Swans must play 2 ruckmen

[BruceFromBalnarring]

One thing learnt from yesterday was the value in playing two ruckmen. When a genuine ruckman is in the contest the onballers are on the front foot. They play with greater confidence and the results are there for all to see. Additionally, Pyke and Mumford both continue to contest a loose ball on the ground and present with purpose when up forward.

This rule does not apply as regards oversized withch's hats like Seaby.

 

[Syd]

Been saying it for the better part of the past 2-years as Horse slowly ran mumford into the ground.

This is exactly why Pyke has so much value\upside.

Give Mummy more game time next week and Horse will have him flying solo straight after the bye.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Give Mummy more game time next week and Horse will have him flying solo straight after the bye.

With LRT/White part timing and the midfield in disarray.

 

[MF]

I think a couple of months ago I would have disagreed, but after seeing pretty much every possible rucking combination we have over the past few rounds, yesterdays seemed to work the best of all.

It will go back to Mumford/LRT next week though you'd think.

 

[Gongswan]

Looked a good combo for mine, let's keep it, I quite like having big Myke in there throwing his considerable bulk around

 

[RUNVS]

I think a couple of months ago I would have disagreed, but after seeing pretty much every possible rucking combination we have over the past few rounds, yesterdays seemed to work the best of all.

It will go back to Mumford/LRT next week though you'd think.

It can't as Mumford is nowhere near fit enough to be the primary ruckman against Essendon's ruck devision. He needs Pyke there to take away some of the load.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

While you may be right, I wouldn't be so quick to make the call that 2 rucks was the reason for the dominance. Firstly, mummys back, so it could have been his influence alone that made the difference (and to a large degree that was the difference imo). It still doesnt support that 2 rucks is the key, just that mummy is. And we knew that all along.

Our mids got on top in a massive way. Had our mids been beaten by better opposition we may be questioning why so many big guys were included in the side (and many were prior to the game).

So do we keep mumford, lrt & pyke all in the same team? All I know is mummy definitely needs some support. He's gone down a few times already which indicates he's probably been overworked.

And who qualifies as a second ruck? If we drop say pyke, does lrt count as a 2nd ruckman or do we need all 3 on the team?

It's gonna be interesting to see what happens once spang's back. He's probably be the best tall forward option atm. Which begs the question, who do we drop? Lrt or pyke? Is probably lean towards dropping pyke, but is the aim to have 2 genuine ruckmen or is lrt sufficient as the second option?

 

[SM]

While you may be right, I wouldn't be so quick to make the call that 2 rucks was the reason for the dominance. Firstly, mummys back, so it could have been his influence alone that made the difference (and to a large degree that was the difference imo). It still doesnt support that 2 rucks is the key, just that mummy is. And we knew that all along.

Our mids got on top in a massive way. Had our mids been beaten by better opposition we may be questioning why so many big guys were included in the side (and many were prior to the game).

So do we keep mumford, lrt & pyke all in the same team? All I know is mummy definitely needs some support. He's gone down a few times already which indicates he's probably been overworked.

And who qualifies as a second ruck? If we drop say pyke, does lrt count as a 2nd ruckman or do we need all 3 on the team?

It's gonna be interesting to see what happens once spang's back. He'd probably be the best tall forward option atm. Which begs the question, who do we drop? Lrt or pyke? Is probably lean towards dropping pyke, but is the aim to have 2 genuine ruckmen or is lrt sufficient as the second option?

Absolutely 100% agree. I'm just leaning towards LRT being dropped, but for the exact same reasons. But apparently I'm just an attention seeking waste of space.

 

[BarneyBent]

I totally agree. Our structure and play is heavily reliant on our midfield. We need to win the bulk of the clearances and inside 50s as we have no dominant forwards. We win the midfield, we win the game, so I'm happy to sacrifice a tall or small forward and go in with two genuine ruckmen. Having Pyke as our second ruckman will give us an edge over the opposition second ruckman against almost every other team (WC and North are exceptions, maybe Carlton too).

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

While you may be right, I wouldn't be so quick to make the call that 2 rucks was the reason for the dominance. Firstly, mummys back, so it could have been his influence alone that made the difference (and to a large degree that was the difference imo). It still doesnt support that 2 rucks is the key, just that mummy is. And we knew that all along.

Our mids got on top in a massive way. Had our mids been beaten by better opposition we may be questioning why so many big guys were included in the side (and many were prior to the game).

So do we keep mumford, lrt & pyke all in the same team? All I know is mummy definitely needs some support. He's gone down a few times already which indicates he's probably been overworked.

And who qualifies as a second ruck? If we drop say pyke, does lrt count as a 2nd ruckman or do we need all 3 on the team?

It's gonna be interesting to see what happens once spang's back. He's probably be the best tall forward option atm. Which begs the question, who do we drop? Lrt or pyke? Is probably lean towards dropping pyke, but is the aim to have 2 genuine ruckmen or is lrt sufficient as the second option?

Pyke got 40 taps, Mumford 15. Pyke was our main ruckman yesterday. And it is that that illustrates my point. Our midfield moved with much greater purpose yesterday and I put that down to having a genuine ruckman at every bounce/throw in. Movement with purpose is everything in the contested situation. And both of them compete at ground level.

I don't think LRT nor White count as genuine second rucks. By all means play them as key position players. This time last year I advocated Reid and Goodes on the flanks with White at CHF. Now I'd probably say LRT CHF, Reid on a flank, and Goodes at FF alongside a resting ruckman. Tall? Yes. But how do you match up on that? It requires some pretty hard running, especially from McGlynn and the resting onballers, but Reid needs another Summer in the gym before he can cop being double teamed.

 

[baja]

Have always said this, most clubs just took to the trend of playimg 'one and a half' rucks when the whole sub crap started, it is NOT a proven method its a whole new concept and I think two traditional rucks works much better, especially for teams like West Coast.

 

[CAS79]

I agree with the OP but the way the game is the ruckman need to put the effort into developing a second bow up forward.

But two proper ruckman yes.

 

[Syd]

While you may be right, I wouldn't be so quick to make the call that 2 rucks was the reason for the dominance. Firstly, mummys back, so it could have been his influence alone that made the difference (and to a large degree that was the difference imo). It still doesnt support that 2 rucks is the key, just that mummy is. And we knew that all along.

Our mids got on top in a massive way. Had our mids been beaten by better opposition we may be questioning why so many big guys were included in the side (and many were prior to the game).

So do we keep mumford, lrt & pyke all in the same team? All I know is mummy definitely needs some support. He's gone down a few times already which indicates he's probably been overworked.

And who qualifies as a second ruck? If we drop say pyke, does lrt count as a 2nd ruckman or do we need all 3 on the team?

It's gonna be interesting to see what happens once spang's back. He's probably be the best tall forward option atm. Which begs the question, who do we drop? Lrt or pyke? Is probably lean towards dropping pyke, but is the aim to have 2 genuine ruckmen or is lrt sufficient as the second option?

Sadly, being an unabashed LRT fan, the answer clearly is "NO".

We need at least 2 specialists forwards as well (Hello and thank you TDL for illustrating this). To add the extra to the mix and split the defence/remove the double-and triple team from Reid.

Is the 2nd Morton? Maybe Spangher? Or hell, even the resting forward ruckman (Mumford\Pyke)? Throw Goodes back up there at times but you see what I'm aiming at.

The 2nd ruck needs to be ruck first, and forward 2nd and Pyke has the best mix IMHO.

Pyke got 40 taps, Mumford 15. Pyke was our main ruckman yesterday. And it is that that illustrates my point. Our midfield moved with much greater purpose yesterday and I put that down to having a genuine ruckman at every bounce/throw in. Movement with purpose is everything in the contested situation. And both of them compete at ground level.

I don't think LRT nor White count as genuine second rucks. By all means play them as key position players. This time last year I advocated Reid and Goodes on the flanks with White at CHF. Now I'd probably say LRT CHF, Reid on a flank, and Goodes at FF alongside a resting ruckman. Tall? Yes. But how do you match up on that? It requires some pretty hard running, especially from McGlynn and the resting onballers, but Reid needs another Summer in the gym before he can cop being double teamed.

Indeed not.
LRT is still best as a backman for mine and White, well sorry but depth player now and not necessarily against the best teams.

 

[scottwade]

One thing learnt from yesterday was the value in playing two ruckmen. When a genuine ruckman is in the contest the onballers are on the front foot. They play with greater confidence and the results are there for all to see. Additionally, Pyke and Mumford both continue to contest a loose ball on the ground and present with purpose when up forward.

This rule does not apply as regards oversized withch's hats like Seaby.

Funny I thought the midfield had been on the front foot most of this season.
Not having two genuine ruckmen didn't appear to hurt us earlier in the year.

What the weekend did illustrate is that neither Mumford or Pyke are much use up forward.

Oh and on the weekend we lost the hitouts (56-64), lost the hitouts to advantage (9-14) and only just won the clearances (56-53). We also lost the contested possession count (163-171).

TBH I saw no evidence that having 2 genuine ruckmen in the side v WBDogs had much influence on the result.

 

[Tedeski]

I totally agree. Our structure and play is heavily reliant on our midfield. We need to win the bulk of the clearances and inside 50s as we have no dominant forwards. We win the midfield, we win the game, so I'm happy to sacrifice a tall or small forward and go in with two genuine ruckmen. Having Pyke as our second ruckman will give us an edge over the opposition second ruckman against almost every other team (WC and North are exceptions, maybe Carlton too).

Unfortunately Pyke doesn't give us an edge around the ground. Neither does Seaby.
LRT does!

 

[disgruntled goat]

Absolutely 100% agree. I'm just leaning towards LRT being dropped, but for the exact same reasons. But apparently I'm just an attention seeking waste of space.

I never said you were a waste of space ...

 

[SM]

I never said you were a waste of space ...

I was referring to Cindarella Man. Not everything is about you.

 

[Gongswan]

Looking at who is available to play this week, LRT stays in teh forward line. If we play Armstrong at HBF and he falls apart under the weight of teh incredibly over trained upsized Dons, LRT can go back and we bring Harry off the sub bench. The Dons are pretty tall in the ruck dept, so 2 rucks in this game is probably necessary. When Goodes comes back in the team dynamic changes as he will probably play a few weeks in the forward line. I reckon they'll persist with LRT try to turn him into a forward. He reads the play pretty well and gets to the contest, just needs to hold a few grabs

 

[Dangas]

Mumford/LRT works fine.

 

[SM]

We would have no chance in hell of getting either of them. Happy with what we've got, though should draft another ruck as Pyke and Seaby aren't getting any younger.

 

[S120]

Seaby will surely be gone at the end of the year I would think. He is getting on and, despite being great insurance for Mumford when he is inevitably injured, I think Pyke has shown he can step up now. If Seaby is indeed gone, I think that gives Jesse White one more year on the list as that 2nd ruck/forward option.

I agree though that we need to go looking for another young ruckman to have on our list. Either a fringe ruckman who isn't getting a run at an AFL club or a strong one from the VFL/WAFL/SANFL.

 

[afl2552]

Mumford/LRT works fine.

I agree at times. Although wouldnt it be more useful to have a bigger forward? someone with some more high

 

[SM]

Seaby will surely be gone at the end of the year I would think. He is getting on and, despite being great insurance for Mumford when he is inevitably injured, I think Pyke has shown he can step up now. If Seaby is indeed gone, I think that gives Jesse White one more year on the list as that 2nd ruck/forward option.

I agree though that we need to go looking for another young ruckman to have on our list. Either a fringe ruckman who isn't getting a run at an AFL club or a strong one from the VFL/WAFL/SANFL.

Lycett from the Eagles?

 

[S120]

That would be a great option. Though I think the Eagles would be loathe to let him go and as such they would want pretty large overs for him. He's only 19 right now after all.

 

[SM]

True, but just trying to think of a young ruckman who doesn't have the highest profile in the league who would be perfect for what they want. He wouldn't be getting much game time with Nic Nat and Cox dominating for at least another couple of years so may look for a move.