2012 SC Rucks

[Kegstar]

Surely everybody who has a one premium and three rookie set up in their rucks are seriously considering changing it now. Unless your prepared to cop 40s and 50s from the "O" and Giles every couple of weeksit doesn't make sense.
Just saying

 

[dUkezz]

Be prepared to cop that from any given rookie tho

 

[dlanod]

Be prepared to cop that from any given rookie tho

Any of position and you can hide the worst performed players on your bench, so you can make an educated decision about the worst two and hence who to bench. In most teams with well-selected rookies, that's probably a 70 or two from your rookies at worst. If you're playing three rookie rucks you're stuck with one of those scores every week.

 

[MightyMark]

It is all about the $$$$$ for me MM.

I can see both HMac and Kruez both averaging 90+ easily every game and spending an extra 500k to get Cox and another premium with Mummy and Sandi etc makes no sense at all for say 50-60 or so extra points on average when you can make that up massively in other areas with the 500k you will save turning a rookie or low mid pricer into a premium who will get you over 110+ a game making up and covering the difference easily that your rucks may be lacking in.

I cannot justify the money for Cox or any other 600k+ ruck TBH as good as they are and i am willing to roll the dice this year.

My 2 cents.

Given the way rucks scored with the new interchange rule, going with a mid priced ruck is really the same as going with a mid priced mid. The top ruck men this year, just like last year will score similar to the top mids.

So the only thing you need to ask yourself is "will HMac and/or Kruezer score more than a mid price forward, mid or defender?". Unless your a dedicated guns and rookies man, The rucks seem like a perfectly suitable position to go with mid price players.

Personally I wouldn't go with both, but I understand the merit. I just wouldn't be banking on both HMac and Kruezer to score well and consistently through out the year.

 

[BigKev2]

According to Twitter, Ch7 is reporting Sandilands has a calf tear.

 

[BlueGibbs2011]

Given the way rucks scored with the new interchange rule, going with a mid priced ruck is really the same as going with a mid priced mid. The top ruck men this year, just like last year will score similar to the top mids.

So the only thing you need to ask yourself is "will HMac and/or Kruezer score more than a mid price forward, mid or defender?". Unless your a dedicated guns and rookies man, The rucks seem like a perfectly suitable position to go with mid price players.

Personally I wouldn't go with both, but I understand the merit. I just wouldn't be banking on both HMac and Kruezer to score well and consistently through out the year.

It is finely balance argument this one. I don't see H-mac and Big K any worse than a Mcevoy/Leuenberger that all scored 100+. If there is a risk on Big K and H-mac then there is also a risk on Leuey and Mcevoy reproducing their scores TBH.

Big K/H-mac are a much greater risk when you put them up against Cox specfically. But again, offsetting this could be player mgmt. I really see Sandi and Cox being rested during games, and from games, on a greater scale than the two mid price rucks. This latter bit brings the cheaper mid price rucks again into contention if you believe WCE will manage Cox a bit more than necesary in 2012.


I say all this as a discussion point only as I only have one and not the other, so exactly as you have suggested, I have gone for 1 small-slight risk over 2.

 

[MightyMark]

It is finely balance argument this one. I don't see H-mac and Big K any worse than a Mcevoy/Leuenberger that all scored 100+. If there is a risk on Big K and H-mac then there is also a risk on Leuey and Mcevoy reproducing their scores TBH.

Big K/H-mac are a much greater risk when you put them up against Cox specfically. But again, offsetting this could be player mgmt. I really see Sandi and Cox being rested during games, and from games, on a greater scale than the two mid price rucks. This latter bit brings the cheaper mid price rucks again into contention if you believe WCE will manage Cox a bit more than necesary in 2012.


I say all this as a discussion point only as I only have one and not the other, so exactly as you have suggested, I have gone for 1 small-slight risk over 2.

I think that Kruezer present more of a risk, simple because of his injuries. If he stays on the park long enough to get going, he will be a very good sc player. He may not be the best tap or traditional ruckmen but his ability to rove the packs and be used as a link player is undeniable. I don’t really like him up forward, as he doesn’t really look comfortable there.

HMac seems to be the safer option, but I doubt that he has the same ceiling as Kruezer. Given what I’ve seen over the NAB cup HMac will more than likely be heavily involved in most games, both as a ruckmen and a second tall to Petrie. He is a much better forward than Goldstein, so could possibly see a lot more ground time.

 

[Gavin Excell]

According to Twitter, Ch7 is reporting Sandilands has a calf tear.

Cox therefore over S- Lands?

 

[Thuggee_Cult]

Rucks are a minefield, pretty much every ruck over 500k is over priced but cox is punching out ridiculous scores. I've got mcevoy as my first ruck but I might have to go the big cox come round 1.

In terms of rookies Im thinking of dumping the big O and going for young Redden from port, don't think I'll be alone there.

 

[lamaros]

I dunno why you guys are still talking about this. I gave you all the answers ages ago.

I urge you all to take HMac and Kreuzer. I really want to win the final prize this year.

 

[BLUES9898]

Is it a good idea in using the 4 rookie ruck men strategy

EXAMPLE

Gilies
Stepheson
Rowe
Redden

 

[lamaros]

Is it a good idea in using the 4 rookie ruck men strategy

EXAMPLE

Gilies
Stepheson
Rowe
Redden

No. Never.

 

[JHF1870]

You need at least one quality/Proven ruck. If you play three rookies after that, you can keep 2 and upgrade one to have say the best performing ruck and your first choice whoever that is. So by round 10 you could have two of the best rucks and two solid backup rucks.

 

[Happy Daze]

Rucks are a minefield, pretty much every ruck over 500k is over priced but cox is punching out ridiculous scores. I've got mcevoy as my first ruck but I might have to go the big cox come round 1.

In terms of rookies Im thinking of dumping the big O and going for young Redden from port, don't think I'll be alone there.

Sandi and Cox are the two premiums - Mumford Goldstein not that far behind. Sandi capable also of insane scores - obviously under an injury cloud though.

 

[MattAKA]

Currently have Cox and Mumford but im really tossing up over it, i dunno if their the best option for a guaranteed 22 games each for the year

 

[dUkezz]

Dropped macintosh for mumford today. Premo

 

[MightyMark]

Sandi and Cox are the two premiums - Mumford Goldstein not that far behind. Sandi capable also of insane scores - obviously under an injury cloud though.

If you want insane scores, i'd say Mumford is just as good an option. Topped 150 3 times last year. Even in 2010 when Sandi was peaking he only topped 150 twice.

Consider the fact that Sandilands only averaged 114 in 2010, which was probably at his peak, whilst Mumford, who is probably yet to peak managed 112 last year. I'll gamble that Mumford is more likely to improve this year than Sandi considering the injury concerns he faces.

 

[The Swert]

If you want insane scores, i'd say Mumford is just as good an option. Topped 150 3 times last year. Even in 2010 when Sandi was peaking he only topped 150 twice.

Consider the fact that Sandilands only averaged 114 in 2010, which was probably at his peak, whilst Mumford, who is probably yet to peak managed 112 last year. I'll gamble that Mumford is more likely to improve this year than Sandi considering the injury concerns he faces.

The scoring rules changed in 2011. In 2010, Sandilands's 114 was 21 points higher than any other ruck, such was his dominance. Only 2 other rucks averaged over 90.

The new rules last year meant that 11 rucks averaged over 90, so 112 is not that great in comparison. Sandilands has a big upside, the only concern is fitness. Mumford on the other hand will improve but needs to stop getting reported.

I find it hard to split really.

 

[MightyMark]

The rule changes have simply brought other ruckman up to Sandilands standard. Before last year, very few ruckmen commanded as much ground time as Sandilands, hence the reason he was able to outscore his rivals so easily. Now that most top ruckman will spend similar amounts of time on the ground to Sandilands, he isn't as attractive an option as he once was.

Previously we picked him because he and Cox were really the only ruckmen that could comfortably average over 100, now there are 5 or 6.

Sandilands was the only top ruckman who's averaged dropped last year. Even if you exclude his 44, his score only rose 2 points. This is because his game didn't change with the new rules. Unfortunately, with Clarke and Griffen in the wings and his injury concerns, is he really going to maintain his ground time? Unlike previous years, Fremantle don’t need him too, they have others that can lighten the load.

 

[The Swert]

This is because his game didn't change with the new rules.

This is because he was injured. He was averaging 121 before his injury.

 

[MightyMark]

This is because he was injured. He was averaging 121 before his injury.

Fair point, but do you really think he will manage that this year?

With injuries, and the emergence of Clarke and Griffin, I cant see it happening.

 

[The Swert]

Fair point, but do you really think he will manage that this year?

With injuries, and the emergence of Clarke and Griffin, I cant see it happening.

I can see both Mumford and Sandilands finishing on similar final totals.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Sandilands was the only top ruckman who's averaged dropped last year. Even if you exclude his 44, his score only rose 2 points. This is because his game didn't change with the new rules. Unfortunately, with Clarke and Griffen in the wings and his injury concerns, is he really going to maintain his ground time? Unlike previous years, Fremantle don’t need him too, they have others that can lighten the load.

He might not play as much in the ruck, but they'll only play one of Clarke or Griffin, when Sandilands is playing; the other will ultimately be trade bait, because they have three ruckmen who are clearly too good for reserves football. But say he plays 65% of the game in the ruck and spends 15-20% of the game on the bench. The rest of the time you can sit him in the goal square, which frees Pavlich to have a couple of quick bursts in the midfield and any clearance they get, they can just bomb it on his head. I don't see any reason why he shouldn't kick 25-30 goals in a season doing this. I'd hate to see him heading into the forward line for a spell against us, because we've got three of the best key defenders in the league and I don't think any of them would have a hope in hell of stopping him if the Dockers midfielders just bomb it in to the top of the square.

 

[MightyMark]

He might not play as much in the ruck, but they'll only play one of Clarke or Griffin, when Sandilands is playing; the other will ultimately be trade bait, because they have three ruckmen who are clearly too good for reserves football. But say he plays 65% of the game in the ruck and spends 15-20% of the game on the bench. The rest of the time you can sit him in the goal square, which frees Pavlich to have a couple of quick bursts in the midfield and any clearance they get, they can just bomb it on his head. I don't see any reason why he shouldn't kick 25-30 goals in a season doing this. I'd hate to see him heading into the forward line for a spell against us, because we've got three of the best key defenders in the league and I don't think any of them would have a hope in hell of stopping him if the Dockers midfielders just bomb it in to the top of the square.

It's a possibility, but I don’t think Sandilands will be as potent in the forward line as you think. It will be very hard, even for someone as big as Sandilands to bring down big pack marks on a regular basis. To spite his size, a good defence should be able to spoil and long bomb into a pack.

He doesn't have the speed to be a leading forward, or the ability on the ground to rove the pack. Fremantle are too good a team to simply bomb the ball into the forward line and hope that Sandi can pluck it amongst 3 or so defenders, they have plenty of other options that will work very hard to find space. I would say Sandi could probably get 20 goals if he had extended time in the forward line (If he manage more I would be suitably impressed), but given he is almost 30 with injury concerns; they will probably just rest him on the bench.

 

[MrChristo]

Despite?? (or does my dog [Docker] have no nose?)