but I'm prepared to wager that at the end of all their careers only Jolly will have played in a premiership team", you have implied it. I ask you again, if you weren't meaning that meant he was a better player then what did you mean? I'm just trying to find a meaning to what I thought was a pointless statement. Obviously I'm not alone as Rhino came to the same conclusion.

Perhaps you should read your own posts, you've turned misquoting into an artfrom, you've got plenty of material to work with.

Worst or "one of the worst", whatever, it's all semantics. Either way I don't believe it is true. I don't believe we have anything close to the worst, and in my eyes "one of the worst" and "close to the worst" mean exactly the same thing.

You honestly don't think that there is a difference between the two statements? The fact is that a made a statement and you misquoted me to try and make your argument look stronger, and it's so obvious what you've done that it's hilarious that you're trying to defend yourself.

Hostile little bugger aren't we?

I'm hostile because you've misquoted me and I've exposed you?

I believe our ruck combination is one of the worst for many reasons.

Firstly, White has never been able to cope with the rule changes, he is not the same player he once was. His main weapon was his ability to jump over the opposition, he simply can't do that any more and hence he no longer gives us first use out of the centre like he used to, it just doesn't happen. In the past against teams with the ruck quality that Hawthorn has now, what was nashers description, both slow moving, fumbling giants who provide almost nothing around the ground, we barely broke even, what does that say about us then? (Their two ruckman fumbling giants got a total of 18 touches around the ground, White and Jamar got 11....)

Secondly Jamar is not up to it.

For Melbourne to win a premiership we need to have some things going for us. We don't have the best midfield, nor the best faroward or backline. To give us a chance we have to have a top ruck combination to give us first out of the centre and to help the KPP up forward and down back. We simply don't have that, and while this is what we have to play with we will not win a premiership.

Sydney won a premiership with Jolly because he was what they needed, someone to purely compete in the air, doesn't have to dominate because they have strengths and depth all over the ground, Jolly gave them that. We need much more out of our rucks because we don't have Sydney's strengths.

Its very relevant because you stated I had no way of proving my position. I just stated what my basis of information was. Answered your question then you apply a different context. Great stuff.

As for the relevance issue, I think it was good sense of you not to follow up the premiership comment explanation.

No it's not, it doesn't give any explanation at all and you have no idea of what Daniher's intentions at the time were so don't pretend that you do.

Prior to Jolly making the decision to leave you have absolutely no idea of if Daniher was going to give Jolly enough game time to develop his career.

I did it in my reply to Nasher, no need to repeat myself.

but I'm prepared to wager that at the end of all their careers only Jolly will have played in a premiership team.

How is Jarka saying that Jolly is a better ruckman with this comment?

I interpreted it to be a comment about the team rather than any individual players.

I'm sorry, I'm confused, I'm sure that you posted this:

So, where is the direct quote? Why are you changing your story now?

You're right in that I didn't quote you directly and I have no idea why I said that I did. Perhaps at the time I thought that I had. Brain fade? For that I apologise. However:

It's because you're completely full of shiite and you've been exposed, don't misquote me to try and make your argument look better. You accused me of something that I did not post, now once again, show me where you quoted me directly. Perhaps you should read your own posts, you've turned misquoting into an artfrom, you've got plenty of material to work with.

You're still yet to tell me what on Earth you were on about with the premiership remark, and you keep harping on about the misquote. Misquote or not my response to what you said about Jolly being a premiership was still valid. So for the third time, if you didn't mean that Jolly having a premiership to his name made him a better player, what did you mean?

You honestly don't think that there is a difference between the two statements? The fact is that a made a statement and you misquoted me to try and make your argument look stronger, and it's so obvious what you've done that it's hilarious that you're trying to defend yourself.

I'm hostile because you've misquoted me and I've exposed you?

For the fourth time, if you didn't mean that Jolly having a premiership to his name made him a better player, what did you mean? I'm asking you, I'm not misquoting you. You're trying to avoid answering this question by throwing back the misquote at me.

I believe our ruck combination is one of the worst for many reasons.

Firstly, White has never been able to cope with the rule changes, he is not the same player he once was. His main weapon was his ability to jump over the opposition, he simply can't do that any more and hence he no longer gives us first use out of the centre like he used to, it just doesn't happen. In the past against teams with the ruck quality that Hawthorn has now, what was nashers description, both slow moving, fumbling giants who provide almost nothing around the ground, we barely broke even, what does that say about us then? (Their two ruckman fumbling giants got a total of 18 touches around the ground, White and Jamar got 11....)

Secondly Jamar is not up to it.

Jeff White got 29 hitouts that game. The same as Campbell. Simon Taylor is a Mark Jamar clone so they cancel each other out. Which ruckman would you prefer in your side, Robbie Campbell or Jeff White?

In round 1, Jeff got 13 hitouts to Matthew Clarke's 12 (nobody else got more than a couple). Clarke is obviously a good ruckman and has been for a long time. Jeff was also the leading hitout winner against Geelong.

The "Jeff White struggles with the centre circle" conception is a complete myth. Fact his, he's still, at the very least, breaking even in the ruck contests. He's clearly no match for Sandilands in the ruck contests but who is?

For Melbourne to win a premiership we need to have some things going for us. We don't have the best midfield, nor the best faroward or backline. To give us a chance we have to have a top ruck combination to give us first out of the centre and to help the KPP up forward and down back. We simply don't have that, and while this is what we have to play with we will not win a premiership.

Sydney won a premiership with Jolly because he was what they needed, someone to purely compete in the air, doesn't have to dominate because they have strengths and depth all over the ground, Jolly gave them that. We need much more out of our rucks because we don't have Sydney's strengths.

Improving the ball winning skills of our inside midfielders is much more important than the rucks IMO. It's pretty hard to say where we're at there because our best two insiders in McLean and Jones are out at the moment. I'm willing to bet that if they'd been in the side winning the hard ball as they do, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Against Hawthorn we broke even in the taps but couldn't clear the ball to save ourselves. What does that say?

i do agree that we need more out of our ruckman around the ground. I remember Jeff White at his absolute best though. I still believe that he is capable of delivering what we need, even if he isn't really at the moment. Even so, Jeff White in bad form is still at the very least breaking even in the hitouts.

Jamar is struggling at the moment, but there's only a small handful of second rucks who aren't.

CB, thanks for the comment.

Nasher, thanks for the apology, reading back I could have used different words to make my meaning more clearer.

I apologise for the personal comments, they were compeltely unneccesary and did nothing to add to the debate, seeing Melbourne lost so badly doesn't put me ito a great frame of mind to discuss the issues at hand.

I won't continue with the debate, perhaps later in the week though when I'm not so emotional about the loss.

Have a great rest of the weekend

D

No it's not, it doesn't give any explanation at all and you have no idea of what Daniher's intentions at the time were so don't pretend that you do.

Prior to Jolly making the decision to leave you have absolutely no idea of if Daniher was going to give Jolly enough game time to develop his career.

I did it in my reply to Nasher, no need to repeat myself.

Its not relevant because Jolly wanted out. Daniher was not given the chance to develop it from that point on.

Where did I make the statement that I knew of Daniher's intentions? I did not make one. Tsk tsk.

We haven't had a Nm I Ruck since, since...Strawbs' O'Dwyer. Stynes was, and White is, a follower. Neither strong overhead or physical. We've always been told of course that they were like an extra midfielder, which to a degree they were. However the problem was, and is, that extra midfielder comes at the expense of a contested marking capabilties and grunt.

Jamar can take a contested mark, has a good leap to go with his 198 cms - he does need to improve his possession rate but I like the way he wraps players up in a tackle and the fact that he is in the contest in a contested marking situation unlike White who may as well be sitting in the stands with me.

Neaves is showing good sings for Sandy.

Don't think we'd lose much in 07 with a Jamar/Neaves ruck division.

heard that one of the top players in next years draft is a 205cm+ ruckman...now i hope that we recover this year, but if our fate seems to rest with blooding kids and prearing the list for next year (with a new coach), then we have to hope that next years draft is strong at the top end...

I thought Jamar was absolutely deplorable on Saturday. Paul Johnson looked much more effective in the time he spent in the ruck against Everitt and Jolly, and should probably be persisted with in that #2 role.