The Ruck

[midaro]

Re: Re: The Ruck

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I'd say this would be more like:

Doyle > Jolly > Ball > Goodes

I think there is a reasonable chance that, if fit, all four of these guys will play most games. I'm sure we didn't trade for Jolly just to make him our third ruckman.

He might have trailed off badly in the end, but Goodes did score about 100 goals 2001-2003 playing as a forward. But then again Ball was Wet Toast's leading goal kicker one year, but hasn't been much of a goal kicker since coming to us.

I don't think we've seen enough of Jolly or Doyle in the goal square to really judge, with much certainty.

As for the recruitment of Jolly, I think it can be summed up like this:
Ball's Age + Doyle's frequent injuries + Goodes' bad knee = The need for a ready made ruckman.

[NMWBloods]

Re: Re: Re: The Ruck

Originally posted by midaro
He might have trailed off badly in the end, but Goodes did score about 100 goals 2001-2003 playing as a forward.

He kicked 115 from 2000-2003, but that equates to only 29 per year. Okay but nothing special. Given what we already have in the forward line, I think Ball makes a more useful target than Goodes.

I don't think we've seen enough of Jolly or Doyle in the goal square to really judge, with much certainty.

No, but in the little bits I have seen I think they both look okay, and as with Ball, they give us something extra in the forward line.

As for the recruitment of Jolly, I think it can be summed up like this:
Ball's Age + Doyle's frequent injuries + Goodes' bad knee = The need for a ready made ruckman.

Yep, which is why I think he will be used a lot.

[Barry Schneider]

I would also like to see one of the ruckman become a semi permanent forward playing out of the goal square.When Hall has to lead up the ground he doesn't have a target to kick to.
With Micky leading out of the square and Doyle/Jolly/Ball standing in the square we have more options.Doyle's marking last year was pretty awful but from what little I have seen this year his confidence has returned.I was worried he was going the way of Justin Madden.

[Bear]

I think you'll see all four playing in the one team most of the time (if fit of course).

Goodes will generally play back/on ball.

Ball/Doyle/Jolly will all rotate between ruck, bench and FF/FP. Jolly is also likely to get assignments down back against the likes of ruckman/forwards such as Keating and Simmonds.

I think this gives us enormous flexibility and fire-power.

[Schneiderman]

After copping so much flak for not having enough tall players (in fact often perceived as having the shortest playing group overall) I think Roos will certainly play all four players regularly. We should probably throw LRT into the mix too, because he can ruck around the ground (and with an extra 4kgs could be even more effective) and is a tall mark, contesting with Goodes for the CHB role.

At the very least I'd expect Roos to experiment in various games with just how the 5 of them can fit in. If our shorter running players like Buchanan, Kirk, Bolton, Schneider and Williams have a really good year, then he will almost certainly stick with it too IMO. Especially when we play tall teams like Port, WCE or Richmond.

[liz]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
After copping so much flak for not having enough tall players (in fact often perceived as having the shortest playing group overall) I think Roos will certainly play all four players regularly.

But what we lack is a 6ft 5 strongly built KPP defender, someone big but agile enough to play on Richo, Tredrea, Brown and Rocca. Not sure that any of the four ruckmen quite fits that bill, even though they are reasonably athletic as ruckmen go.

If there are too many of this type in the team the overall effect can be lumbering, with insufficient running players to rotate through the midfield.

[Bear]

With Goodes and LRT being injury free (touch wood), we now have more options to cover this and assist the likes of Schauble, James and Barry in these roles.

It just depends on the main strength of the forward in question as to who we actually use.