Toby Nankervis

[bloodspirit]

Does this mean you fall more into the Beveridge than the Longmire camp, Ludwig? Horse was happy to have the young developing ruckmen when we had 6 rucks but perhaps not now that we have only 4. When we lost three (Derickx, Galloway & Nank) we needed to get a reliable 4th option since we necessarily fall into the 'Longmire' school of thought. It seems Longmire wants to play two rucks and have depth to cover them if they both get injured. It makes sense since rucks' role is arguably the most difficult to replace (if you reason that KPPs can interchange with each other if they really have to). Certainly the abolition of the third man up role puts greater emphasis on the ruck role - that may even have motivated the Dogs into recruiting an additional ruckman in last year's draft.

[Meg]

Certainly the abolition of the third man up role puts greater emphasis on the ruck role - that may even have motivated the Dogs into recruiting an additional ruckman in last year's draft.

Except that the ban on the third man up was only announced AFTER the draft was held. Pretty unfair I think (although it didn't hurt the Swans).

[bloodspirit]

Good point. I guess that wasn't it in that case then (unless the clubs had advance notice).

[Ludwig]

Does this mean you fall more into the Beveridge than the Longmire camp, Ludwig? Horse was happy to have the young developing ruckmen when we had 6 rucks but perhaps not now that we have only 4. When we lost three (Derickx, Galloway & Nank) we needed to get a reliable 4th option since we necessarily fall into the 'Longmire' school of thought. It seems Longmire wants to play two rucks and have depth to cover them if they both get injured. It makes sense since rucks' role is arguably the most difficult to replace (if you reason that KPPs can interchange with each other if they really have to). Certainly the abolition of the third man up role puts greater emphasis on the ruck role - that may even have motivated the Dogs into recruiting an additional ruckman in last year's draft.

I definitely fall into the Beveridge camp, although I'm happy with the present setup except for Sinclair. I don't think it's good enough just to be able to compete in the ruck, i.e. just to negate the other ruckman. If you can be a dominant tap ruckman, it's a big advantage and hopefully Naismith will be one of these in the mould of Max Gawn. Tippett and Cameron are okay, because they can make a real contribution as forwards and can mark the ball around the ground, so they just don't rely on their ruck work to earn a spot in the side. The general rule for me is that you have to be good footy player first. If you have the attributes to be a ruckman as well, then that's your role in the side.

[Mug Punter]

No point lamenting about Nankervis. We all knew he was developing into a decent ruckman. But the fact is that he would still be fighting Sinclair for the number 3 ruckman at the Swans. I thought we made a mistake acquiring Sinclair, but Longmire likes having lots of ruckman on the list. So be it. I wish Nankervis the best of luck and hope he does well. He's off to a good start. As for us, we traded Nankervis for a draft pick and got Darcy Cameron. So far Cameron looks as he might be even better than Nankervis. He certainly is more agile and a better goal kicker. We can review this in a couple of years.

If Cameron develops well, I would like to see if we could trade Sinclair and get another young ruckman in his stead. I would give him to anyone willing to pay his salary. He's on a sizable contract though, but might be willing to go to get a chance to play. Maybe Richmond is a good destination for him as well. Wouldn't it be funny to see a Nankervis and Sinclair ruck combo at the Tigers.

Agree with most of this.

I think Sinclair is reportedly on $400,000 a season which is probably about right and I still think he might come good.

As much as it hurt for Toby to be let go I think our ruck stocks are really well placed at the moment. We have Naismith who I think is a 10 year player for us but I wouldn't be surprised to see him dip in and out of the firsts over that period. We then have Tippett here until the end of 2018 and Sinclair until 2019.

Darcy can learn his trade knowing well that there's more opportunities at the end of his initial two years so we can start grooming a development ruckman next season to take on the fourth ruck slot in 2019. Maze looks good to me and would be perfect to slot on the rookie list next year but whether it is him or not there's usually plenty of ruck stock in the rookie draft

[Nico]

I think if you draft a ruckman as a project or development player then you should do what you can to hold on to them after their initial contract. It is something that has never changed; a young ruckman unless they are a freak take a few to show their wares. Clearly from game 1 Nankervis had the skill set to make it. One of our few wrong moves letting him go.

[Meg]

IClearly from game 1 Nankervis had the skill set to make it. One of our few wrong moves letting him go.

From everything I have read the Swans didn't want to let Nankervis go. It was reported in October last year that the Swans had an offer to him 'on the table' but in the end he preferred to go to Richmond. I assume the big attraction at Richmond was senior side certainty while at the Swans Nankervis knew he would be 3rd in line.