Two Rucks - No Names

[TradeDraft]

Thinking about the two ruck situation, it worked at West Coast with Cox and Nic Nat.

They where both Freaks. Cox moved like a Midfielder and Nic Nat is a Freak. Grundy is like Cox but Witts is not

 

[Maggie5]

They where both Freaks. Cox moved like a Midfielder and Nic Nat is a Freak. Grundy is like Cox but Witts is not

I am trying to look at the situation objectively and cannot understand the criticisms of Witts after two games.
I don't have a big love of either player (not like I have for the Caff), but form mine, both are very good and both bring different skills and would depend on the opposition. Maric treated Grundy like a rag doll on Sunday, he still needs to stop looking at the opponent when going for ball-ups.

 

[TradeDraft]

I am trying to look at the situation objectively and cannot understand the criticisms of Witts after two games.
I don't have a big love of either player (not like I have for the Caff), but form mine, both are very good and both bring different skills and would depend on the opposition. Maric treated Grundy like a rag doll on Sunday, he still needs to stop looking at the opponent when going for ball-ups.

Maric is 1 of the Best Ruckman in the League and he makes a big difference. So was no Surprise that Maric Beat both Young Witts and Grundy.

Though I thought Grundy was very good around the Ground.

 

[mike123]

Did it work with Cloke, Dawes, Leigh Brown and Jolly?

It did, when it was Cloke, Dawes and Jolly it didn't work which is what would happen if we dropped Witts for a small.

 

[Maggie5]

Maric is 1 of the Best Ruckman in the League and he makes a big difference. So was no Surprise that Maric Smashed both Young Witts and Grundy.

Though I thought Grundy was very good around the Ground.

Watch the replay again, he did not 'smash' Witts.

 

[TradeDraft]

Watch the replay again, he did not 'smash' Witts.

So I Guess we better make Witts our Number 1 Ruckman then and Play Grundy as a Midfielder and Forward and Spend time in the Ruck when Witts tires.

Though that be a better Idea as playing Witts as a 2nd Ruckman as I have doubts that would work to make our team Better

 

[mike123]

Watch the replay again, he did not 'smash' Witts.

Then he didn't smash Grundy either...

 

[Markfs]

normally we solve these problems on BF by getting someone in on free agency....

 

[Maggie5]

Then he didn't smash Grundy either...

Didn't say he 'smashed' him!

 

[mike123]

Didn't say he 'smashed' him!

No, but you only defended Witts.

 

[Maggie5]

No, but you only defended Witts.

So what is your point?
Have watched the replay twice and I still can't understand what the Witt's detractors are talking about.

 

[TradeDraft]

So what is your point?
Have watched the replay twice and I still can't understand what the Witt's detractors are talking about.

Not Talking about his Ruck Work but More him up Forward and around the Ground

 

[Maggie5]

Not Talking about his Ruck Work but More him up Forward and around the Ground

Watch the replay objectively, keeping in mind that this is his second game at AFL level.
There will be times when only one be used and it will depend on opposition ruck.

 

[mike123]

So what is your point?
Have watched the replay twice and I still can't understand what the Witt's detractors are talking about.

And I can't understand what Grundy's detractors are talking about (not saying you are one). I thought they were both fine and we should continue to play them together.

 

[Vankri]

Apologies in advance because I'm going to break the 'rules' of the thread by giving the rucks a name first.

This is because I strongly disagree with the majority's assessment of Grundy and Witts' games on Sunday. Quite surprised actually at the amount of people who think Witts had a bad game (or even worse). He didn't. Statistically he was very close to Grundy's stats even though Grundy was the one given priority to ruck at the start of each of the four quarters and therefore looked like he spent more time in the ruck, and more time in the middle to accumulate stats.

It's also significant that our worst period of play in the game came at the start of the second quarter when Grundy was the only one to ruck for an extended period of time. We conceded 6 goals in a row, and two of them start from getting well beaten in the ruck... Just watch the second quarter again.

Witts did better than Grundy in the ruck on Sunday, he was more imposing and he does a better job at preventing his opponent ruck from getting the ball to an advantageous position. As forwards they were actually both fairly poor but Witts got his goal through (doesn't matter that it was the last kick of the game, he was accurate with it) and his field kicking definitely stood out and he set up a couple of good plays.

Now that doesn't mean that Grundy had a terrible game, he really stood up in the last quarter which is what people probably remember best from the game, but he wasn't imposing in the ruck and was poor as a forward (badly missed one set shot, and gave away a really close shot to Seedsman who was further and ended up spraying it anyway).

I think the end of 2014 showed that Witts had the potential to be an excellent AFL ruckman. People perhaps remember one or two things from his games this year (his dropped mark last week, his missed tackle this week) and forget about the rest. Now Witts is slow, that's for sure, which is exposed when he's chasing a runner but if we were playing the sole ruck his only opponent for the game would be the opposition ruckman and his lack of speed wouldn't be a factor.

All of this brings me to the purpose of the thread.
We have a funny dilemma in our hands: We have two very promising young ruckmen who can hold their own in the ruck against AFL opposition. But neither of them is good enough in the forward line as of yet.
Which means if we play them we're basically playing two pure ruckmen – which is a bit of a dying structure in the AFL today – rather than playing 1 primary ruckman (75-80% time in the ruck) and 1 forward-ruck (75-80% of the forward line). This makes us slow and makes our midfield easy to overrun.

Based on this I can see three possible scenarios:
1) We believe in the 2-ruck set up in the long term, potentially because we anticipate the sub rule to go, so we treat this year as a development in the AFL and can afford playing both and trying to get them to ruck 50/50
2) We believe that one of them can primarily be a forward in the long term, and this is an underdeveloped part in the game of either, so we send one of them to the VFL to develop their forward game. If one needs a rest or if there's a much better match up for a certain game, then we can alternate and bring the other in but not play them together
3) We don't believe either of them has the scope to become a forward first and foremost and don't believe in a 2-ruck setup. In this scenario we should look to trade one of them to get somethign that helps our team better in the long term (maybe Witts to a NSW club, or Grundy to SA).

Now I'm leaning towards scenario 2), with Grundy being primarily a forward, because of his athleticism and marking ability, when Witts' marking ability against defenders (not just defending ruckmen) looks limited. But I have concerns over Grundy's kicking, his technique looks flawed and his kicks never give me any confidence (career total of 6.13 – Witts' is 14.7). So maybe this means we'll have to resort to scenario 3).

 

[Maggie5]

Apologies in advance because I'm going to break the 'rules' of the thread by giving the rucks a name first.

This is because I strongly disagree with the majority's assessment of Grundy and Witts' games on Sunday. Quite surprised actually at the amount of people who think Witts had a bad game (or even worse). He didn't. Statistically he was very close to Grundy's stats even though Grundy was the one given priority to ruck at the start of each of the four quarters and therefore looked like he spent more time in the ruck, and more time in the middle to accumulate stats.

It's also significant that our worst period of play in the game came at the start of the second quarter when Grundy was the only one to ruck for an extended period of time. We conceded 6 goals in a row, and two of them start from getting well beaten in the ruck... Just watch the second quarter again.

Witts did better than Grundy in the ruck on Sunday, he was more imposing and he does a better job at preventing his opponent ruck from getting the ball to an advantageous position. As forwards they were actually both fairly poor but Witts got his goal through (doesn't matter that it was the last kick of the game, he was accurate with it) and his field kicking definitely stood out and he set up a couple of good plays.

Now that doesn't mean that Grundy had a terrible game, he really stood up in the last quarter which is what people probably remember best from the game, but he wasn't imposing in the ruck and was poor as a forward (badly missed one set shot, and gave away a really close shot to Seedsman who was further and ended up spraying it anyway).

I think the end of 2014 showed that Witts had the potential to be an excellent AFL ruckman. People perhaps remember one or two things from his games this year (his dropped mark last week, his missed tackle this week) and forget about the rest. Now Witts is slow, that's for sure, which is exposed when he's chasing a runner but if we were playing the sole ruck his only opponent for the game would be the opposition ruckman and his lack of speed wouldn't be a factor.

All of this brings me to the purpose of the thread.
We have a funny dilemma in our hands: We have two very promising young ruckmen who can hold their own in the ruck against AFL opposition. But neither of them is good enough in the forward line as of yet.
Which means if we play them we're basically playing two pure ruckmen – which is a bit of a dying structure in the AFL today – rather than playing 1 primary ruckman (75-80% time in the ruck) and 1 forward-ruck (75-80% of the forward line). This makes us slow and makes our midfield easy to overrun.

Based on this I can see three possible scenarios:
1) We believe in the 2-ruck set up in the long term, potentially because we anticipate the sub rule to go, so we treat this year as a development in the AFL and can afford playing both and trying to get them to ruck 50/50
2) We believe that one of them can primarily be a forward in the long term, and this is an underdeveloped part in the game of either, so we send one of them to the VFL to develop their forward game. If one needs a rest or if there's a much better match up for a certain game, then we can alternate and bring the other in but not play them together
3) We don't believe either of them has the scope to become a forward first and foremost and don't believe in a 2-ruck setup. In this scenario we should look to trade one of them to get somethign that helps our team better in the long term (maybe Witts to a NSW club, or Grundy to SA).

Now I'm leaning towards scenario 2), with Grundy being primarily a forward, because of his athleticism and marking ability, when Witts' marking ability against defenders (not just defending ruckmen) looks limited. But I have concerns over Grundy's kicking, his technique looks flawed and his kicks never give me any confidence (career total of 6.13 – Witts' is 14.7). So maybe this means we'll have to resort to scenario 3).

Good summary, we are in a great position, happy to keep both and see how they go this year. Can think of ten other clubs that would love to be in our position.

 

[Maggie5]

And I can't understand what Grundy's detractors are talking about (not saying you are one). I thought they were both fine and we should continue to play them together.

Thanks you are right, I am not one of them.

 

[TradeDraft]

Vankri So you are in Favor in Playing Grundy more Forward as he is a Better 2nd Ruckman and Around the Ground.

Grundy’s Kicking on Sunday looked quite good and looks better the Witt’s

So you be Happy to Trade Grundy? I still think that be a MASSIVE MASSIVE MASSIVE Mistake his upside is that he can be 1 of the Best Rucks/Talls in the Comp

but he wasn't imposing in the ruck and was poor as a forward (badly missed one set shot, and gave away a really close shot to Seedsman who was further and ended up spraying it anyway).

Could say that same thing about Most of our Forwards

 

[Old Spice]

It did, when it was Cloke, Dawes and Jolly it didn't work which is what would happen if we dropped Witts for a small.

Who said small? In fact the very point was about having one ruck (Jolly=Witts or Grundy) and 3 talls (Cloke/Dawes/Brown = Cloke/White/Gault).

 

[Vankri]

Vankri So you are in Favor in Playing Grundy more Forward as he is a Better 2nd Ruckman and Around the Ground.

I feel out of the two I can see Witts being OK forward, and kicking some goals as a resting ruckman, but I'd say he isn't athletic, agile and mobile enough to actually be a forward-ruck (forward 80% of the time, ruck 20%).

Grundy from what I've read has spent quite some time forward as a junior (might have read wrong), so I would assume running patterns for a forward, positioning and such comes more naturally to him. He is also a better mark, as an agile tall with a big leap.

So what I'm saying is that if we're going to say one of Grundy/Witts has to ruck 80% of the time, and the other only 20%, I would probably choose Grundy to be the latter.

Grundy’s Kicking on Sunday looked quite good and looks better the Witt’s

I disagree with that. I've always seen Witts' kicking as one of his strengths. His technique is sound, his kicks are penetrating and accurate. And his set shot kicking is very good – much better than most of our team's in fact.

In comparison Grundy's kicking can be OK (he had 1 goal assist with an I50 kick on Sunday if I remember well), but his technique looks poor, his kicks are less penetrating and his set shots are not good.

Career-wise, 29 games played for each:
Grundy 6 goals, 13 behinds
Witts 14 goals, 7 behinds

So you be Happy to Trade Grundy? I still think that be a MASSIVE MASSIVE MASSIVE Mistake his upside is that he can be 1 of the Best Rucks/Talls in the Comp

I would only trade one of them if they both fail to become that forward-ruck I'm talking about – or if we anticipate they won't be able to make it that way. If we had to, I'd be inclined to look to trade Witts first if we get something good in exchange. But you never know, that trade might no exist and we might be able to get a big return for Grundy.

Anyway at this stage that's not the option I'd favour. I would favour developing one of them as a forward and alternating between them as to who comes in when the other needs a rest (rest of the time one of them plays as a forward in the VFL at least to build some sort of consistency there before they get sent forward 80% of the time in the AFL).

 

[Tarkyn_24]

I have read a lot of People using Witts late season form last year saying how good he can be.

He can be good but the Problem he not a Good 2nd Ruckman. He is a Number 1 Ruckman and nothing else

Maybe Grundy should learn to be a better second ruckman then?

 

[TradeDraft]

In comparison Grundy's kicking can be OK (he had 1 goal assist with an I50 kick on Sunday if I remember well), but his technique looks poor, his kicks are less penetrating and his set shots are not good.

Did you see his Field Kicking? The Kick in the Last where he Put a Ball Right down Blair’s Throat was very Impressive

 

[TradeDraft]

How about we Drop White for a Small/Medium Player and Then play the 2nd Ruck as the 2nd Tall.

That would keep the Pressure Up

 

[MagpieBat]

How about we Drop White for a Small/Medium Player and Then play the 2nd Ruck as the 2nd Tall.

That would keep the Pressure Up

No, just no.

We tried that last year and the forward line became impotent and dysfunctional as a result.

The 3 talls setup must stay.

 

[TradeDraft]

No, just no.

We tried that last year and the forward line became impotent and dysfunctional as a result.

The 3 talls setup must stay.

That was last year. Why not try it again against a Suppose Piss Weak Side?

Though Grundy has said both he and Witts want to Ruck Together