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

[aardvark]

Probably explains why someone like Scott Pendlebury is such a terrible AFL player...... Oh and Tippett too....

and Roughead, Dal Santo, Thomas,Blair and even Jesse White............oops maybe a bad example there

[Doctor]

This is why we let Mummy go too. We couldn't play both him and Pyke with an interchange cap.

Stellation, your point was well made. If you don't look at what's happening in other sports to try to improve your own methods you're crazy.

[DamY]

Wolftone, do you read your posts back to yourself?

You are full of information and passion. But your posts can come across as dismissive, elitist and verge on arrogant. Your other post re: the definition of the surface/oval/pitch came across as just mean. The post regarding how if it's from another sport makes it invalid is dismissive. AFL has borrowed many concepts from other sports including free agency, and Roosy stole "tempo footy" from basketball too.

If you are happy with how you come across on posts then proceed but I thought I would just highlight that and you can do with that what you will

[wolftone57]

and Roughead, Dal Santo, Thomas,Blair and even Jesse White............oops maybe a bad example there

I was talking about tactics not players. I wouldn't go onto a basketball court and tackle or not since I realised it was sort of non contact. Tactics of a short court game are very hard to transpose into a large oval game. sometimes they work to a certain degree but not without being changed considerably. Basketball is a NON CONTACT sport and therefore is very different in tactics to a contact sport. You even leap differently, more straight up. If a basketballer did not play AFL early he tends to have trouble adapting. Everyone of those players mentioned played junior Aussie Rules and played in the Under 18-19's. Just because they may have had the occasional basketball game in a reasonable division doesn't make them a convert from basketball. They were all brought up on Aussie rules. None other than Pendlebury was ever seen as having a future in basketball and even then it was tenuous due to height. At 191cm he would have seen the writing on the wall as he would be too short to play top basketball. The days of a Shane Heal are well and truly gone.

Just because they played a few games of basketball does not make them a basketball CONVERT!!!!!

Pendlebury played junior Aussie rules all his life until he accepted a scholarship to the Basketball Acadamy at the Australian Institute of Sport. He was back playing AFL by age 18.

Tippett is the closest to a real basketballer but again played as a junior and not into his late teens. He was already playing Aussie rules by 18. He played both Aussie rules and basketball in U 18's.

Roughead, Blair (talk about a short basketballer he could run through their legs), Thomas (I presume you were referring to the Dale variety) & Dal Santo had such auspicious basketball careers it is not even mentioned on their Biogs.

Jesse quit basketball at 16. Says it all really.

Yes basketballers do generally have a very good vertical leap. But to say that basketball tactics can translate to footy, sorry but not without multiple tweaks and most tactics don't work because of the nature of the two games, one contact and the other non contact. I coached a premiership in junior basketball and the tactics I used were very different to Aussie rules tactics. Some tactics cross over but they do in all sports and therefore are not essentially belonging to one or the other.

[undy]

I was talking about tactics not players. I wouldn't go onto a basketball court and tackle or not since I realised it was sort of non contact. Tactics of a short court game are very hard to transpose into a large oval game. sometimes they work to a certain degree but not without being changed considerably. Basketball is a NON CONTACT sport and therefore is very different in tactics to a contact sport. You even leap differently, more straight up. If a basketballer did not play AFL early he tends to have trouble adapting. Everyone of those players mentioned played junior Aussie Rules and played in the Under 18-19's. Just because they may have had the occasional basketball game in a reasonable division doesn't make them a convert from basketball. They were all brought up on Aussie rules. None other than Pendlebury was ever seen as having a future in basketball and even then it was tenuous due to height. At 191cm he would have seen the writing on the wall as he would be too short to play top basketball. The days of a Shane Heal are well and truly gone.

Just because they played a few games of basketball does not make them a basketball CONVERT!!!!!

Pendlebury played junior Aussie rules all his life until he accepted a scholarship to the Basketball Acadamy at the Australian Institute of Sport. He was back playing AFL by age 18.

Tippett is the closest to a real basketballer but again played as a junior and not into his late teens. He was already playing Aussie rules by 18. He played both Aussie rules and basketball in U 18's.

Roughead, Blair (talk about a short basketballer he could run through their legs), Thomas (I presume you were referring to the Dale variety) & Dal Santo had such auspicious basketball careers it is not even mentioned on their Biogs.

Jesse quit basketball at 16. Says it all really.

Yes basketballers do generally have a very good vertical leap. But to say that basketball tactics can translate to footy, sorry but not without multiple tweaks and most tactics don't work because of the nature of the two games, one contact and the other non contact. I coached a premiership in junior basketball and the tactics I used were very different to Aussie rules tactics. Some tactics cross over but they do in all sports and therefore are not essentially belonging to one or the other.

And Brogan (who the OP omitted)?
Had the occasional game of basketball (NBL GF 1998), then was a useful footy player (AFL GF 2004)

[Doctor J.]

to say that basketball tactics can translate to footy, sorry but not without multiple tweaks and most tactics don't work because of the nature of the two games, one contact and the other non contact. I coached a premiership in junior basketball and the tactics I used were very different to Aussie rules tactics. Some tactics cross over but they do in all sports and therefore are not essentially belonging to one or the other.

So do they or don't?

Tempo footy, fwd press, defensive press, one on one, zone defense etc...

Geez Wolfy, some times I wonder.

[Melbourne_Blood]

Wolftone, do you read your posts back to yourself?

You are full of information and passion. But your posts can come across as dismissive, elitist and verge on arrogant. Your other post re: the definition of the surface/oval/pitch came across as just mean. The post regarding how if it's from another sport makes it invalid is dismissive. AFL has borrowed many concepts from other sports including free agency, and Roosy stole "tempo footy" from basketball too.

If you are happy with how you come across on posts then proceed but I thought I would just highlight that and you can do with that what you will

Well put, I agree.

[stellation]

I was talking about tactics not players. I wouldn't go onto a basketball court and tackle or not since I realised it was sort of non contact. Tactics of a short court game are very hard to transpose into a large oval game. sometimes they work to a certain degree but not without being changed considerably. Basketball is a NON CONTACT sport and therefore is very different in tactics to a contact sport. You even leap differently, more straight up. If a basketballer did not play AFL early he tends to have trouble adapting. Everyone of those players mentioned played junior Aussie Rules and played in the Under 18-19's. Just because they may have had the occasional basketball game in a reasonable division doesn't make them a convert from basketball. They were all brought up on Aussie rules. None other than Pendlebury was ever seen as having a future in basketball and even then it was tenuous due to height. At 191cm he would have seen the writing on the wall as he would be too short to play top basketball. The days of a Shane Heal are well and truly gone.

Just because they played a few games of basketball does not make them a basketball CONVERT!!!!!

Pendlebury played junior Aussie rules all his life until he accepted a scholarship to the Basketball Acadamy at the Australian Institute of Sport. He was back playing AFL by age 18.

Tippett is the closest to a real basketballer but again played as a junior and not into his late teens. He was already playing Aussie rules by 18. He played both Aussie rules and basketball in U 18's.

Roughead, Blair (talk about a short basketballer he could run through their legs), Thomas (I presume you were referring to the Dale variety) & Dal Santo had such auspicious basketball careers it is not even mentioned on their Biogs.

Jesse quit basketball at 16. Says it all really.

Yes basketballers do generally have a very good vertical leap. But to say that basketball tactics can translate to footy, sorry but not without multiple tweaks and most tactics don't work because of the nature of the two games, one contact and the other non contact. I coached a premiership in junior basketball and the tactics I used were very different to Aussie rules tactics. Some tactics cross over but they do in all sports and therefore are not essentially belonging to one or the other.

I observed that Phil Jackson was known for resting players either side of breaks to maximize game time, the sainted Mr Roos worshiped at his alter and has previously acknowledged he studied his methods (both on and off field tactics and coaching logic) to help develop his coaching style. I think it's a reasonable thing to ponder, and I don't overly see why it would fail to translate; I'm sure it's been used prior to the interchange cap and I'm just wondering how prevalent it will become with the cap.

Your concerns appear to boil down to the games being different, but I don't really see how rest breaks/player management in this instance are such polar opposites as it's an off field/court thing.

This is probably a moot point, but Pendelbury's height was not an issue. He's about 6'3", which is the ideal height for a big point guard in the modern NBA (there's plenty shorter, and plenty of other professional leagues). Scott was a point guard, he was the starter for the AIS squad and after he left basketball to focus on football the chap who then came in to the starting role was Patty Mills- who is a few inches shorter than Scott and currently making a reasonable fist of having a career in the NBA. Scott just wanted to play football.

[Jewels]

I was talking about tactics not players. I wouldn't go onto a basketball court and tackle or not since I realised it was sort of non contact. Tactics of a short court game are very hard to transpose into a large oval game. sometimes they work to a certain degree but not without being changed considerably. Basketball is a NON CONTACT sport and therefore is very different in tactics to a contact sport. You even leap differently, more straight up. If a basketballer did not play AFL early he tends to have trouble adapting. Everyone of those players mentioned played junior Aussie Rules and played in the Under 18-19's. Just because they may have had the occasional basketball game in a reasonable division doesn't make them a convert from basketball. They were all brought up on Aussie rules. None other than Pendlebury was ever seen as having a future in basketball and even then it was tenuous due to height. At 191cm he would have seen the writing on the wall as he would be too short to play top basketball. The days of a Shane Heal are well and truly gone.

Just because they played a few games of basketball does not make them a basketball CONVERT!!!!!

Pendlebury played junior Aussie rules all his life until he accepted a scholarship to the Basketball Acadamy at the Australian Institute of Sport. He was back playing AFL by age 18.

Tippett is the closest to a real basketballer but again played as a junior and not into his late teens. He was already playing Aussie rules by 18. He played both Aussie rules and basketball in U 18's.

Roughead, Blair (talk about a short basketballer he could run through their legs), Thomas (I presume you were referring to the Dale variety) & Dal Santo had such auspicious basketball careers it is not even mentioned on their Biogs.

Jesse quit basketball at 16. Says it all really.

Yes basketballers do generally have a very good vertical leap. But to say that basketball tactics can translate to footy, sorry but not without multiple tweaks and most tactics don't work because of the nature of the two games, one contact and the other non contact. I coached a premiership in junior basketball and the tactics I used were very different to Aussie rules tactics. Some tactics cross over but they do in all sports and therefore are not essentially belonging to one or the other.

You have a real problem with people that don't agree with you. Instead of debating your point and acknowledging anothers POV, you arrogantly argue it like you are right and everyone else is stupid and you never give any credence to anyone elses opinions.

[ernie koala]

I don't get what your on about here Wolfie, Stellation was just making a valid point about players time management being done in a similar manner.

As for basketballers becoming AFL players. I think you'll find most AFL coaches, and development coaches, would rate it behind only Gaelic footy as a reasonable grounding for a non footy kid to play.

It's not just vertical leap, another very important attribute is developing 360 degree spacial awareness in tight situations. Plus quick decision making, and quick hands.

These are all attributes a basketballer will bring to the table.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

This is why we let Mummy go too. We couldn't play both him and Pyke with an interchange cap.

Yawn, is it that time of year already? The annual "You can't play two ruckmen because of . . . . . substitute rule/capped interchange/running game/etc. etc."

I dont want anyone to see me as baiting or trawling you Dr. Its just this particular idea, to my certain knowledge it's been doing the rounds for decades.

Those that declare the superfluity of the second ruckman are like the fundamentalist loonies that are always predicting the end of the world. In the case of the latter, every year the world fails to end - and they make the prediction for next year.

In the case of the former, every year the granny gets won by a team boasting two ruckman - and next season the ruckman doom sayers grasp at the next straw and exclaim "this time for sure!"

FWIW I suspect our coach is going to give this one-ruckman only folly another damn good try (in his defence, Kurt is at least most definitely ruckman sized). Interesting to see how it goes on this latest occasion.

[Ajn]

Flexible lineup also make for a difficult matchup, this year we tested how many bigs can fit in a line up and it probably failed.
Consider though who matches up on Goodes, Tippett, Franklin, etc when they swap positions....

Also look forward to seeing the slingshot with Buddy, Rohan and Jetta running back with the flight of the ball, not sure there are many sides that would be able to match them stride for stride (except Danger..)

[Doctor]

Yawn, is it that time of year already? The annual "You can't play two ruckmen because of . . . . . substitute rule/capped interchange/running game/etc. etc."

I dont want anyone to see me as baiting or trawling you Dr. Its just this particular idea, to my certain knowledge it's been doing the rounds for decades.

Those that declare the superfluity of the second ruckman are like the fundamentalist loonies that are always predicting the end of the world. In the case of the latter, every year the world fails to end - and they make the prediction for next year.

In the case of the former, every year the granny gets won by a team boasting two ruckman - and next season the ruckman doom sayers grasp at the next straw and exclaim "this time for sure!"

FWIW I suspect our coach is going to give this one-ruckman only folly another damn good try (in his defence, Kurt is at least most definitely ruckman sized). Interesting to see how it goes on this latest occasion.

No worries, and thanks for the clarification. For the record, I should have made it clear that my comment was related to "the thinking" rather than my own opinion.

Personally, I think the issue with interchange caps and player suitability is more related to mobility and engine than height. Pyke can certainly cope with it and Mummy probably could have. I'm not sure what Coach Longmire's thoughts are but it does appear that the 2012 ruck combination wasn't his initial thought. I'd like to think he changes his thinking rather than it being forced on him by necessity but ultimately it doesn't matter cos we won the Flag (I never get tired of saying that)!

[Bloodthirsty]

Flexible lineup also make for a difficult matchup, this year we tested how many bigs can fit in a line up and it probably failed.
Consider though who matches up on Goodes, Tippett, Franklin, etc when they swap positions....

Also look forward to seeing the slingshot with Buddy, Rohan and Jetta running back with the flight of the ball, not sure there are many sides that would be able to match them stride for stride (except Danger..)

How about QBE or Citibank hands out actual slingshots to the crowd at the SCG and see how the opposition teams cope with that?

[Ludwig]

Yawn, is it that time of year already? The annual "You can't play two ruckmen because of . . . . . substitute rule/capped interchange/running game/etc. etc."

I dont want anyone to see me as baiting or trawling you Dr. Its just this particular idea, to my certain knowledge it's been doing the rounds for decades.

Those that declare the superfluity of the second ruckman are like the fundamentalist loonies that are always predicting the end of the world. In the case of the latter, every year the world fails to end - and they make the prediction for next year.

In the case of the former, every year the granny gets won by a team boasting two ruckman - and next season the ruckman doom sayers grasp at the next straw and exclaim "this time for sure!"

FWIW I suspect our coach is going to give this one-ruckman only folly another damn good try (in his defence, Kurt is at least most definitely ruckman sized). Interesting to see how it goes on this latest occasion.

That's a rather extreme call.

Max Bailey was in and out of the lineup all year. Hawthorn won plenty of games rucking Hall and Roughy. And Hall is about as much of a ruckman as Tippett is. He's actually pretty good, and so is Tippett. Geelong had one of the worst ruck divisions in the comp.

I don't think there is an exact formula for what works. A team has to play to its strengths. The Swans are gradually shifting from a dominant inside game to one that is more balanced inside-outside. We've been drafting speedy players for several years now, and Buddy will add to the offensive emphasis of our game plan. This is why we allowed Mummy to look elsewhere.

It's pretty obvious that we think we are fine in the ruck with Pyke and Tippett. We'll see after the draft period how much ruck depth the coaches think we need going into next year.