more flexible line up .... Longmire wants it to cope with interchange limit

[Ruck'n'Roll]

That's a rather extreme call.

Which bit?
Bestowing the epithet "Loonie" to fundamentalists? Or the bit about needing two genuine ruckmen to win a granny?

Lets assume the latter and look at the record . . .

YEAR - Ruckman Count - Notes

2013 - 2v2 - Hale/Hall & Bailey win
2012 - 2v1 - Mummy & Pyke win (Losers used P/T second ruck, Roughy)
2011 - 2v1 - West & Ottens win (Losers used P/T second ruck, Dawes/Brown)
2010 - 1v1 - Jolley & Dawes/Brown win
2009 - 2v2 - Ottens & Blake win
2008 - 2v2 - Campbell & Renouf win
2007 - 2v2 - King & Ottens win
2006 - 2v2 - Seaby & Cox win
2005 - 2v2 - Ball & Jolley win
2004 - 2v1 - Lade & Brogan win (Losers used P/T second ruck, McLaren)
2003 - 2v1 - Keating & Charman win (Losers used P/T second ruck, Walker)
2002 - 2v1 - Keating & McDonald win (Losers used P/T second ruck, Rocca)
2001 - 2v2 - Keating & McDonald win
2000 - 2v2 - Barnes & Alessio win
1999 - 2v1 - McKernan & Capuana win (Losers used P/T second ruck, Manton)
1998 - 2v2 - Pittman & Rehn win
1997 - 2v1 - Pittman & Rehn win (Losers used P/T second ruck, Sierakowski)
1996 - 2v2 - Capuano & McKernan win
1995 - 1v1 - Madden & Manton
1994 - 2v1 - Ball & Hynes (Losers used P/T second ruck, Handley)
1993 - 2v1 - Somerville & Salmon (Losers used P/T second ruck, Spalding)

I could go back further, but we're already back in the era of only 2 interchange players and surely the pattern is established. The team with two recognised ruckmen always beats a team that doesn't.

But I do see your point Ludwig, this rule does not apply to home and away games.

Brisbane in it's heyday had a ruckman, Clark Keating, who only played intermittently through the home and away season, but was a permanent feature in September.

[Ludwig]

Which bit?
Bestowing the epithet "Loonie" to fundamentalists? Or the bit about needing two genuine ruckmen to win a granny?

The point of contention is whether the 2 genuine ruckmen is the reason for winning a GF.

Even in the past 2 Grannys: Hawthorn beat the team that clearly had the best ruckmen, who were quite dominant on the day. We may have won the GF with 2 ruckmen, but Mummy was injured and useless on the day. We actually lost the hitouts 60 to 44.

It's like saying that if we get to the GF next year, we should replace Tippett with Naismith, because Naismith is a recognised ruckman, while Tippett is classified as a ruck/forward, and the team with the 2 genuine ruckmen always wins.

I don't think analysing the ruck balance more deeply is "Loonie."

In fact, flatly stating the you need 2 genuine ruckmen to win a Granny is what might be called '2 Ruckmen Fundamentalism" as it is a rather dogmatic position.

[Ajn]

Need to allow for the change of rules in our thinking though

[Ruck'n'Roll]

The point of contention is whether the 2 genuine ruckmen is the reason for winning a GF.

That is not the point of contention Ludwig, because it's simply not an assertion I have made. It's simply one that you have ascribed to me.

Even in the past 2 Grannys: Hawthorn beat the team that clearly had the best ruckmen, who were quite dominant on the day.

The assertion that whoever has the best ruckmen was not mine either, just something you threw up, presumably for rhetorical purposes.

We may have won the GF with 2 ruckmen, but Mummy was injured and useless on the day. We actually lost the hitouts 60 to 44.

There's much more to being a ruckman than hitouts, Grant Birchell had 18 taps in the '12 granny, it doesn't make him a ruckman. As to Mummy being "useless" - I can't tell if that's post-Mummy-departure-revisionism or a lack of understanding.

I don't think analysing the ruck balance more deeply is "Loonie."

Nor I. however your post is not analysis (deep or otherwise), it's opinion. Not that I would criticise you for espousing opinions contrary to my own, this is RWO after all.

In fact, flatly stating the you need 2 genuine ruckmen to win a Granny is what might be called '2 Ruckmen Fundamentalism" as it is a rather dogmatic position.

Dogma doesn't usually come with twenty odd years of quantified evidence Ludwig. However denying such a strong positive correlation seems like contraryness. In any case, the evidence clearly shows you can win a granny without 2 genuine ruckmen, just so long as your opponent doesn't either.

[barry]

I suspect that if we had reid, lrt and goodes available all season, mummy probably would have struggled to get a game being the least mobile if our rucks

[Ludwig]

That is not the point of contention Ludwig, because it's simply not an assertion I have made. It's simply one that you have ascribed to me.

The assertion that whoever has the best ruckmen was not mine either, just something you threw up, presumably for rhetorical purposes.

There's much more to being a ruckman than hitouts, Grant Birchell had 18 taps in the '12 granny, it doesn't make him a ruckman. As to Mummy being "useless" - I can't tell if that's post-Mummy-departure-revisionism or a lack of understanding.


Nor I. however your post is not analysis (deep or otherwise), it's opinion. Not that I would criticise you for espousing opinions contrary to my own, this is RWO after all.


Dogma doesn't usually come with twenty odd years of quantified evidence Ludwig. However denying such a strong positive correlation seems like contraryness. In any case, the evidence clearly shows you can win a granny without 2 genuine ruckmen, just so long as your opponent doesn't either.

I think we just have a difference of opinion on the value of ruckmen. The value of a ruckman is not easy to quantify, as would be the case for any type of player. Similarly, you can't judge a forward solely by the number of goals kicked.

Maybe I misinterpreted what you were saying, but I got the impression that you strongly supported us having 2 genuine ruckmen, as opposed to what is looking like something different with a Pyke/Tippett combination.

This combination is not going to be as strong in the ruck as Natanui/Cox, for example, but it doesn't mean that the Swans cannot win against the Eagles. If we had those 2 WCE ruckmen, I would play them too.

In fact, I don't think there is any set rule for what combination of player types will produce a winning team and which will not. I think there is value in statistics, but most would agree that it doesn't tell the whole story. For many years we played a kind of game that was based on winning the ball at stoppages. Certainly we still want to win the stoppages, but it seems our game plan is migrating away from that to more of an offensive outside game. It's not a total changeover, just a migration. I have no problem with this. It should produce a higher scoring, more exciting brand of football, and one just a capable of winning a premiership.

[sharp9]

IMHO the reason we tend to use 2 ruckmen is because we HAD 2 ruckman who were well and truly worth their spot on the paddock and were not keeping another weapon (Reid, Goodes, LRT) out of the side. We had 2 ruckmen who could both play well in the same team on the same day...so we did it. Essendon (for example) have talented ruckmen in Ryder and Bellchambers but seem to struggle to make them work in the same side on the same day. On the other hand if Norf want to play a second ruck they have to sacrifice a better player to do it....so they tend to just have the one (as long as he is not getting beaten, then why not?)

And on my third hand....I will be surprised if we play 2 ruckmen AT ALL next season....we'll use Pike or Naismith with Tippett/LRT/Reid as second ruckman....'cos that is the combination that will give us the maximum number talented/useful players on the park

[Ludwig]

IMHO the reason we tend to use 2 ruckmen is because we HAD 2 ruckman who were well and truly worth their spot on the paddock and were not keeping another weapon (Reid, Goodes, LRT) out of the side. We had 2 ruckmen who could both play well in the same team on the same day...so we did it. Essendon (for example) have talented ruckmen in Ryder and Bellchambers but seem to struggle to make them work in the same side on the same day. On the other hand if Norf want to play a second ruck they have to sacrifice a better player to do it....so they tend to just have the one (as long as he is not getting beaten, then why not?)

And on my third hand....I will be surprised if we play 2 ruckmen AT ALL next season....we'll use Pike or Naismith with Tippett/LRT/Reid as second ruckman....'cos that is the combination that will give us the maximum number talented/useful players on the park

This is pretty much my position. Thanks Sharp for putting it so well.

[sharp9]

This is pretty much my position. Thanks Sharp for putting it so well.

[Bloodthirsty]

Just curious....has any team ever deliberately played no ruckman at all? ie. Played one or two more midfielders instead?

[dimelb]

Just curious....has any team ever deliberately played no ruckman at all? ie. Played one or two more midfielders instead?

The ressie watchers might be able to tell you!

[Ludwig]

In 2012 Jason Blake was the Saints #1 ruckman against us and they beat us. Also beat us in the ruck contests, IIRC. I think that was due to injury, but the outcome was enlightening. I'd like to try the no ruckmen as a surprise tactic by withdrawing the ruckman at the last minute and bringing in a midfielder emergency, so the opposition don't have a counter plan. Maybe it would be a good tactic against Freo, where we would have little chance of winning the ruck contests anyway.

[stellation]

Was Saddo ever backup to Goodesy in his Brownlow ruck year?

[Ajn]

IMHO the reason we tend to use 2 ruckmen is because we HAD 2 ruckman who were well and truly worth their spot on the paddock and were not keeping another weapon (Reid, Goodes, LRT) out of the side. We had 2 ruckmen who could both play well in the same team on the same day...so we did it. Essendon (for example) have talented ruckmen in Ryder and Bellchambers but seem to struggle to make them work in the same side on the same day. On the other hand if Norf want to play a second ruck they have to sacrifice a better player to do it....so they tend to just have the one (as long as he is not getting beaten, then why not?)

And on my third hand....I will be surprised if we play 2 ruckmen AT ALL next season....we'll use Pike or Naismith with Tippett/LRT/Reid as second ruckman....'cos that is the combination that will give us the maximum number talented/useful players on the park

This is the way of the future, however not sure Naismith is backup ready ....yet

[sharp9]

Only Naismith 'cos he's our only other ruckman....I guess we could go with KT as first ruck....but I wouldn't (or LRT)