Most opposition supporters have no idea about our list

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Tooth Fairy
Contesting the ruck is not a ruck "rover's" position though. Hence the word rover.

Yes, which is why I qualified what I meant by the term.

[chammond]

Originally posted by Tooth Fairy
Contesting the ruck is not a ruck "rover's" position though. Hence the word rover.

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=tipsntactics&spg=display&articleid=12108

[chammond]

Originally posted by midaro

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.

Then we at least concur on the definition . .

but . . . I don't know what you mean by regular, but Goodes has played as a genuine ruck-rover on more than a few occasions, including some last year . . . however, I don't recall Goodes playing ruck-rover against St Kilda. As far as I could see, both he and Blake went all over the ground, and attempted to run off each other at any opportunity.

The reason Blake won that contest was because when he ran into space, his team had possession and he got the ball. When Goodes found space, St K still had the ball, and he stood around looking like a goose, which Walls gleefully underlined to the TV audience as often as he possibly could.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Tooth Fairy
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

Perhaps confused by many opinions might have been a different way of putting it.

My explanation of a ruck rover was meant to explain why it is merely an out dated term. When it was the excepted term for a midfielder no one for one second thought they took the ruck at any time. It indeed was a strange term perhaps coming from way back where the term "ruck" was possibly used for those players that moved around the ground. Just like the English language has changed over the years so have the "footy terms".

To confuse you further, when I was growing up they used both "ruckman" and "follower" for those that took centre and boundary contests.

A lot of people think that going back to the 50's and beyond that players stood in one position and waited for the ball to be delivered to them in a one on one contest. Not so. It was though a much more static game than it is now.

[Plugger46]

Originally posted by JF_Bay22_SCG
Why am I seemingly the only one who demands that Goodes play on the ball. Playing him up forward doesn't work. I have seen him fluff around up forward (as FF in Brisbane in 2002). He doesn't get the ball enough up there and tends to get lazy. Our forward line is the part of the team that needs fixing the least. Goodes up there tends to crowd their space. And often kills off their channels in which to make constructive leads. Michael O Laughlin at FF for me for sure. With Barry at CHF and o'Keefe and Schneider on the HBFs. That works best for me.

Absolutely spot on. Goodes is an on-baller, and nothing else.

The bloke from Richmond said some good things such as us being ordinary in the wet. However, J.Bolton is definitely not a "stylish" finisher. I also don't agree with his comments in regard to O'loughlin not being able to play key position, he has proved time and time again that he can play at FF, even when he's half fit.