Most opposition supporters have no idea about our list

[motorace_182]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Pavlich. And there have been a couple of big guys who have managed to run around with him and stop him. Also, most big guys in the comp now, around 192-196cm are pretty mobile.

Can't see how the new ruck rules help him - he needs a bit more run up because of his size and he loses that.

Having said all that, I still think run him as a ruck rover in the square at CB, and then let him follow the ball around and leave the main ruckman to either wander up forward or down back after the centre bounce.

Pavlich - that is one of 15 teams that will be able to shut down one of our players... providing they can find a position for Pav over there.

He has a very good vertical leep which the new rules willa ssist as there is less collision impact. I reckon he probably shouldnt ruck at the Centre Square, but ruck around the ground more often where he is able to rip it up.

[chammond]

To the best of my knowledge Adam Goodes has never been a ruck-rover.

Depends on what you mean by ruck-rover?

Goodes has certainly played as an around-the-ground ruckman who follows up when the ball hits the ground . . . and runs on to make the clearance . . . and runs on into space.

And he has on occasion (by both Roos and Eade) been played on-the-ball around the ground even though another ruckman is taking the bounce/hitout . . . . i.e virtually as a tall rover.

Do you have some third role that no-one else seems to have considered?

Pavlich. And there have been a couple of big guys who have managed to run around with him and stop him. Also, most big guys in the comp now, around 192-196cm are pretty mobile.

Yeah, but they only contain him when he's playing one particular role. As soon as he switches roles he dominates again . . . and when he's fully fit, Roos uses this to great advantage.

I've never seen any tall that could ruck against Goodes and run with him around the ground . . . certainly not Pavlich.

[midaro]

Originally posted by chammond
Depends on what you mean by ruck-rover?

Goodes has certainly played as an around-the-ground ruckman who follows up when the ball hits the ground . . . and runs on to make the clearance . . . and runs on into space.

That's his 1999/2003 role: Ruckman (albeit mobile).
If this is what people mean by Ruck-rover, then... duh.
Of course he would be best playing this role... but will he?

IMO Injury + Ball/Doyle/Jolly + Reduced run up (due to rule changes) = Goodes not playing ruckman.

Originally posted by chammond
And he has on occasion (by both Roos and Eade) been played on-the-ball around the ground even though another ruckman is taking the bounce/hitout . . . . i.e virtually as a tall rover.

That's my definition of a Ruck-Rover.
I dispute that Goodes has ever done this on a regular basis.
The only instance I can recall is the 2003 Semi-Final against St. Kilda where he was tagged and beaten by Jason Blake.
Goodes showed his opponent no respect and was embarrassed.

[Ajn]

This is simple statement of most of the obvious characteristics, with a couple of well noted exceptions (i.e. Hall)

The thing to note is that the improvement on our list will come from many of the players omitted from this list such as McVeigh, Sunquist and Ablett

[NMWBloods]

When I talk about ruck rover I am thinking in the mould of the old-fashioned follower. As I have explained before, I would like to see him the centre square, but for one of the big guys to do the ruck and then go forward or back. Goodes then follows the ball around the ground and does the ruck work except when a ruckman happens to be present, such as in the forward or back lines.

[Tooth Fairy]

Is there another type of ruck rover?

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Tooth Fairy
Is there another type of ruck rover?

Traditional ruck rovers don't usually contest the ruck.

[Nico]

Originally posted by midaro
That's not my recollection.

I thought he played the 'Labrador Retriever' role that so many people here insist would be his best position (eg. "Play him as a ruck rover", "Play him on the Wing", "Play him on a HBF", etc).

In that role in that game, he was tagged by Jason Blake and slaughtered - it's even mentioned in Blake's Bio, here:

http://saints.com.au/default.asp?pg=players&spg=playerprofile&personid=13478

Regarding Goodes, I hold these truths to be self-evident:
1. He is a ruckman.

2. If injury and changes to ruck rules, prevent him from playing as a ruckman, then we have already seen the best of Goodes.

3. His size makes him a KPP - yes, he is agile for a big man, but no, he can't compete with jockey sized elite midfielders when the ball is in dispute.

4. Eade tried Goodes as a forward. He was OK - not great.

5. Therefore he must be tried as a backman, which Roos has indicated.

6. If Goodes succeeds as a KPP backman - excellent.

7. If Goodes fails as a KPP backman - he will probably end up where Jason Saddington is right now - a utility and a mystery.

A mystery! He's won a flamin' Brownlow for Goodness sake.

[Nico]

Originally posted by midaro
Am I right saying that there are two different positions: ruckman and ruck-rover? (Although midfield positions - other than ruckman - don't really exist other than in name).

To the best of my knowledge Adam Goodes has never been a ruck-rover.
In 1999 he won a Rising Star award as a ruckman, because all our more experienced ruckman were injured.
2000-2002 Eade played him as a forward with declining returns - leading to such a form slump that he was mentioned here as possible trade-bait: Yes, it happened and not by me.
In 2003 he won a Brownlow as a ruckman.
In 2004 injury forced him out of the ruck. He had a so-so year at CHB.
In 2005 if he does not play ruck (because of injury, Ball/Doyle/Jolly, ruck law changes or Roos' preference) he's got to continue his development at CHB.

Are you people who insist that Goodes should play ruck-rover, suggesting that we should field a centre square set-up of:
Ball/Doyle/Jolly (Ruckman)
Goodes (Ruck-rover)
Kirk (Rover)
J Bolton (Centreman)

Seriously?

You believe Goodes is so good with the ball on the ground and in packs, that he is not only superior to regular ruckman (see 1999 & 2003) but also superior to the likes of Lappin, Black, Akermanis, Voss, West, Johnston, Brown, Buckley, Hayes, Goddard, Judd, Ball, Hodge, Camporeale and about 50 others? Because they will be his opponents - not some dionosaur who runs 100m in 20seconds.

Seriously?

Most of those listed are offensive not defensive players. They would not play on Goodes by reason of size, pace and ability to take a defensive role, which would be detrimental to their own sides' balance.

[midaro]

Originally posted by Nico
A mystery! He's won a flamin' Brownlow for Goodness sake.

The 'mystery' came into it if he doesn't play as a ruckman in the future.
Would Lockett have one a Brownlow playing rover, or Judd as a CHB?
If Goodes doesn't play ruck, he is back to square one.

[Nico]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
When I talk about ruck rover I am thinking in the mould of the old-fashioned follower. As I have explained before, I would like to see him the centre square, but for one of the big guys to do the ruck and then go forward or back. Goodes then follows the ball around the ground and does the ruck work except when a ruckman happens to be present, such as in the forward or back lines.

And floats across the backline and drops into the spaces up forward as was his want when he WAS FULLY FIT IN 2003.

I believe Blake played on him in 2004 final when GOODES WAS OBVIOUSLY hampered by 2 BUNG KNEES. Blake wouldn't hold a candle to a fit Goodes.

I still can't believe people harp on about Goodes having an ordinary 2004, when he had 2 BUNG KNEES. He had a courageous 2004 for mine.

[Nico]

Originally posted by midaro


The 'mystery' came into it if he doesn't play as a ruckman in the future.
Would Lockett have one a Brownlow playing rover, or Judd as a CHB?
If Goodes doesn't play ruck, he is back to square one.

Carp!!!

[Nico]

Originally posted by Tooth Fairy
Is there another type of ruck rover?

The term, ruck rover is the old term for an onballer.

Skilton, Goggin and Aylett were the rovers because they were the smalls. They usually rotated or rested in the forward pocket. The next size up where the player played around the ground (Gerard Healy/Ron Barassi type) but was not the centre player. This player was typically the medium sized player that dropped back into defence.

Although Healy kicked goals, if you go back to the 60's and 70's it was the rovers and centremen that seemed to kick the goals, rather than the ruckrovers.

In my experience I can't recall any players termed ruckrovers going for centre or boundary taps.

There were plenty of 6 foot ruckmen around in those days. Roy Wright of Richmond who was just 6 foot, won the Brownlow in the late 50's. Graham Wise from Melbourne held his own against the talls at centre bounces.

[penga]

Originally posted by midaro
or Judd as a CHB?

for the sake of the argument, i will argue that judd could win a brownlow at CHB, he is 189cm after all... i could see him play CHF before CHB, FWIW

[Tooth Fairy]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Traditional ruck rovers don't usually contest the ruck.

Contesting the ruck is not a ruck "rover's" position though. Hence the word rover. I'm confused by many idiots.

edit: BTW Nico, that's exactly what I'm getting at
edit: oh, and so no one takes offence, I use the term idiots lightly