List Mgmt. 2015 ruckmen

Remove this Banner Ad

nohairandfair said:
Ranked 24th in 2014 for average hit-outs.
Click to expand...

That data point doesn't mean anything, there are so many different way in which teams structure the rotations of there ruck division, that makes comparing averages between ruckman quite useless. Tactically some teams try to force as many stoppages as possible while others try to avoid them, some teams really on having 1 ruckman ruck play 90% game time in the middle while others teams use there second ruckman more often.

Things like the following would give a much better indication of his performance
% hitouts won ( in two categories, centre clearances and stoppages around the ground)
% hitouts to advantage ( in two categories, centre clearances and stoppages around the ground)
% centre clearance won
% differential of clearance compared to their next ruckman
 
Last edited by a moderator:
10lana said:
That data point does mean anything, there are so many different way in which teams structure the rotations of there ruck division, that makes comparing averages between ruckman quite useless. Tactically some teams try to force as many stoppages as possible while others try to avoid them, some teams really on having 1 ruckman ruck play 90% game time in the middle while others teams use there second ruckman more often.

Things like the following would give a much better indication of his performance
% hitouts won ( in two categories, centre clearances and stoppages around the ground)
% hitouts to advantage ( in two categories, centre clearances and stoppages around the ground)
% centre clearance won
% differential of clearance compared to their next ruckman
Click to expand...

He's a big lump of a lad and probably figures okay in a couple of those stats but realistically he's never going to be a top class ruckman. The fact he can't mark, kick, handball, tackle, is slow as treacle and lacks basic footy smarts doesn't help his cause.
 
nohairandfair said:
He's a big lump of a lad and probably figures okay in a couple of those stats but realistically he's never going to be a top class ruckman. The fact he can't mark, kick, handball, tackle, is slow as treacle and lacks basic footy smarts doesn't help his cause.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to be the next Dean Cox, he just needs to be able to run out a full game and not be dominated by the opposing ruck, our midfield will be able to take care of the rest. He looked better in all of the auxiliary skills last year before he did his knee, I don't care how long it takes for him to get his fitness up, he shouldn't play until he has the fitness to play 80% game time in the ruck, one he has a large enough tank all of the other skills will fall into place.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

10lana said:
He doesn't have to be the next Dean Cox, he just needs to be able to run out a full game and not be dominated by the opposing ruck, our midfield will be able to take care of the rest. He looked better in all of the auxiliary skills last year before he did his knee, I don't care how long it takes for him to get his fitness up, he shouldn't play until he has the fitness to play 80% game time in the ruck, one he has a large enough tank all of the other skills will fall into place.
Click to expand...

But that's the thing all the top ruckman these days are multi-skilled. Sandilands, Ryder, Mumford, Goldstein, Hale, Naitanui, et al are all mobile types that can win hit-outs, take marks, kick goals and possess good disposal and decision making.

These modern ruckman will continue to expose Dawson around the ground.

Given the club appears to be recruiting for added speed I'm not sure Dawson fits into their plans.
 
nohairandfair said:
He's a big lump of a lad and probably figures okay in a couple of those stats but realistically he's never going to be a top class ruckman. The fact he can't mark, kick, handball, tackle, is slow as treacle and lacks basic footy smarts doesn't help his cause.
Click to expand...
I hate to say it, because it draws such a close comparison, but you just described Mark Blake.
 
Shai said:
Can you expand on this please, these 2 paragraphs seem like a total contradiction to me, where was Frawley going to play or who was he going to replace..? o_O
Click to expand...

I really don't know what is so hard to understand there - refer to my initial post, where I said that I would have a fixed rotation policy for the key defenders, which would open up another spot as well as keep them all fresher come September.

In the scenario I have suggested, Frawley would get the games that would have gone to Kolodjashnij and you would pick the 3 out of Lonergan, Rivers, Taylor and Frawley that are uninjured and in the best form heading into the finals.

In any case, we didn't get Frawley so the point is moot and to be perfectly honest, (unpopular opinion alert) if we did get Frawley I would probably have let either Lonergan or Rivers go.

As I said, I don't expect the rotation policy to happen anyway, but I do think we need to start preparing for life without the usual defensive set up, because most of them only have a year or two left.
 
Last edited:
TheWoodenSlug said:
Yeah I agree with most of that, though as for the bolded - that has worked for most positions, but not key defenders. As Partridge showed, Rivers, Lonergan, Mackie & Taylor have all played the vast majority of available games over the last two years. What do we do if they again get through the year with no injuries? There is no room for another tall defender, so how do Blicavs or Kolo get the AFL experience they need before the end of next year, when I would think that at least one of the senior players will be retiring?

Geez, landing Frawley would have been handy. Does anyone know if there are any decent KPDs available as free agents next year?
Click to expand...

Michael Johnson
Alex Rance
These two would be a more than handy acquisituion, Rance is an absoulte gun, and still fairly young. Doubt we could get him, but those two are the best KPD come next years FA
 
nohairandfair said:
Blicavs lined up on Hill on a couple of occasions at centre square bounces in the first half and that was about it. He played the majority of the game in defence minding Ceglar and Hale and contesting the ruck. He was one of our best with 20 possessions (10 contested) , 14 hit outs and a goal.

Hill was given free licence to do as he pleased. No one was directly matched up to him at any stage.
Click to expand...
Sorry mate, I was there, bottom level on the wing. It wasn't just a 'couple of occasions' it was most of the match and Blitz got towelled up.
 
NSFB said:
Sorry mate, I was there, bottom level on the wing. It wasn't just a 'couple of occasions' it was most of the match and Blitz got towelled up.
Click to expand...
You were probably caught up in the moment... I suggest you watch the replay. HarryT was forward and Blicavs played predominantly in the backline on the Hawk talls and in the ruck.

Mitch Duncan and Kelly at times loosely "monitored" Hill but he was more or less given carte blanche to run along the boundary all day unattended.
 
nohairandfair said:
You were probably caught up in the moment... I suggest you watch the replay. HarryT was forward and Blicavs played predominantly in the backline on the Hawk talls and in the ruck.

Mitch Duncan and Kelly at times loosely "monitored" Hill but he was more or less given carte blanche to run along the boundary all day unattended.
Click to expand...
Yeah nah. He was mostly on Hill. I saw Hill numerous times running along the wing with Blitz trailing him.

Not saying he didn't spend time in the back half but most of his time was in Hill.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

NSFB said:
Yeah nah. He was mostly on Hill. I saw Hill numerous times running along the wing with Blitz trailing him.

Not saying he didn't spend time in the back half but most of his time was in Hill.
Click to expand...

It's a furphy. Watch the replay; it may even relieve you of some bias. :thumbsu:

Jonathon+Ceglar+Mark+Blicavs+Hawthorn+v+Geelong+JjiiQkgDfS-l.jpg
 
nohairandfair said:
It's a furphy. Watch the replay; it may even relieve you of some bias. :thumbsu:
Click to expand...
Mate I'm not the only one who has commented on him playing on Hill.... Are we all blind or something? I know what I saw.
 
NSFB said:
Mate I'm not the only one who has commented on him playing on Hill.... Are we all blind or something? I know what I saw.
Click to expand...

He got more than 1/3rd of our hitouts, so he obviously was not on Hill the whole game.
From the AFL website report:
Multi-purpose type who played on the wing, in defence and pinch-hit in the ruck but did not look dangerous often. Broke even with whoever he manned up on but could not use his run to enough effect to influence the contest as he might have hoped. Won 10 contested possessions and kicked a goal.
 
Partridge said:
Can't criticise the golden boy. Should know that by now.
Click to expand...

Nobody should be immune from criticism, some of the criticism levelled his way (throughout the season) is harsh imo and I'm quite happy with the progress he's made in 2 seasons.

For example do we criticise Blicavs for being beaten by Hill or do we criticise the decision to put him on Hill. I'd say the latter as he can only play where he's told and if that is a bad matchup it's not really his fault is it.
FredLeDeux said:
He got more than 1/3rd of our hitouts, so he obviously was not on Hill the whole game.
From the AFL website report:
Multi-purpose type who played on the wing, in defence and pinch-hit in the ruck but did not look dangerous often. Broke even with whoever he manned up on but could not use his run to enough effect to influence the contest as he might have hoped. Won 10 contested possessions and kicked a goal.
Click to expand...
Read back through what I have said in this discussion. I've been consistent all the way through by saying he played on Hill 'most' of the time, never said he was on him all game. His game time on Hill decreased when Hmac was subbed off.

Maybe I should further clarify, most of the first half and not so much after the exit of Hmac.
 
NSFB said:
Nobody should be immune from criticism, some of the criticism levelled his way (throughout the season) is unfounded imo and I'm quite happy with the progress he's made in 2 seasons.

For example do we criticise Blicavs for being beaten by Hill or do we criticise the decision to put him on Hill. I'd say the latter as he can only play where he's told and if that is a bad matchup it's not really his fault is it.
Click to expand...

Both. I would absolutely criticise the decision to put him there, and this is what happens when you get sucked into a story and stop thinking objectively. What evidence has there been, really, that he can actually play as a midfielder? Very little. But everyone - including it seems the coaches - want him to play there. They found out the hard way that just because they think every player is amazingly versatile it doesn't mean they actually are. It's certainly not limited to Blicavs either; Smedts as a defender comes to mind.

As for the second part, every other player on the list gets criticised, why not him? Imagine what would happen if Smedts had played on Hill instead. Do you think people would be saying "well, it's not really his fault, he can only play where he's told"? Of course not. His head would be on a spike (metaphorically speaking).

The training wheels came off (or rather fell off) in September last year. His performances should be treated exactly the same as every other senior player. Good games warrant praise, poor games warrant criticism. Simple as that. And of course, in the finals, he absolutely was not the only poor player. Not by a long shot.
 
Partridge said:
Both. I would absolutely criticise the decision to put him there, and this is what happens when you get sucked into a story and stop thinking objectively. What evidence has there been, really, that he can actually play as a midfielder? Very little. But everyone - including it seems the coaches - want him to play there. They found out the hard way that just because they think every player is amazingly versatile it doesn't mean they actually are. It's certainly not limited to Blicavs either; Smedts as a defender comes to mind.

As for the second part, every other player on the list gets criticised, why not him? Imagine what would happen if Smedts had played on Hill instead. Do you think people would be saying "well, it's not really his fault, he can only play where he's told"? Of course not. His head would be on a spike (metaphorically speaking).

The training wheels came off (or rather fell off) in September last year. His performances should be treated exactly the same as every other senior player. Good games warrant praise, poor games warrant criticism. Simple as that. And of course, in the finals, he absolutely was not the only poor player. Not by a long shot.
Click to expand...
That's where we differ. I didn't criticise Smedts when he played in defence, he was a fish out of water. I criticised the reason for him playing so poorly, the decision to play him there in the first place.

I'm willing to cut players some slack who are clearly playing out of position.

The reason 90-95% of the blame should fall onto the MC this time is that clearly, despite being very athletic and having elite endurance, Blicavs just doesn't have the explosive speed that Hill does so it's a bit hard to expect him keep up with him.

We say Blicavs got towelled up but he was one of only 7 players to register 20 or more disposals for us.

So he was far from our worst, it's just a shame Hill had 27 touches and was lively all night.
 
NSFB said:
Sorry mate, I was there, bottom level on the wing. It wasn't just a 'couple of occasions' it was most of the match and Blitz got towelled up.
Click to expand...

I wouldnt say it was most of the match, but lets say it was.
Says alot more about chris scott then mark blicavs.
 
From memory Blicavs didn't go to Hill until part way through the 3rd quarter when he was already carving us up. Why is Blicavs the scapegoat when Hill destroyed us for the whole match and for most of it he wasn't playing on Blicavs?
 
Footy Smarts said:
From memory Blicavs didn't go to Hill until part way through the 3rd quarter when he was already carving us up. Why is Blicavs the scapegoat when Hill destroyed us for the whole match and for most of it he wasn't playing on Blicavs?
Click to expand...
I can tell you with 100% certainty he played on Hill in the first half. I was on the wing and he kept running past me with Blitz in pursuit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top