Rotations

**Charlie** · 25 January 2004, 04:12 PM

This topic seems to come up semi-regularly these days (not necessarily here, just in football circles). I think you need to put it into perspective somewhat.

The Australian cricket team do it, but they play a game - especially in the VB series - where individual matches aren't that important... as long as you win the series.

Baseball, too, is a sport where each match isn't very crucial. When you're talking about the difference between your best and 2nd best pitcher, in a season with 180 matches... resting them isn't going to hurt your chances that much.

Soccer is another one - it's not going to worry Man U if they blood a youngster instead of playing Ryan Giggs in a match against Portsmouth (I think they're a lowly team, aren't they?). It's one game of 38.

Footy, however, is different, imo. We have just 22 games to get into the finals, and the competition is even enough that you could be just percentage away from missing, or, this year, 12 wins wasn't even enough. Everything is pressure, pressure, pressure all the way through. Missing a key forward, defender or ruckman, or to a lesser extent a midfielder, could be a difference in one match. There's simply no room to put at risk ANY four points, unless you're firmly entrenched at the top of the ladder, like Port towards the end of this year.

**robbieando** · 25 January 2004, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Charlie
Baseball, too, is a sport where each match isn't very crucial. When you're talking about the difference between your best and 2nd best pitcher, in a season with 180 matches... resting them isn't going to hurt your chances that much.

I'll hold you up there Charlie. Sure teams rotate pitchers, but thats because they HAVE to. No pitcher could ever pitch 9 innings, 162 times a year, the burn out rate as it is, sees as many as 3 to 4 pitches on the IL on each level of a teams minor league system.

Each team therefore has 5 starting pitchers in a rotation and the difference between a Yankees, Red Sox, A's and say Tigers, Pirates and Devil Rays is each teams starting rotation. The top sides can afford the best pitchers and each top side has top pitching right though the starting 5. Its all well and good to have a great offence, but as the Yankees have shown the last 3 seasons, great offence doesn't beat top pitching.

Also you have the bullpen, which closes out matches from on average innings 7 onwards and the great teams have unhittable bullpens. Baseball is a great sport to get ones mind into as its more to it than just hit the ball over the fence. Also to say matches don't matter is not true considering there are just 8 playoff spots between 30 teams and more offen than not one or two matches mean the difference between making the playoffs or not. In the AL West the Mariners for each of the past 2 seasons have won 93 matches and still missed the playoffs even though 3 or 4 of the teams that did had less wins than the M's did.

**Charlie** · 26 January 2004, 06:35 AM

Fair enough, Rob... I don't watch the sport that regularly, but I think it highlights, more than anything, that the two sports are very different in this regard.

**Reggi** · 26 January 2004, 08:17 AM

And I think it has got to a similar stage with ruckman - they simply cannot anymore ruck for a whole season

**robbieando** · 26 January 2004, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Reggi
And I think it has got to a similar stage with ruckman - they simply cannot anymore ruck for a whole season

Thats why I believe having 5 ruckman on the list is needed. In any one match we should have 3 ruckman playing (Ball, Doyle and Goodes)

Ball and Doyle really should swap between the bench, the forward line and the ruck duties themselves. Goodes is either in the ruck, ruck rover or on the bench.

**Ajn** · 26 January 2004, 04:05 PM

I think that we need to have a four man ruck set up, with Hall looking after the forward line (which he already does), Ball to look after the centre bounces with Goodes as his relief and Meikeljohn/LRT to be groomed as a CHB to take care of the backline ruck duties.

As many sides have shown it is important to ruck in zones, with a spare ruckman such as Goodes occassionally jumping over the top of the jostling ruckman.

Doyle needs a year off to get his body right for the rigors of AFL football, as he often tries to comeback too soon.

**CureTheSane** · 26 January 2004, 05:58 PM

I don't like Goodes being called a ruckman, even as a 'spare'
He is wasted there IMO.
HE should only ever play there out of desperation.

And we should always have Doyle and Ball playing in the same team when both are fit, unless we've had 24 hours of solid rain on the ground

**robbieando** · 26 January 2004, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by CureTheSane
I don't like Goodes being called a ruckman, even as a 'spare'
He is wasted there IMO.
HE should only ever play there out of desperation.

I take it you would rather him play as a ruck-rover than a ruckman??? Because if you think he should be used as a key position player than thats him being wasted. Goodes has played his best football on the ball and his worst in a key position. Needless to say the talk of him being traded was at its highest when he was a key position forward and all but stopped the second he went back into the ruck.

And we should always have Doyle and Ball playing in the same team when both are fit, unless we've had 24 hours of solid rain on the ground

I can only agree with that, Doyle and Ball in the side will pose the other side more than the normal amount of nightmares. Goodes just adds to the mix.

**CureTheSane** · 26 January 2004, 07:24 PM

To me a ruckman is a key position player.

And no, I don't think he has a position, and won't for a long time.

He should be put where he is going to be most destructive, and I don't believe that is in the ruck.

He's an ok ruckman, but that is because of his athleticism primarily.
I think Ball is MUCH better, and Doyle is on par with Goodes as a ruck AT THE MOMENT.

This year I expect Doyle to come into his own more, and make Goodes look second rate.

Think of Hall.
He is put in the ruck rarely.
And he COULD improve, but we don't want him to, because he'd be wasted there.

Same with Goodes for me.
He was put there in desperation, and did ok, so he got more time there.
He could be trained as a specialist ruckman possibly, but why?

**robbieando** · 26 January 2004, 07:59 PM

I believe Goodes is better use for us on the ball where he can roam around the ground and cause the most damage. No one can match up on him in that role. Put him in a set position and don't allow him to move freely around the ground and we'll lose his ability to move cause the most damage.

**lescygnes** · 27 January 2004, 03:49 PM

speaking of ruckmen, am i the only one here that thinks that results may have been different in the finals last season if Jason Ball wasnt injured?

thoughts?

Cheers
John

**bricon** · 27 January 2004, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by lescygnes
am i the only one here that thinks that results may have been different in the finals last season if Jason Ball wasnt injured?

No, the results would have been the same. Brisbane would have still flogged us in the last quater of that final.

**CureTheSane** · 27 January 2004, 05:39 PM

I think that throwing in a HUGE variable like Ball could have totally changed the game.

Not saying we WOULD have won, but we COULD have

Who knows?

Anyone have a time machine? :lol

**dimelb** · 27 January 2004, 08:00 PM

The first thought that occurred to me was that a fit Ball might have meant a fresher Goodes, and therefore a different last quarter. Maybe.

Rotations

Rotations

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment