Injuries - Naismith ACL

[Scottee]

Oh bother!

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

[MattW]

Bummer for Sam.

As has been said, Naismith is our best tap ruckman, although that didn't provide us with the advantage last year that it seemed to in the latter part of 2016. He is also quite aggressive around the ruck contests and tries hard. I really like his attitude. There are some limitations to his game, which expose us from time to time. He's not a great mark, his disposal is pretty poor both by hand and foot, and he is not a goal threat.

I think the following are the available options, in order of preference (from their perspective):

* Sinclair main ruck/Towers relief

I think any realistic option has Sinclair playing main ruck. The question is what else happens. I think this will be their preference and it is mine too.

The main consequence of this is that we will see less of Sinclair forward. I am not too upset by that. While his marking has really come on and he had some great games forward last year (the Bombers final comes to mind), I thought his lack of pace was exposed a few times against better teams and left us looking a bit lumbering up there. The consequence of Sinclair playing less forward is that it is less likely that Reid and Rohan will play back, which is also good.

Sinclair gives a contest around the ground; he'll get more ball than Naismith, although he'll provide fewer taps to advantage.

This option isn't awful.

* Sinclair main ruck/Cameron relief

It is hard to get too much of a sense of how effective Cameron will be at this level yet. I missed the first JLT game, but Ludwig's review wasn't encouraging.

This option might depend on match-ups, but on the face of it, it is not awful.

* Sinclair main ruck/Aliir relief

This is the exciting option. I think it would work and really add something. But I don't hold out too much hope for it. For a start, it requires all of our tall defenders to be fit, because they will push him back if any one of Rampe, Melican or Grundy don't play. I also suspect they see him as a long-term tall defender and want him to develop that craft.

Might be an option if Towers and/or Cameron go down.

It's hard to see, realistically, how Amartey is an option, having played none of pre-season and apparently not training too much. Hopefully it gets him a good shot at the rucking duties in the reserves and he can develop for the coming years.

[mcs]

My analysis of this situation is: this isn't good.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up - whether ruckmen are a waning influence or not, we are now -2 players in that area for the entire season.

[dimelb]

Perhaps if we put Cox in the 35 guernsey?
Otherwise I'd go with Sinclair with backup from Towers and Cameron.

[Ludwig]

Here's a question to make you think about the ruck situation more deeply:

If there were no ruck contests, how many ruckmen would be good enough to make the best 22 of their respective teams?

The only one I can think of is Patty Ryder, who could probably play a key forward for PA. Brodie Grundy, Matt Kreuzer and Jordan Roughhead are other possibilities who might just be good enough to claim a KPP spot, but nothing certain.

That segues into a further question: What do ruckmen do that warrant a spot in their team that they otherwise are not good enough to earn?

Supposedly they are providing first use of the ball at stoppages or preventing their counterparts from providing first use of the ball for the opposition. More broadly, they are doing something that will lead to more scoring opportunities for their respective sides than the opposition. There is plenty of evidence from last year alone where teams that were smashed in hitouts and also lost clearances by some margin went on to have decisive victories.

The objective is to produce more scoring opportunities, not blindly put up some big guy to lock horns with the opposition's big guy. There are other ways to get the desired result.

I don't think Sinclair offers much in this regard. He puts up some resistance in the ruck contests, but generally loses them. He's not a good mark and is certainly very inconsistent with his marking. He might have a good game or two by stringing a number of good marks together, but then flop the following week. He's not a good decision maker, nor is he a good user of the ball. I think at 28 that Sinclair has probably peaked out. When he's playing forward he's usually just clogging up space that others could run into.

I'm not sure about Cameron, but he's more mobile and a better mark than Sinclair, but needs to play the physical sort of game that's required of an AFL ruckman. Sinclair has significantly improved his game in this regard since coming to the Swans and is one of positives for him. At 22 and no AFL experience, Cameron is an unknown to some extent, but at least he has upside potential, and that may be worth pursuing until proven that he's not going to be good enough. if that should be the way it turns out.

In any case, none of the traditional ruck options look all that appealing for us, so why not try something different. I think our best ruck combo is Towers and Aliir, with Parker and Reid taking the ruckman role for several contests a match.

It's worth mentioning again that my opinions on ruckmen have been strongly influenced by Lee Mathews, who has been on to this for as long as I have.

[Jimitron5000]

Ludwig, if there were no ruck contests it would be a different sport! That said, the game is definitely evolving and ruckman need to be able to provide more than hitouts and a contest.

Devastated for Naismith. I like the way he goes about it.

[O'Reilly Boy]

Interesting photo from yesterday's training of Cameron and Amarty contesting a ball-up. Amarty is pretty solidly built, particularly across the thighs and hips, and is looking strong across the shoulders in this photo. [URL="http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2018-03-08/gallery-wednesdays-training-in-pictures"] Admittedly in the photo it also looks like his vertical leap is about 6 inches. Still, he's in there, and I reckon will get a run against GWS on Friday. He doesn't look to be giving away as much in height or bulk to Cameron as the published stats suggest: Cameron 204cm 100kg; Amarty 196cm 88kg.

And I love the swam of mids waiting at the fall in that picture. Get used to that.

I feel for Naismith, but must admit earlier in the year I had him at number 3 ruck option behind Tippett and Sinclair. I've also been sold on the idea of only taking in one dedicated ruck and playing Towers, Aliir and Parker as chop outs (Parker in particular in attacking 50). Any opinions on Pink? He's a rangy fellow, but I've not seen him in action.

Some concern was raised above about stripping back line of height if Aliir goes to the middle, but I think that we have that covered (touch wood).

Could the Swans and Eagles get together and lobby for a no-centre-bounce, no ball-up, no boundary throw season opener?

[Captain]

Bad news about Naismith.

Cameron isn't the answer.

Sinclair to be main ruck with Aliir, Reid and/or Towers providing a chop out would be my solution.

[Billericay]

At present we do not have a good option that involves a big man beating another big man at stoppages, so we just do something else. We should play the stoppages defensively, trying for a loose ball situation. If we don't win the first loose ball situation, we should be setup in a position behind the ball to get a turnover from a forced kick from the opposition.

We should also try to keep the ball in play, avoiding stoppages and taking advantage of having an extra mobile player in lieu of the opposition typically immobile ruckman. If you look at our recent drafts of players like Hayward, Florent, Ling and Stoddart, it is quite evident that we are quickly evolving in this direction. We are not the stoppage team that benefited from a powerful ruckman and players like Kirk, Bolton and ROK.

I hate to agree with Ludwig but... There have been several people on here begging the Swans to develop a more possession based, uncontested style. Perhaps this terrible injury to poor Sam N will force the Swans to play more in that way? We may actually have the players to play it this year.

Dean Towers as "second ruck" has been a big success I think. There was a centre bounce against Brisbane where he was breaking away from the pack with the ball... He does that on a regular basis.

Big concern is our #1 ruck as we now realistically only have one player - Sinkers, who can play that role (unless Cameron / Amartey perform a miracle) and realistically he's going to get injured at some point, leaving us with zero options. If it was me I'd be attacking it from both ends - that is trying to do everything possible to get Cameron / Amartey / Pink up to speed (but I think its a long shot) and working out how to play with 2 smaller more mobile players in the ruck - such as Towers and Aliir. Even for that to work is a stretch as we don't actually have another player who's shown they can hold down the ruck role other than Reid - and I really hope he doesn't become the ruckman by default.

We went OK with Goodesy in the ruck. I don't remember was he #1 or back up? And did we mostly lose or win the hitouts back then?

[The Runner]

We went OK with Goodesy in the ruck. I don't remember was he #1 or back up? And did we mostly lose or win the hitouts back then?

Back up ruck - Jason Ball was #1 ruck, with Donkey Doyle his replacement when injured (Qual Final v Port). Goodes was always a secondary until he did his PCL in Perth.
The reality is, there will be days this year when guys like Gawn and Preuss tear us apart in the middle. We need clear plans to deal with it, similar to how Richmond managed to have Grigg attend a contest and just get it at ground level.

[Ludwig]

I hate to agree with Ludwig but... There have been several people on here begging the Swans to develop a more possession based, uncontested style. Perhaps this terrible injury to poor Sam N will force the Swans to play more in that way? We may actually have the players to play it this year.

Dean Towers as "second ruck" has been a big success I think. There was a centre bounce against Brisbane where he was breaking away from the pack with the ball... He does that on a regular basis.

Big concern is our #1 ruck as we now realistically only have one player - Sinkers, who can play that role (unless Cameron / Amartey perform a miracle) and realistically he's going to get injured at some point, leaving us with zero options. If it was me I'd be attacking it from both ends - that is trying to do everything possible to get Cameron / Amartey / Pink up to speed (but I think its a long shot) and working out how to play with 2 smaller more mobile players in the ruck - such as Towers and Aliir. Even for that to work is a stretch as we don't actually have another player who's shown they can hold down the ruck role other than Reid - and I really hope he doesn't become the ruckman by default.

We went OK with Goodesy in the ruck. I don't remember was he #1 or back up? And did we mostly lose or win the hitouts back then?

1. Agreeing with Ludwig should be avoided if at all possible. Could become addictive.
2. The Brisbane game showed that we are already moving toward a ball control game plan, more reminiscent of Hawthorn than the Swans of recent history, but that's because the personnel is changing that can support this kind of game plan.
3. Right on Towers. I stated many times over the past year that I didn't think Towers was in our best 22, unless he played in the ruck, and it's exactly because of his ability to create a high quality inside 50 from the stoppage. This offsets the loss of the majority of the hitouts because our stoppage players are expecting to lose the hitout and can read the play off the opposition ruckman tap.
4. Sinkers is a very mediocre player not in keeping with our new attacking game plan. Playing Sinclair is conceding that position to the opposition instead of taking a more aggressive countermove.
5. Goodes was a fantastic ruckman who won a Brownlow in that position, albeit as the #2 ruckman, but was such a force to be reckoned with. In fact, I would say Goodes was the prototype ruckman for the modern game.

[liz]

1. Goodes was a fantastic ruckman who won a Brownlow in that position, albeit as the #2 ruckman, but was such a force to be reckoned with. In fact, I would say Goodes was the prototype ruckman for the modern game.

I don't think Goodes was a prototype. That suggests he was first of a kind.

I remember in the mid to late 1990s, Roos and Luff both playing as a mobile ruckman. They generally didn't take centre bounces but did play around the ground as the team's primary ruck. Goodes did take some centre bounces, so I guess he was a little different, but he certainly wasn't the first smaller man to play as a ruckman.

I doubt Roos and Luff were either. Those who've been following the game longer than I have can probably relate tales about smaller, more mobile ruckmen dominating (just as smaller full forwards were once the go).

Trends towards smaller, mobile players or towards giants come and go. It wasn't so long ago that clubs were thrilled to find a moderately mobile 205+ cm ruck, having seen how Sandilands could dominate games when he was fit. We found Naismith. The Pies found Cox. Even just last year the Dogs drafted English. Those deemed no longer tall enough to be proper ruckmen became the new breed of full-forwards - Daniher, for example, or Wright.

And then after the Tigers win a premiership with one moderately sized key forward and a lot of small forwards, some are suggesting that the days of even a second tallish forward target are numbered. Sentiments will change soon if, say, the Giants win the 2018 premiership with Paton, Cameron, Himmelberg and Lobb dominating in the air.

[Burra]

SOME OF THE FORMER RUCKING GREATS

190cm ? Sam Newman (Geelong)

191cm - Polly Farmer (Geelong)

189cm ? John Nicholls (Carlton)

188cm ? Noel Teasdale (Richmond)

[bloodspirit]

Interesting photo from yesterday's training of Cameron and Amarty contesting a ball-up. Amarty is pretty solidly built, particularly across the thighs and hips, and is looking strong across the shoulders in this photo. [URL="http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2018-03-08/gallery-wednesdays-training-in-pictures"] Admittedly in the photo it also looks like his vertical leap is about 6 inches. Still, he's in there, and I reckon will get a run against GWS on Friday. He doesn't look to be giving away as much in height or bulk to Cameron as the published stats suggest: Cameron 204cm 100kg; Amarty 196cm 88kg.

To me that photo shows up every bit of the 12 kg weight difference. Cameron looks way more solid through his shoulders and back, it's harder to tell with the limbs.

Some great photos there. That one of Will jumping is awesome! Also love the photo of Heeney v Rampe - Heeney looks very determined.

[rickmat]

There is a lot of skepticism about Cameron being able to ruck which I feel is unfair. He spent most of last year out with injury and hasn't had the opportunity to show his wares. Last week was his first game for a year. Lets see what happens tomorrow and then make a fair assessment please.

I still wonder when we will find out more about Dawson and Ling. Dawson is the interesting one as it appears he is on the outer by the Swans Brains Trust. In my mind, he has far more talent than Robinson, Foote, Cunningham and Rose. My thoughts for what they are worth