View Full Version : Who Should Ruck in Wizard Cup?
Pretty simple question really, do we blood a new recruit or really test out players like Andrews and Hudson or try a smokey like Ferg or Kruger (shudder)
Wayne's-World
5 Jan 2005, 06:44
Hudson was super impressive and easily the best bigman on the park yesterday ready to step up for Wizard cup.
In for a good year if one training session is any indication at all ;)
SpringChoke
5 Jan 2005, 07:35
Hudson.
Bockchoy67
5 Jan 2005, 07:51
I voted for Hudson, mainly because the Wizard Cup allows the freedom to try players without risk, and we need to see what he can offer in a full match.
It will definitely help us going into Round 1, because the pressure will be on and we need the very best we can be.
There is also the option of giving Andrews a run, but it seems unlikely as there is hardly any room.
No 1 Draft Pick
5 Jan 2005, 08:05
It comes down to objectives for the Wizard Cup. Do you go all out to win or a balance of blooding youngsters etc
I would play Hudson as our main ruck - has he progressed from 2004. This will be a good way to find out.
As the second ruck option either Biglands OR Meeson/Andrews IF they are up to it
Clarke (and Biglands) are known quantities come round 1. The others arent
Stinger...
5 Jan 2005, 08:24
i voted Hudson! Since he has been at the club he hasnt really put a foot wrong (from an outsiders point of view anyway) and given the Wizard Cup is a mickey mouse competition anyway, i think we will be trying players in positions that may raise some eyebrows. Whilst not completely disregarding the competition altogether, i think this year the AFC will use the Wizard Cup as a chance to showcase some of the youngsters and also experiment with some of the 2nd and 3rd tier players in different roles perhaps...
So yes Hudson...teaming with Clarke, Biglands, Meeson or Maric :)
Markthirtytwo
5 Jan 2005, 08:41
i voted Hudson! Since he has been at the club he hasnt really put a foot wrong (from an outsiders point of view anyway) and given the Wizard Cup is a mickey mouse competition anyway, i think we will be trying players in positions that may raise some eyebrows. Whilst not completely disregarding the competition altogether, i think this year the AFC will use the Wizard Cup as a chance to showcase some of the youngsters and also experiment with some of the 2nd and 3rd tier players in different roles perhaps...
So yes Hudson...teaming with Clarke, Biglands, Meeson or Maric :)
My only change would be to leave Clarke out until the real stuff, and go with the others on rotation.
Capitalist
5 Jan 2005, 09:27
I would give hudson Primary rucking duties and put clarke into the game when hudson looks like he may be starting to sink, leave biglands at FF, I dont see the point to getting clarke injured early on and i'm pretty sure he doesnt need that much match pratice as Hudson.
If we get through to the 2nd game I would almost rest clarke at give Hudson and Kruger combo
I think we will be looking to try players in positions that we would like them to play during the real season. This means that Biglands will probably play forward, Hudson will start in the ruck, with the aim for Clarke to be ready for round 1.
I'm not convinced about the Biglands experiment yet. I hope it succeeds and he can play solely as a key forward as I can't think of many cases where a resting ruckman has had ongoing success (not a game or two) in a key forward role.
My only change would be to leave Clarke out until the real stuff, and go with the others on rotation.
My reasoning on picking Hudson was like yours ( I am guessing) was that at Clarkes age the AFC need to have him on the park for the real stuff...The Wizard Cup gives Hudson a few more games to show the coaching staff what he has got ...and also allows Biglands to play more forward.
It comes down to objectives for the Wizard Cup. Do you go all out to win or a balance of blooding youngsters etc
I would play Hudson as our main ruck - has he progressed from 2004. This will be a good way to find out.
As the second ruck option either Biglands OR Meeson/Andrews IF they are up to it
Clarke (and Biglands) are known quantities come round 1. The others arent
Same as you i voted Hudson for the same reason & would play any of our younger ruckman that are ready as back-ups leaving Biglands & Clarke to get a run when it's needed.
I think we will be looking to try players in positions that we would like them to play during the real season. This means that Biglands will probably play forward, Hudson will start in the ruck, with the aim for Clarke to be ready for round 1.
I'm not convinced about the Biglands experiment yet. I hope it succeeds and he can play solely as a key forward as I can't think of many cases where a resting ruckman has had ongoing success (not a game or two) in a key forward role.
Pretty much the same way I see it.
IMO all 3 will play in the Wizz, with Clarke and Hudson rucking, and Biglands up forward doing the forward rucking as well, leaving the rucks to sit a kick behind the play.
Hudson should be given first crack at it each quarter, with Clarke coming on when he runs out of puff. That gives Huddo more experience and saves Clarke for the real stuff.
The Biglands thing is certainly an experiment. It used to be a common thing many years ago, and the good marking ruckman used to cause a bit of bother. Darcy and Ottens would be modern day examples of it. It's yet to be seen whether Biglands is good enough or smart enough to do just that.
Kane McGoodwin
5 Jan 2005, 12:06
I think we will be looking to try players in positions that we would like them to play during the real season. This means that Biglands will probably play forward, Hudson will start in the ruck, with the aim for Clarke to be ready for round 1.
I'm not convinced about the Biglands experiment yet. I hope it succeeds and he can play solely as a key forward as I can't think of many cases where a resting ruckman has had ongoing success (not a game or two) in a key forward role.
This is what will probably happen.
However, I would 50/50 share the rucking between Hudson & Biglands in a shootout to see who will support Clarke.
None of the other youngsters are really ready yet.
Stiffy_18
5 Jan 2005, 14:05
I would give Hudson the first and major crack at it. Use Clarke as his back up and Biglands in the forward line.
Given an opportunity Hudson could be most improved next year. I just love the way he plays his footy and his first year was very good considering the time (or lack of) he spent on the field.
Kane McGoodwin
5 Jan 2005, 20:29
I would give Hudson the first and major crack at it. Use Clarke as his back up and Biglands in the forward line.
Given an opportunity Hudson could be most improved next year. I just love the way he plays his footy and his first year was very good considering the time (or lack of) he spent on the field.
If Craig persists with Biglands as a forward, my prediction is that he will be delisted by years' end.
I don't mean to be a spoil sport but I don't think we have the luxury atm of "trying out the youngsters".
We need to hit Round 1 of the home and away season running - so the Wizard Wok should be about setting up for that......which means Clarke and Hudson sharing the ruck.....with Rhett up fwd and rucking in the fwd 50.
Giving the youngsters a run as an introduction to the crowd doesn't serve any purpose imo.......if they earn it then fine - but R1 WW should be selected the same way as R1 H&A imo.
Maybe next year we can be a bit more self indulgant...... ;)
I don't mean to be a spoil sport but I don't think we have the luxury atm of "trying out the youngsters".
We need to hit Round 1 of the home and away season running - so the Wizard Wok should be about setting up for that......which means Clarke and Hudson sharing the ruck.....with Rhett up fwd and rucking in the fwd 50.
Giving the youngsters a run as an introduction to the crowd doesn't serve any purpose imo.......if they earn it then fine - but R1 WW should be selected the same way as R1 H&A imo.
Maybe next year we can be a bit more self indulgant...... ;)
Yep, dead right. Only top sides have the luxury of experimenting with kids in the pre-season games. We need to get our established and likely players in as good form as possible come the start of the season.
outback jack
5 Jan 2005, 21:51
Should be hudson and andrews, hudson atleast has a bit of mongrel in him. Hudson and biglands should be our regular rucks anyway, Hudson has shown too much promise to be playing with north all the time. Sheedy always experiments in the pre-season giving the rookies a chance to shine that should be the purpose of it, not trying to win as many games like ayres did. The comp means nothing anyway, it’s our chance to find a gem in the pre-season.
Hudson, Biglands, Clarke, Krueger, Andrews, possibly Meeson
Markthirtytwo
5 Jan 2005, 23:22
If Craig persists with Biglands as a forward, my prediction is that he will be delisted by years' end.
Call me silly but I think it's going to be his big year this year.
As for being delisted, I think you need a holiday Kane old son. :confused:
If Craig persists with Biglands as a forward, my prediction is that he will be delisted by years' end.
With Clarke retiring the chances of Biglands being delisted are nil. If we have enough emerging ruck talent then he would be a small chance of trade, but that's unlikely IMO.
Realistically why should he be penalised because he can actually take a mark and make a contest - the reasons he will be played forward?
The only thing that concerns me in Biglands rucking the forward line is with the idea of Clarke playing a kick behind play. No offence, but Clarke is no Darcy or Brogan and unless he suddenly finds the ability to take a mark and get to a contest then that is the part of the plan doomed to failure.
I think everyone would like to see the new talent on the park so we can have a look at them, but we should be patient. Players on the list for a couple of years should get a run if fit, but not in the ruck (ie. Watts, Krueger). I doubt we will see much of the new ruckmen or Andrews. We may see some of the smaller guys.
I think Hudson and Biglands will do most ruckwork in the Wizard Cup, and both may be given an occassional go up forward as well.
SpringChoke
6 Jan 2005, 07:41
Call me silly but I think it's going to be his big year this year.
As for being delisted, I think you need a holiday Kane old son. :confused:
Especially when you have the motley crew of Ladhams, Massie, Begley, Bode, Smith, S Stevens, Bock, Shirley, Skipworth, Mattner and Perrie ahead of him. That list doesn't seem to get any smaller.
Kane McGoodwin
6 Jan 2005, 08:15
Call me silly but I think it's going to be his big year this year.
As for being delisted, I think you need a holiday Kane old son. :confused:
Biglands will never become dominant as a forward - he just doesn't have the ability, including forward instincts to do it on a regular basis. Persisting along these lines will end his careere sooner rather than later. IMO, trying him as a KPP has sent his rucking backwards, not enhanced it.
Kane McGoodwin
6 Jan 2005, 08:17
Especially when you have the motley crew of Ladhams, Massie, Begley, Bode, Smith, S Stevens, Bock, Shirley, Skipworth, Mattner and Perrie ahead of him. That list doesn't seem to get any smaller.
Last year, some of the names you mentioned above improved - Biglands went backwards in his development.
Kane McGoodwin
6 Jan 2005, 08:20
With Clarke retiring the chances of Biglands being delisted are nil. If we have enough emerging ruck talent then he would be a small chance of trade, but that's unlikely IMO.
Realistically why should he be penalised because he can actually take a mark and make a contest - the reasons he will be played forward?
The only thing that concerns me in Biglands rucking the forward line is with the idea of Clarke playing a kick behind play. No offence, but Clarke is no Darcy or Brogan and unless he suddenly finds the ability to take a mark and get to a contest then that is the part of the plan doomed to failure.
I think everyone would like to see the new talent on the park so we can have a look at them, but we should be patient. Players on the list for a couple of years should get a run if fit, but not in the ruck (ie. Watts, Krueger). I doubt we will see much of the new ruckmen or Andrews. We may see some of the smaller guys.
I think Hudson and Biglands will do most ruckwork in the Wizard Cup, and both may be given an occassional go up forward as well.
Biglands rucking has gone backwards since being used as a KPP. So if we are going to use him in this role, why keep him as a ruckman?
IMO, Hudson showed more than Biglands in 2004 & if 1 of the younger rucks shows something in 2005, Biglands could be in strife.
Time will tell.
Biglands rucking has gone backwards since being used as a KPP. So if we are going to use him in this role, why keep him as a ruckman?
IMO, Hudson showed more than Biglands in 2004 & if 1 of the younger rucks shows something in 2005, Biglands could be in strife.
Time will tell.
Agreed......I reckon Biglands is only there for insurance this year.....he is going to need a big 2005.
Agreed......I reckon Biglands is only there for insurance this year.....he is going to need a big 2005.
I've said it many times & i'll say it again this year will be Biglands last chance to establish himself as our no1 ruckman & like Kane i don't believe he can play as kpp other than as a pinch hitter when needed, wont go as far as to say he'll be delisted but definitely could be used as trade bait if he puts in another year like last years dumb showing.
Rhett has it all to become a very dominant ruckman high leap, aggression, 2nd efforts & can mark a ball he just needs to use his head a bit more & not let his feet do his thinking.
Markthirtytwo
6 Jan 2005, 08:56
I've said it many times & i'll say it again this year will be Biglands last chance to establish himself as our no1 ruckman & like Kane i don't believe he can play as kpp other than as a pinch hitter when needed, wont go as far as to say he'll be delisted but definitely could be used as trade bait if he puts in another year like last years dumb showing.
Rhett has it all to become a very dominant ruckman high leap, aggression, 2nd efforts & can mark a ball he just needs to use his head a bit more & not let his feet do his thinking.
I thought it was his elbow, commrade :D
hudson, with meeson on the bench and gibson up forward
SpringChoke
6 Jan 2005, 10:12
Last year, some of the names you mentioned above improved - Biglands went backwards in his development.
I agree. Biglands form over the last few years should dictate that 2005 is make or break time. But unfortunately, he gets a get out of jail free card because of the number of ordinary or under performing players we have on our list.
Bode, Begley, Shirley, Bock, Skipworth, Smith, S Stevens, Massie, Ladhams, will be ahead of him in the "must perform in 2005 or bye bye" list. Let's face it, we are not exactly over flowing with afl ready ruckman. Also, if Clarke retires ( fingers crossed ) at the end of this year, Biglands is a must. Bring on the kids in 2006 and then give him the flick at then of 06 if he continues to under perform. It ********es me off as much as the next person that some afc players are given a free ride but that's the result of terrible list management over the last few years.
dyertribe
6 Jan 2005, 10:21
Fergus Watts? Gives me cold shivers even contemplating it.
I agree. Biglands form over the last few years should dictate that 2005 is make or break time. But unfortunately, he gets a get out of jail free card because of the number of ordinary or under performing players we have on our list.
Bode, Begley, Shirley, Bock, Skipworth, Smith, S Stevens, Massie, Ladhams, will be ahead of him in the "must perform in 2005 or bye bye" list. Let's face it, we are not exactly over flowing with afl ready ruckman. Also, if Clarke retires ( fingers crossed ) at the end of this year, Biglands is a must. Bring on the kids in 2006 and then give him the flick at then of 06 if he continues to under perform. It ********es me off as much as the next person that some afc players are given a free ride but that's the result of terrible list management over the last few years.
The Angwin debacle cost us big time in more ways than one. :(
dyertribe
6 Jan 2005, 10:56
The Angwin debacle cost us big time in more ways than one. :(
Angwin and Tom Gilligan.
Really, Angwin was just Gilligan reloaded.
Angwin and Tom Gilligan.
Really, Angwin was just Gilligan reloaded.
I'll never forget how sick i felt when we passed up on Kane Cornes for bloody Angwin & i'm sure in the years ahead that move will come back to haunt us more & more.
I said last early year young Kane will captain Port one day & could even win a brownlow before he's finished playing & i still stand by those comments.
Never had a chance to pick up Chad but we certainly did Kane.
Gilligan was just soft in all departments while Angwin he could play the game.
SpringChoke
6 Jan 2005, 11:46
The Angwin debacle cost us big time in more ways than one. :(
Yep, it sure did.
dyertribe
6 Jan 2005, 11:54
Gilligan was just soft in all departments while Angwin he could play the game.
Agreed... both were first round picks, although passing up Kane for Laurence. Cripes.
SpringChoke
6 Jan 2005, 12:04
Agreed... both were first round picks, although passing up Kane for Laurence. Cripes.
Mind you, for the few games I watched Kane playing for the Bays, I'm not sure I would have used pick 7 on him anyway.Obviously, in hindsight I would have been wrong, but at the time i'm not sure if he was worth a top 10 pick. However, if the afc didn't swap pick 12 for Bode ( S Burgoyne), we could have used that for him. What a waste.
Round one - Clarke/Biglands......But if we lose are first game i think we should give the young fellas a go, to see what they have to offer for later on in the year if somone gets injured.