#AFL Round 3, Sydney Swans v GWS Giants, 07/04/18, SCG @sydneyswans #AFLSwansGiants

[Ludwig]

I only watched the last 5 minutes of the last quarter and every one of NicNat's taps seemed to go to a Weagles player.

From about midway through the 4th qtr, after Ablett went down and Geelong were down to 1 man on the bench, they just faded away and the Eagles dominated the midfield. Take a look at the 3rd quarter and you'll get a totally different impression.

[KTigers]

Yeah, Natanui was completely dominant at the end of the game, but Geelong were spent. You just can't run out a
game with only one guy on the bench. Bring back the sub!

[Bloods05]

I think we will do better against elite ruckmen than poor ones. The problem with the Sinkers in this game is that he won too many of the hitouts which led to the Giants dominating the clearances. GWS were focused on reading Sinclair's taps, which are not that well disguised, and set up for that eventuality.

Sinclair did his job well as a ruckman, but it didn't benefit the team, at least in that capacity (although his overall game was quite good). Towers, on the other hand, was more effective because we were better set up for his kind of ruck work, which is more directed at causing enough disruption to affect the hitout, let gravity do it's job, then follow up by becoming an extra midfielder at the contest.

The way to play the ruck contests is NOT to win the hitout. Let the opposing ruckman tap the ball. While that ruckman is looking up admiring his work, the opposing ruckman is focused on where the ball is going and becomes an extra player at the contest, creating an advantage. The ruck contest is not the same as a marking contest. Winning the hitout does not result in possession and a free kick. The result is a loose ball and whoever is best set up for that will come out the winner.

I was watching the Eagles-Geelong game to observe how Naitanui and Lysett went against a couple of amateurs. Until the last quarter when an injury ravaged Geelong not could contend any longer, they were winning the clearances against the best ruckman in the league. This was especially true in the 3rd quarter. The commentators were lauding Nicnat's ruck dominance, but they weren't really looking at what was happening, just spewing out the usual platitudes about an icon player's greatness.

I hesitate to challenge your expertise on this point Ludwig, as it's very clear you hold passionately to the view that ruckmen are a superfluous feature of The Greatest Game; but I'm afraid it has to be said that you are over-egging the pudding.

It is a fact that most ruckmen in the modern era are not especially good at doing what they are there to do, namely tapping the ball to a teammate in an advantageous position at ball-ups and boundary throw-ins. Why this should be so is somewhat mystifying to me. There was a time when there would have been at least half a dozen ruckmen in the league who were consistently good at this: think Polly Farmer, John Nicholls, Fred Way, Don McKenzie, Alan Morrow, Carl Ditterich, Len Thompson, Brian Roberts - all playing in the same era of the '60s and '70s, plus Simon Madden in the 80s.

In recent years only Dean Cox stands out in this regard, although there have been a few others who have made a major impact in other ways - Naitanui, Mumford for example.

What I find mystifying is that the art of ruckwork seems to have largely disappeared from the game, and to that extent I agree with you. But a genuinely great, athletic ruckman like Cox - a rarity now, but not so rare in the past - can make an enormous difference to a team's performance, and it is therefore still worthwhile to keep looking for one.

Is it a lost art? Are there so few now who possess the skills that there is no-one left to pass them on? I don't know the answer to that, and I hope it isn't so.

I do agree that most ruckmen are a bit of a liability and most teams are better off without them, but those few teams lucky enough to have a good one enjoy a significant advantage, and the Swans should not give up the search for such players.

[KTigers]

But are teams better off without them (ruckmen)? Probably depends whether the team they are playing has a ruckman or not.
Are we going to better off without Sinclair (and Towers, and Reid for that matter) in the team if we are playing West Coast with
Natanui in their team. Are we just going to let Nick tap the ball wherever he likes? He's going to do it some of the time anyway,
but letting him do it 60 times a game mightn't end well for us. Seems to me it's footy's version of the nuclear mutually assured
destruction concept.
Everybody has one (a ruckman) so that the other team can't get away with using their ruckman effectively.
It would probably take some kind of high level treaty or peace accord between the teams to promise not to ever pick ruckmen
to eradicate this much maligned species of footballer altogether.

[Ludwig]

I hesitate to challenge your expertise on this point Ludwig, as it's very clear you hold passionately to the view that ruckmen are a superfluous feature of The Greatest Game; but I'm afraid it has to be said that you are over-egging the pudding.

It is a fact that most ruckmen in the modern era are not especially good at doing what they are there to do, namely tapping the ball to a teammate in an advantageous position at ball-ups and boundary throw-ins. Why this should be so is somewhat mystifying to me. There was a time when there would have been at least half a dozen ruckmen in the league who were consistently good at this: think Polly Farmer, John Nicholls, Fred Way, Don McKenzie, Alan Morrow, Carl Ditterich, Len Thompson, Brian Roberts - all playing in the same era of the '60s and '70s, plus Simon Madden in the 80s.

In recent years only Dean Cox stands out in this regard, although there have been a few others who have made a major impact in other ways - Naitanui, Mumford for example.

What I find mystifying is that the art of ruckwork seems to have largely disappeared from the game, and to that extent I agree with you. But a genuinely great, athletic ruckman like Cox - a rarity now, but not so rare in the past - can make an enormous difference to a team's performance, and it is therefore still worthwhile to keep looking for one.

Is it a lost art? Are there so few now who possess the skills that there is no-one left to pass them on? I don't know the answer to that, and I hope it isn't so.

I do agree that most ruckmen are a bit of a liability and most teams are better off without them, but those few teams lucky enough to have a good one enjoy a significant advantage, and the Swans should not give up the search for such players.

You are really making my point. The game has changed and so have ruckmen.

There are many aspects to my argument, including list management ones. Like what do you do when your 2 best tap ruckmen are out for the season? The dependency factor of how to cover for just 1 of your 22 players is a consideration. One way to do it is to downplay the significance of that position so it becomes more player interchangeable. I really find that we are not at a disadvantage with Towers in the ruck, even though he rarely wins a hitout. But when he's in there, everyone is alert that they need to make it a 50-50 contest and win the ball from there. There are no illusions about a midfielder winning the tap and running toward goal. We really don't have the best midfield for that anyway. You need a Dangerfield or Shuey type. Maybe Zak Jones would be our best bet if we had a dominant tap ruckman. Right now our on ballers are best suited to win the hard ball gets.

I don't think we will see any rule changes to do away with the ruckman. There are just many ways to address playing the stoppages, and more specifically, the centre bounces because the other stoppages are not so favourable to dominant ruckmen. If you are the WCE, you probably do have to play your game around a super ruckman like Nicnat, accepting the downside that there will be a big reshuffling in the game plan if he's out injured.

Sinclair was excellent this week. Our tactics for him were also very smart in that knowing he's a natural forward we took advantage of the fact that neither Lobb nor Patton are good defenders, so we exploited that fact. I thought our midfield let him down a bit by letting the giants win so much of the ball from the centre bounces.

So long as Sinclair can put up a good fight in the ruck we can alter our plan each week to suit the opposition. It's simply finding a strategy which plays to our advantage. Plan B advocates should love this.

[Bloods05]

You are really making my point. The game has changed and so have ruckmen.

There are many aspects to my argument, including list management ones. Like what do you do when your 2 best tap ruckmen are out for the season? The dependency factor of how to cover for just 1 of your 22 players is a consideration. One way to do it is to downplay the significance of that position so it becomes more player interchangeable. I really find that we are not at a disadvantage with Towers in the ruck, even though he rarely wins a hitout. But when he's in there, everyone is alert that they need to make it a 50-50 contest and win the ball from there. There are no illusions about a midfielder winning the tap and running toward goal. We really don't have the best midfield for that anyway. You need a Dangerfield or Shuey type. Maybe Zak Jones would be our best bet if we had a dominant tap ruckman. Right now our on ballers are best suited to win the hard ball gets.

I don't think we will see any rule changes to do away with the ruckman. There are just many ways to address playing the stoppages, and more specifically, the centre bounces because the other stoppages are not so favourable to dominant ruckmen. If you are the WCE, you probably do have to play your game around a super ruckman like Nicnat, accepting the downside that there will be a big reshuffling in the game plan if he's out injured.

Sinclair was excellent this week. Our tactics for him were also very smart in that knowing he's a natural forward we took advantage of the fact that neither Lobb nor Patton are good defenders, so we exploited that fact. I thought our midfield let him down a bit by letting the giants win so much of the ball from the centre bounces.

So long as Sinclair can put up a good fight in the ruck we can alter our plan each week to suit the opposition. It's simply finding a strategy which plays to our advantage. Plan B advocates should love this.

The other part of my point was that for some mysterious reason that has no obvious connection with the changes in the game, the skills of ruckwork have largely disappeared, but I don't see why they can't be revived.

[Auntie.Gerald]

I really thought without Williams and Wilson gws didn?t really worry us on the transition

GWS look so different in their ball movement despite having lots of gun young midfielders that can play inside and outside

Finlayson in but really doesn?t counter attack fast... nice kick but that?s it

Whitfield shut down by Georgie boy incredible

BD not as fast as he used to be at the tigers

I don?t think we were tested on the fast break much at all ?

I mean port and gws are chalk and cheese

[MattW]

Erm, McVeigh would be the closest to a like-for-like out to bring Newman in. But looks like we'll be missing Reid and the Pelican this week.

Yes, it's true that they primarily play the same position and I did think of McVeigh, but I reckon there's little prospect at the moment of Newman replacing McVeigh. McVeigh was one of our best against Port and pretty good on Saturday. He's also a much better decision-maker and more effective ball user than Newman, and a super competitive guy who plays well under pressure and knows how to win. I reckon his importance to the team is a little under-sold.

[MattW]

Coaches votes:

8 Callum Sinclair (Syd)
6 Callum Mills (Syd)
4 Will Hayward (Syd)
4 Lewis Melican (Syd)
3 George Hewett (Syd)
2 Stephen Coniglio (GWS)
2 Jonathon Patton (GWS)
1 Lance Franklin (Syd)

So that's:
Sinclair 5-3
Mills 5-1
Hayward 4
Melican 4
Hewett 3
Coniglio 2
Patton 2
Franklin 1

Almost as discordant as you could see.

For what it's worth, reckon it was:
Longmire: 5 Sinclair, 4 Hayward, 3 Hewett, 2 Coniglio, 1 Mills.
Cameron: 5 Mills, 4 Melican, 3 Sinclair, 2 Patton, 1 Buddy.

Interesting, no votes for Heeney. I suspect he'll be in the top three in the BSM.

[Auntie.Gerald]

Im intrigued also to see what others thought of Hooper and Taranto and their games vs say Ollie and Hayward ?

[aguy]

Taranto is further ahead than olllie imo. However I think Hayward is further ahead than hopper. I know they play different roles. I mean as compared to their expected development

[stevoswan]

Another gem from Titus O'Reilly's Monday Kneejerk Reaction:

"Franklin was playing up the ground a lot, but like all true superstars, he knew when it needed to be turned on, and in the last six minutes, he booted a 70-metre goal followed by the sealer in the final moments.

It reminds you of why the ?independent? AFL Commission worked so hard to get him to the Giants and then chucked one of the greatest tantrums ever when the Swans landed him through completely legal methods."

I love Titus.....

[Ludwig]

I suppose everyone knows that Tim and Ollie are good friends.

Taranto deserved to go #2 in his draft year. He's showing every indication of being a very good player. It's less clear where Florent will end up once he has a few more years in the system. Taranto is definitely ahead in development, but I suppose it's where they finish that's important. I think they will both be good players.

[dejavoodoo44]

Coaches votes:

8 Callum Sinclair (Syd)
6 Callum Mills (Syd)
4 Will Hayward (Syd)
4 Lewis Melican (Syd)
3 George Hewett (Syd)
2 Stephen Coniglio (GWS)
2 Jonathon Patton (GWS)
1 Lance Franklin (Syd)

So that's:
Sinclair 5-3
Mills 5-1
Hayward 4
Melican 4
Hewett 3
Coniglio 2
Patton 2
Franklin 1

Almost as discordant as you could see.

For what it's worth, reckon it was:
Longmire: 5 Sinclair, 4 Hayward, 3 Hewett, 2 Coniglio, 1 Mills.
Cameron: 5 Mills, 4 Melican, 3 Sinclair, 2 Patton, 1 Buddy.

Interesting, no votes for Heeney. I suspect he'll be in the top three in the BSM.

Yes, I thought that it was strange that Heeney didn't get a vote. I had him as best on ground in the first half and I don't think he faded much in the second half. And if it wasn't for his couple of efforts to get the ball to Buddy, then Buddy wouldn't have another contender for goal of the year. Unless of course, Buddy decided to go in and do the clearance work himself.

[Plugger1300]

Agree re Reid and Rohan. Who makes way for Newman? Cunningham and Florent obvious two, but both played well on Saturday and Florent was excellent the week before.

Agree that Cunningham has started the season well but long term i don't think he is in our best 22
He's had more than enough chances
Much prefer Newman kicking to Harrys leg speed