Number 2 ruckman

[AnnieH]

Originally posted by Boodnutz
I don't think the actual job description of "rover" exists anymore. I think there are only three size categories of player - ruckman, target (forward and defence) and runner.

Who picks up the ball after it's been tapped down??
Come back Kells!!

[AnnieH]

Originally posted by goswannie14
What about Schneider in Q4 PF 2005?

One example ... I did say rarely.

With Spida in the ranks, I'm hoping that every ruck competition results in a clear ball get by a Swannie (I don't particularly care which one as long as they're all willing and able to do it).

Here's hoping anyhow.

[goswannie14]

I thinkl that is the point though isn't it? If we have Spida then it is going to be easier for our small players to be where the ball is going to be.

[reigning premier]

Originally posted by Annie Haddad
C'mon GS14 ... both of those scenarios were just sheer good luck!! Davis didn't have time to think ... instinctively, he just kicked it and hoped for the best (lucky us, eh?).

Were the other three goals kicked in that last quarter by the genius that is Nick Davis just lucky too????

You know I loves ya Annie but I loves Davo just that little bit more... well maybe... when he's a good boy that is....

[hammo]

Originally posted by Annie Haddad
C'mon GS14 ... both of those scenarios were just sheer good luck!! Davis didn't have time to think ... instinctively, he just kicked it and hoped for the best (lucky us, eh?).

How did he get the ball? By knowing where Ball would tap it, losing his opponent and running into the space.

Amon did exactly the same thing in the GF.

Try watching these on DVD and tell me if this is not textbook tap rucking?

You consistently show you know nothing about the things you opine on and keep making an absolute fool of yourself.

[Boodnutz]

Originally posted by Annie Haddad
Who picks up the ball after it's been tapped down??

Runners - ideally with a good middle distance tank (Fosdike) who can also explode over a short distance of 5 to 10 metres. The actual size of these guys doesn't really matter.

[reigning premier]

Originally posted by hammo

You consistently show you know nothing about the things you opine on and keep making an absolute fool of yourself.

Ease up Hammo....

It's an opinion and everyone's entitled to one.

I love Davo and agree with your comments but let's not get to nasty about it....

Peace out...

[swantastic]

Maybe our midfield needs to watch the wet toast illegirls midfield how well they work with Cox.They might pick up a few pointers.

[Boodnutz]

Originally posted by swantastic
Maybe our midfield needs to watch the wet toast illegirls midfield how well they work with Cox.They might pick up a few pointers.

No, I think it is different. WCE build strategies around one key ruckmen and three outstanding ball getters. This would be a very different strategy based on a larger number of ruckmen and many more runners/gatherers. Would leave WCE for dust. Cox,Cousins, Judd and Kerr would be overrun by the amount of work they would have to do to keep pace.

I really think this year Sydney could completely change the face of the game. If they do, look out for the law-makers to curb them.

[liz]

Originally posted by Boodnutz
No, I think it is different. WCE build strategies around one key ruckmen and three outstanding ball getters. This would be a very different strategy based on a larger number of ruckmen and many more runners/gatherers. Would leave WCE for dust. Cox,Cousins, Judd and Kerr would be overrun by the amount of work they would have to do to keep pace.

I really think this year Sydney could completely change the face of the game. If they do, look out for the law-makers to curb them.

I am completely confused by your proposed strategy.

You seem to be suggesting that Sydney should plan to use three players to do what one player at West Coast largely takes care of. If the Swans have two extra rucks within their 18 players on the ground, how are they also able to have many more runners and gathers such that Cousins, Kerr and Judd will be overrun? Are we assuming the rest of the West Coast team will just stand and watch?

The whole way the game is moving is towards greater speed, endurance and mobility from all 22 players in a side. That suggests fewer lumbering ruckmen, not more. The Swans, maybe more than most sides, rely on hard running from everyone on the ground. Doyle and Jolly have their attributes but chasing down the likes of Wells, Davey and Lovett ain't one of them.

How is having three rucks going to provide an advantage at ruck contests? Is the idea that if each player doesn't have to cover more than a third of the ground, he will be better able to tap to advantage? I don't really buy that. But if not, why tie up so many of your playing resources in men capable of pretty much just one task - let's face it, neither Jolly nor Doyle contribute a huge amount around the ground other than their ruck work; who knows what Everitt's body will let him do - at the expense of more versatility. And even more so when you have players like Hall, Goodes, even Richards, more than capable of making the odd ruck contest in their part of the ground if needs be. Plus doing a whole lot more too.

I don't have a problem with playing one of the rucks at FF for parts of games. Everitt clearly has done that well in the past, and even Doyle has shown glimpses of the ability to contribute there. And if a ruckman is needed to shore up the defence for a while, especially if an opposition ruck has dropped down to his forward line, so be it. But those players have to be fulfilling roles as forwards or defenders - and doing the requisite job - not just parading the ground as the nominated ruck in that zone.

Also, forcing stoppages and ball-ups is a defensive tactic, not an offensive one. On its own it isn't going to win games. After all, the Swans don't try to create stoppages when they are in possession. Are we going to stick the creative ball carriers and kickers, like McVeigh, Malceski and Schneider, on the bench so that we can instead fill the ground with ruckmen? Is a nil-nil draw the ultimate goal?

I am not denying the importance that the Swans place on ruckmen and stoppages, nor trying to suggest that is going to change any time soon. But for most of the last three years, their style has been achieved with at most two ruckmen on the ground at any one time, and most of the time just one. I don't see how the team is going to become more effective by having more pure ruckmen on the ground at the expense of runners and creators.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by liz
After all, the Swans don't try to create stoppages when they are in possession.

Apart from Ablett.

[liz]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Apart from Ablett.

lol

[swantastic]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Apart from Ablett.

Only because he gets pinged for HTB all the time.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Boodnutz
No, I think it is different. WCE build strategies around one key ruckmen and three outstanding ball getters. This would be a very different strategy based on a larger number of ruckmen and many more runners/gatherers. Would leave WCE for dust. Cox,Cousins, Judd and Kerr would be overrun by the amount of work they would have to do to keep pace.

I really think this year Sydney could completely change the face of the game. If they do, look out for the law-makers to curb them.

Are we planning to have 25 players on the ground...?

[Boodnutz]

Originally posted by liz
I am completely confused by your proposed strategy.

You seem to be suggesting that Sydney should plan to use three players to do what one player at West Coast largely takes care of. If the Swans have two extra rucks within their 18 players on the ground, how are they also able to have many more runners and gathers such that Cousins, Kerr and Judd will be overrun? Are we assuming the rest of the West Coast team will just stand and watch?

The whole way the game is moving is towards greater speed, endurance and mobility from all 22 players in a side. That suggests fewer lumbering ruckmen, not more. The Swans, maybe more than most sides, rely on hard running from everyone on the ground. Doyle and Jolly have their attributes but chasing down the likes of Wells, Davey and Lovett ain't one of them.

How is having three rucks going to provide an advantage at ruck contests? Is the idea that if each player doesn't have to cover more than a third of the ground, he will be better able to tap to advantage? I don't really buy that. But if not, why tie up so many of your playing resources in men capable of pretty much just one task - let's face it, neither Jolly nor Doyle contribute a huge amount around the ground other than their ruck work; who knows what Everitt's body will let him do - at the expense of more versatility. And even more so when you have players like Hall, Goodes, even Richards, more than capable of making the odd ruck contest in their part of the ground if needs be. Plus doing a whole lot more too.

I don't have a problem with playing one of the rucks at FF for parts of games. Everitt clearly has done that well in the past, and even Doyle has shown glimpses of the ability to contribute there. And if a ruckman is needed to shore up the defence for a while, especially if an opposition ruck has dropped down to his forward line, so be it. But those players have to be fulfilling roles as forwards or defenders - and doing the requisite job - not just parading the ground as the nominated ruck in that zone.

Also, forcing stoppages and ball-ups is a defensive tactic, not an offensive one. On its own it isn't going to win games. After all, the Swans don't try to create stoppages when they are in possession. Are we going to stick the creative ball carriers and kickers, like McVeigh, Malceski and Schneider, on the bench so that we can instead fill the ground with ruckmen? Is a nil-nil draw the ultimate goal?

I am not denying the importance that the Swans place on ruckmen and stoppages, nor trying to suggest that is going to change any time soon. But for most of the last three years, their style has been achieved with at most two ruckmen on the ground at any one time, and most of the time just one. I don't see how the team is going to become more effective by having more pure ruckmen on the ground at the expense of runners and creators.

Break down a given match to a series of games. That is, each time there is a stoppage a new game starts - the game of winning possession. And that game goes on until a team wins enough possession to score enough to win the game. That is the Aussie Rules in 2007.

And who wins the bulk of those mini-games? The team with the best tap ruckmen. And Sydney have got three of them when most other sides only have 1.
If you think a stoppage is a defensive tactic you are in 1986. The stoppage will be the key in 2007, more so than 05 and 06.

Take the blinkers off and look at where the game is going. Everything you have said refers to how things have been historically. Not how things could be in the future. What do you think Roos will do? Compete with WCE on their terms? Not likely. He'll look for a new edge.

Roos looks beyond the obvious and tries to break new ground. For all his faults you have to admit that.

And will we need 25 players? No. I don't want to sound condescending but if any of you have played the game to a decent level you will know this: having dominant big men on the ground gives you confidence to carry out your strategy. You know at a stoppage the odds favour you more and more as the game goes on to win possession. Three dominant talls and 15 players (plus 4 on the bench) prepared to run will be adequate.