(Not Such A) Jolly Good Trade Coming (merged Jolly trade thread)

[hammo]

At least the Donk's career is safe for another year. A fit Donk is better than Jolly anyway.

Let's hope the Swans medical department is up to the task.

[reigning premier]

Sure they're great players. But Port didn't make finals in 2006. Cox is an exceptional player - not just his ruckwork but also his around the ground work. However, the ruckwork aspect is critically dependent on the midfield too.

I think that the midfield is far more important than ruckwork. All you want is for your ruckman to be competitive at the taps to stop the opposing ruckman easily tapping to advantage (which is a very difficult thing to do anyway). Impact around the ground is far more important.

I agree that a dominant midfield is probably more important in the grand scheme of things.

However, when you have a "lesser" midfield, getting the ball from a quality tap ruckman makes up that disadvantage for you. If the "better" midfield aren't getting the ball in the first place, that's half the battle won!


Throw in the strong marking and goal kicking attributes of Cox, Lade & Jolly (This year ), and that's a significant difference to a team.

[NMWBloods]

2006 Rucks
WC 22 disposals, 3 marks, 0 goals, 40 hitouts,
Swans 11 disposals, 0 marks, 0 goals, 17 hitouts,

2005 Rucks
WC 23 disposals, 8 marks, 1 goal, 40 hitouts,
Swans 14 disposals, 4 marks, 1 goal, 25 hitouts,

Swans hitouts dropped off, but they were also useless around the ground. They didn't really do that much in 2005 though. - Cox was still very good. My point remains - it's not about hitouts - it's about a contest and being a good follower.

Melbourne has had one of the best ruckman in the competition for years, but hasn't done them much good.
Kangaroos didn't need a dominant ruckman to win a flag, neither did Essendon.

For Geelong SF, Geelong had no ruckman so hardly a comparison.

StKilda PF
Swans 16 disposals, 10 marks, 0 goals, 31 hitouts.
Saints 16 disposals, 6 marks, 0 goals, 36 hitouts.

[Cheese]

interesting time.

i would prefer a young up and comer and a first round.

atm i seem to like the Wood & 10-20 pick.

however still sceptical on Wood, he is light and it is hard to put on weight for the bean poles.

any other players? out of contract? nsw? needing a change?

fev could be worth it however doubt they'd let him go for Jolly.

imo it would be fev for jolly plus a top 10 pick

[NMWBloods]

I agree that a dominant midfield is probably more important in the grand scheme of things.

However, when you have a "lesser" midfield, getting the ball from a quality tap ruckman makes up that disadvantage for you. If the "better" midfield aren't getting the ball in the first place, that's half the battle won!

Yes, but if you had a choice between using your best trade option to get a midfielder or a ruckman, the former would be better value for us.

Throw in the strong marking and goal kicking attributes of Cox, Lade & Jolly (This year ), and that's a significant difference to a team.

Those aspects are something a 'follower' can do - eg: Goodes. I don't think you need a pure ruckman.

[dawg]

Big loss IMHO especially with the swans stop/start type of play, given the fact that quality big men are hard to find these days. Plus he's only 26, jesus there's plenty of time for you to go back to Melbourne and have a jolly good time when it's all over Having said that would love to see kosi as a swan

[NMWBloods]

Kosi isn't a true tap ruckman - he's more a follower - and injuries aside, I think he'd be far better value.

[reigning premier]

Yes, but if you had a choice between using your best trade option to get a midfielder or a ruckman, the former would be better value for us.

Those aspects are something a 'follower' can do - eg: Goodes. I don't think you need a pure ruckman.

Probably right on both counts.

However, I'd still say that getting the ball to our lesser midfield first has been hugely important to us over the last few years. As per the stats posted by yourself for the 2005 GF, had we lost the ruck battle like we did in the 2006 GF, we would have never of won. Against a midfield with the likes of Kerr, Cousins & Judd, our boys would have never got near the ball.

[NMWBloods]

No, I don't disagree. I don't want to underestimate the contribution from our ruckmen, particularly given our midfield is not great. However, I still think we'd get better value from improving our midfield as a first priority.

The Bulldogs have struggled not because of the lack of a good ruckman, but more IMO because of the lack of a good, large focal point up forward (and a terrible run of injuries).

StKilda's problems have been varied - the ruck issue for them is that (i) Kosi gets injured too much and (ii) their ruckman go missing too much (hence not providing the 'contest' aspect).

[Captain]

If the Donk can get himself right, then trading Jolly for a midfielder would be the best bet.

I would still like to see LRT play more time in the ruck.

[reigning premier]

If the Donk can get himself right, then trading Jolly for a midfielder would be the best bet.

I would still like to see LRT play more time in the ruck.

I don't think LRT has the required body strength to effectively ruck.

[reigning premier]

No, I don't disagree. I don't want to underestimate the contribution from our ruckmen, particularly given our midfield is not great. However, I still think we'd get better value from improving our midfield as a first priority.

The Bulldogs have struggled not because of the lack of a good ruckman, but more IMO because of the lack of a good, large focal point up forward (and a terrible run of injuries).

StKilda's problems have been varied - the ruck issue for them is that (i) Kosi gets injured too much and (ii) their ruckman go missing too much (hence not providing the 'contest' aspect).

Trouble is, getting one gun midfielder isn't going to solve our problems in the midfield. Sure it's an improvement, but it doesn't make up the entire midfield. However, a really dominant ruck man can have a lot more influence on the contest.

Agree whole heartedley on the StKilda & Bulldogs comments though!

[dendol]

A ruckman is always rated higher above his peers when he has the ability to take strong marks and kick goals rather than getting X number of hitouts. I guess this is why Donk has been kept on the list for so long - he can be plonked in the goalsquare and take big marks and then kick straight. Unfortunate his body keeps letting him down.

[NMWBloods]

Trouble is, getting one gun midfielder isn't going to solve our problems in the midfield. Sure it's an improvement, but it doesn't make up the entire midfield. However, a really dominant ruck man can have a lot more influence on the contest.

True, but gun ruckmen are few and far between, so the chances of us scoring a really good one are fairly remote. Once you get below the top flight ones, I think we may get more benefit from a lesser ruckman and a great midfielder.

[dawg]

True, but gun ruckmen are few and far between, so the chances of us scoring a really good one are fairly remote. Once you get below the top flight ones, I think we may get more benefit from a lesser ruckman and a great midfielder.

I agree with you on both points inparticular the great midfielder part. If we had say paul kelly(better than judd imho) in the current swans side we could be anything. All those gf stats regarding how we lost the ruck battle to cox are meaningless cause the game wasn't lost there as had we have kicked straight in the 1st and teddy hit a target instead of out on the full going into 50 in the dying seconds of the 06 GF we'd still be premiers even with the eagles superstar midfield