Changes for Rnd 18 V The Doggies

[Donners]

No way on earth Mummy should go.

As for playing two ruckmen, there's only one side which has done that effectively - and suffice to say the team of Mumford and Seaby is not at the same level of Naitanui and Cox. The constant rain in Sydney does not help matters.

Here's a random factoid: looking through the Swans' history (hell, going back to the mid-70s), the ruckmen pairings we've had are Teasdale/Round (1977-1978, 1980-81), Round/Allender/Talbert (1982), Round/Thompson (1979), Ball/Stafford (2001), Ball/Goodes (2003), Ball/Doyle (2004), Jolly/Ball (2005), Jolly/Everitt (2007-2008), Pyke/Mumford (2010)

A lot of those, of course, were noted goalkickers, and many of those pairings had at least one player with 20+ goals for the season.

[Plugger46]

They are different type of ruckman. But if we judge them on recent form...Mumford is not better.
I'm a big Mummy fan, but his form at the moment is ordinary, particularly around the ground in general play.
I still have that uncontested mark he dropped against Collingwood, when the game was in the balance, imprinted in my mind.

Mummy's been in and out of the side through injury and suspension. He'll be fine when he strings some games together. Obviously I just don't rate Seaby as highly as some others do.

Mumford didn't play against Collingwood?

[Rob-bloods]

On previous form from our well credentialled selection panel..

No changes to our forward line (it is working so well)
No changes to suit conditions or opposition (why bother)
Jetta WILL play no doubt, he is going so well
No changes to our freefall down the table ("powerless" a nice Longmire word)

Hate to be cynical...but after too many recent debacles I certainly am...

[ugg]

It's clear, at the Swans at the very least, that the role of being 1st ruck and 2nd ruck/tall forward require different skills sets. You can be a brilliant 1st ruck but lack the requisite skills to be a successful 2nd ruck. Seaby falls into this category. If Mumford were to become unavailable he would be the player to step straight into the 1st ruck role and not LRT getting a 'promotion' from his current role. Whereas in the past 2nd ruckmen could rest on the bench for long periods of the game, the reduced interchange to just 3 players means that that the 2nd ruck has to play as a tall forward for most of the game.

Say Mumford plays 75% TOG and I don't recall him resting forward in recent weeks so all that time is in the ruck. The 2nd ruck then has 25% TOG as a ruckman, meaning he has to spend 40-55% TOG as a tall forward. As you can see he spends more time as a forward than a ruckman, so in fact this position should be renamed forward/pinch hitting ruck. It really comes down to who they think is better as a tall forward while not being completely useless in the ruck and they've plumped for LRT because of his greater athleticism than Seaby.

[Captain]

Seaby's yet to prove he can have an impact as that 2nd ruckman/forward role. I think the Carlton game proved that we can't play both.

How can you make that comment based on one game????Even in that game was better then Mummy who was dropping marks and totally rusty.

[Plugger46]

How can you make that comment based on one game????Even in that game was better then Mummy who was dropping marks and totally rusty.

Because he had 2 kicks in over a half of footy. I will concede that one game probably isn't enough but to categorically say that you can't play both of them but on what I've seen, he struggles to have an impact as the 2nd ruckman. He's fine as the number one ruckman but with the sub-rule, I think he lacks the versatility to be the 2nd ruckman. If it was 2010 it wouldn't be an issue but with the new rule, I think his opportunities are going to be limited.

[Plugger46]

It's clear, at the Swans at the very least, that the role of being 1st ruck and 2nd ruck/tall forward require different skills sets. You can be a brilliant 1st ruck but lack the requisite skills to be a successful 2nd ruck. Seaby falls into this category. If Mumford were to become unavailable he would be the player to step straight into the 1st ruck role and not LRT getting a 'promotion' from his current role. Whereas in the past 2nd ruckmen could rest on the bench for long periods of the game, the reduced interchange to just 3 players means that that the 2nd ruck has to play as a tall forward for most of the game.

Say Mumford plays 75% TOG and I don't recall him resting forward in recent weeks so all that time is in the ruck. The 2nd ruck then has 25% TOG as a ruckman, meaning he has to spend 40-55% TOG as a tall forward. As you can see he spends more time as a forward than a ruckman, so in fact this position should be renamed forward/pinch hitting ruck. It really comes down to who they think is better as a tall forward while not being completely useless in the ruck and they've plumped for LRT because of his greater athleticism than Seaby.

Exactly. Spot on.

[S120]

Mumford did spend some time at FF on Sunday but just didn't get near it. No ball got to him when he was there.

LRT, provided he keeps playing as well up forward or at least gives a similar contest consistently, I'm happy to have as the 2nd ruck.

[wolftone57]

Would the AFL dare send any of the field umpires from this week back to the SCG so soon?

Of course they would after all they have to reassert who is running the AFL. If the clubs can object to a certain umpire this would undermine the AFL's juristiction on game control.

[wolftone57]

OUT: White, Kenelly, Bird???
IN: TDL/Spangher/Any forward who can read the play, Sumner, Bolton

Pretty harsh on Bird but Bolton is an automatic selection and Parker has been too good to drop

But knowing our luck with the umps this week it will probably continue to the MRP. Grundy will probably get a week for his jumper punch, Parker will get a week cause he tackled who ever it was too hard and McGlynn will be gone cause he came running into to McPhee and insighted the melee or some rubbish.

Would'nt mind Nipper getting another crack somehow either.

Dan didn't you read, Byron Sumner is taking a sabatical back to Adelaide indefinitely. I would love to know why? But one thing might be pertinent & that is that he has been playing in a comp that he is just too good for. I hope all is well for the lad & he comes back soon as I would hate to lose this young bloke as he shows so much. Unfortunately, I think he may be weighing up his options for next year & we might not be in the equasion, I hope not but who knows. It would be nice if the club said, personal or professional reasons for the sabatical (very Catholic word that & it makes me cringe, their words not mine).

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Mumford did spend some time at FF on Sunday but just didn't get near it. No ball got to him when he was there.
LRT, provided he keeps playing as well up forward or at least gives a similar contest consistently, I'm happy to have as the 2nd ruck.

I think Mummy/Seaby are capable of making a impactfull 5 minute visit to the forward line, but regretably they lack the sort of mobility to play as a forward (this is the case for most "onballing-ruckmen" and is one of the reasons why a true ruckman/forward is so rare).
Playing LRT as a "forward/ruckman" robs our backline, when he returned there for a game a couple of weeks ago he looked a bit scratchy, and lacked coombination with the other backs. It also means we'll lose most of the tapouts when he's in the ruck, the best we can hope for is for him to "compete" not "win" in the ruck.

Strangely enough we do have one senior player with the ability to function very well as a key forward, and a proven record in the ruck too. . . . . . . . Unfortunately despit spending a lot of each game as an onballer, Adam Goodes is not available for a 5 minute bust in the ruck.

[wolftone57]

I'd have to leave Mummy in, he needs the match fitness and should improve. Bolton comes in for White. If we drop irish we need to move Shaw back to a HBF, and stop his run with role which means we would still need Bird. Parks stays and rotates thru the forward line and mid, along with Bolton. If its wet drop Jetta and bring in?????????? where's Rohan at? is there any more speed we can bring in, the Bullies will be looking to run us ragged

Kennelly can go out & Shaw needn't go back. Mal & Bird are both capable of going back & so is LRT. I am a little peeved with some of our senior players who seem to have a perchance for coming out in the press & slamming the players for not putting in 4 quarter efforts. The problem I have is that the ones making the claims were a couple of the worst offenders for the whole season. I thought the young blokes were the ones who fought like tigers late in the third against all odds & the experienced players disappeared completely until the last quarter when it was thought to be all over.

OUT: Kennelly, White, jetts (to get game time in 2's)
IN: TDL (if fit), Gordon & LJ (that covers the back prob if there was one) or Spangher (if fit)

I would love to Seabs for LRT but the hyphon had a good game last week & would be crook to miss out but they diod it to Seabs. What ever happened to this footy club rewarding top grade effort?

[johnno]

Out: I dont know,
In: I dont know,

Unless the players change their mindset and play 4 quarters of footbal in the same way they played the last quarter against Freo, it doesnt matter who comes in and out.

Having said that though...its time for me to say..." I give up on Jesse White"....yep folks, it taken me that long to come to this realization.(sp?). He's 23 years old now, and he should have had at least one, just one, breakoput game and he hasn't, and by the looks of things, he's not going to.

I will be very pissed of though if we trade him, or somebody else drafts him and he begins to absolutely star for that team.

Anyone know how far away both Rohan and Pyke are?

[S120]

LJ is injured so he won't be back in. I want him in when he's fit to play at FF but it won't be this week. If Spangher is fit he comes in for Jesse IMO. I'm also giving up on Jesse. Tadhg is really testing my patience as well. Some wanted him out about 3 weeks ago after a couple of bad games and I was hesitant to drop him but after 3 more poor games, his time is coming I think. We can't put up with these performances and him gifting goals to the opposition.

Rohan and Pyke are about 3-4 weeks away according to the injury list.

[wolftone57]

No way on earth Mummy should go.

As for playing two ruckmen, there's only one side which has done that effectively - and suffice to say the team of Mumford and Seaby is not at the same level of Naitanui and Cox. The constant rain in Sydney does not help matters.

Here's a random factoid: looking through the Swans' history (hell, going back to the mid-70s), the ruckmen pairings we've had are Teasdale/Round (1977-1978, 1980-81), Round/Allender/Talbert (1982), Round/Thompson (1979), Ball/Stafford (2001), Ball/Goodes (2003), Ball/Doyle (2004), Jolly/Ball (2005), Jolly/Everitt (2007-2008), Pyke/Mumford (2010)

A lot of those, of course, were noted goalkickers, and many of those pairings had at least one player with 20+ goals for the season.

Carlton do it very effectively. Hampson & Kruizer. Leigh Brown at Collingwood is virtually another ruckman anyway as he is not a key forward, he plays the old ruck/forward pocket role. Hawthorn are playing 2 rucks Bailey & Hale. That is three of the top side, oh I forgot you mentioned the West Coast Eagles, that makes the top 4. We have been sucked into the "you can't play 2 rucks" trap as we were doing very well with two last year.