Goodes news bad news for vertically challenged Swans

[barry]

Originally posted by Barry Schneider
Agree with all that.As NMW said elsewhere hit outs are pretty irrelevant unless they are to a teammate who can clear the ball.

Yes, but as seen against WC, Gardner or Cox could effectively tap it whereever they wanted.

Our midfield was then forced to play defensive (tagger all WC midfielders), so that Cox couldnt direct a tap to a clear midfielder.

After the tap, the ball was in dispute, and then Goodes can go for the ball.

[NMWBloods]

I think it depends who we are playing. Against a class ruckman who is also tall, such as Cox or Everitt, I think we need a proper ruckman to compete. Against some of the lesser ones or the ones who compete mainly through their leap rather than their height, then Goodes can do it.

[Wil]

I think Jolly/Goodes combination would be fantastic. Jolly is a strong tap ruckman - though he still doesn't quite realise that he plays for the team in Red and White. While Goodes has the qualities listed above in this thread.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Short term bad news, but perhaps goon news long term.

I also think a Jolly/Goodes combination would be fantastic at least in part because they are so totally different. A pain for opposition ruckman to confront.

And hopefully Goodes won't leave the ruck when Ball or Jolly return from injury.

Frankly I think having Jolly/Ball spend a good proportion of their time up forward may help that area, Hall is the only true tall man down their and overhead isn't his best feature. Also give MOL someone to work off (I know he's 6.3 but he's the best rover the Swans have had in a forward pocket since Silvio Foschini).

[Captain]

Best article I have read in a long while.

Goodes plays his best footy in the ruck End of story.

Good to see Moore getting a chance. I'm sick of us selecting rookies that take years to develop.

[midaro]

Originally posted by sharpie
Goodes got smashed in the hitouts, but he got a load of clean clearances. Hitouts become irrelevant for Goodes, because as ruckman, he is far more mobile than his direct opponent, and so will is able to recover far quicker and therefore is first to the ball, in front of almost every other midfielder in the centre square. If we was ruck-rover, he would have to contend with a smaller, faster and more mobile midfielder, which I doubt he would be as successful at.

Well said.

[Newbie]

The only concern I have is Goodes's knees. They are a damaged pair. I certainly dont know if they could sustain the workload of a full-time ruckman. I think Roos is fully aware of this. This was the reason why Roos moved Goodes out of the ruck.

Moving him back to the ruck is the gamble Roos is betting. I am not confident it will pay off. Might help us to win the next couple of games, might help to lift some pressure of the team but wont carry us to a flag.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by Newbie
Moving him back to the ruck is the gamble Roos is betting.

Possibly but it also may bring about a realisation that his worst day on the ball is better than his best so far in a set position.

[BonBon]

Doyle is a poor guy.

[gilze]

as is Fixter, should of traded him

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by gilze
as is Fixter, should of traded him

Perennial problem on this board is the trade Fixter/Fosdike/Matthews/InsertNameHere posts. The presumption that some player you thinks to injury prone or simply no good is going to be traded for by another clubs, kinda bizarre and would appear to fly in the face of what happened in last years trade period, where despite all the "trading aggressively" talk we couldn't find a buyers.

[Sanecow]

Well, we recruited Dermie, Daffy and Tingay so we logically assume every recruiting department has a desire to recruit broken down duds.

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Well, we recruited Dermie, Daffy and Tingay so we logically assume every recruiting department has a desire to recruit broken down duds.

You don't think every recruiting department looks back over the past decade and wonders "what were we thinking?"

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
You don't think every recruiting department looks back over the past decade and wonders "what were we thinking?"

Well, that's exactly why we think we can offload some duds for a good price.

[FootyontheBrain]

Probably way off topic at this point...

Originally posted by barry
Goodes back in the ruck is good for the short term. It does mean we have to go "back" to a defensive midfield as Goodes wont get many taps.

I completely disagree. I think a shorter, athletic ruckman with a good leap will win more center bounces than a tall tap ruckman.

Reason? A shorter ruck has to jump sooner, and thus is in the air before his taller opponent. Any body contact at this point diminishes the leap of the taller player giving your shorter, more athletic ruck the advantage.

I love Goodesy in the ruck. It's obvious he doesn't like to play accountable footy and in the ruck role he causes huge mismatches with his athleticism.