Back-up Ruckman

[Wizard]

Who do we all see being Sandis 2IC for the 2011 season?

I would say probably Griffin at the start of the season but we will see Clarke take the role as the season goes on a little bit.
Griffin probably offers more value as a "pure ruckman" initially but with natural development i would expect Clarke to eventually overtake him as the season progresses.

Big Kep it seems is being more groomed to be a back-up or 3rd key forward and really as a ruckman offers little except for around the ground, but he turns it over a bit so thats kind of cancelling out his good work.

MJ isn't a ruckman really, pure and simple. Great for a big bloke around the ground but no ruckman. I can't see him really cementing a spot anywhere, he will be just used as the swingman he has been in the past few years. Can play back, forward or on the wing. I would like to see him across half back a bit more - his creativity and size could be invaluable.

 

[Dormammu]

Surprisingly, Kep had the third best DE in the team last season so he can't be ruled out.

 

[valkorum]

As a direct back-up ruckman I think Clarke is the man. Spent a lot of time last year in the forward line (at WAFL) level developing his forward game. If we were going to play 2 big men they would need to be able to swap between forward and ruck so as not to hinder rotations with the small bench size.

Clarke definitely has a tank and great mobility for his size. That's why I think he was played in the midfield when not rucking during the tri-series (T20) games on the weekend - to give him experience playing in the middle at AFL level (well almost AFL level )

His mobility should be able to compete against the other rucks in the comp quite well and would be a big advantage (much like Dean Cox over the last 5 - 6 years)

 

[yakamoto]

Unless we have catastrophic injury problems I can't see Griffin, Clarke or Bradley playing too many times in the same 22 as Sandilands. It just makes us too top heavy, especially at Subiaco. Clarke does show some signs of developing into a decent running big man. Some good judges think that years down the track we may even be referring to him as the "white Johnson".

 

[Nickos66]

We'll no doubt do the collingwood thing and have a pinch hitter like Leigh Brown taking the taps around the ground. Still think Keps & Johno for now, possibly to change by the end of the year.

 

[WAnchor]

We'll no doubt do the collingwood thing and have a pinch hitter like Leigh Brown taking the taps around the ground. Still think Keps & Johno for now, possibly to change by the end of the year.

Whilst I too can see this happen, it does make me nervous. If the implication is that Sandilands is taking other ruck duties, I worry we may have a repeat of 2010 in that he struggles to go the whole season. If this happens, then how well will we have groomed Clarke/Griffen to lead the ruck in his absence?

Furthermore, it'd worry me to implement a change at 'the end of the year'. With the first 22 (or whatever the 2011 number is) rounds being a precursor to the finals, I'd be concerned that making ruck changes around the end of the year would not really nurture our finals aspirations.

It will be really interesting to see how we go with the interchange position. Do we name two specialist ruckmen in the 21 and then aim to sub one off with someone like Bradley, for example?

In any case, I think it's important that we try to apply consistency with how we select rucks so that the team can be accustomed to structures, etc. That fiasco on Sunday night - which certainly minimised the importance of ruckmen (with the out of bounds rule) really indicated the importance of effective rucking to me.

Anyway, I don't want to rucking rant...

 

[The Night Shift]

At some point we may have to rest Sandi and experiment with our Ruck set-up. Perhaps Clarke will continue with his development over at East Perth.
With the others, how good is Griffen at his tapwork ??

 

[believe_it]

I was thinking about this ruck dilemma the other night . Sandi at 28 has hopefully a good 5 years to go . So now we have Griffin at 24 and Clarke at 20 with back-ups of Bradley and Johnson .

With the new interchange rules perhaps restricting selection ,can't see both Griffin and Clarke being here in 2yrs because one of them wont be getting game time.

Bradley also may come under scrutiny since without his ruck-work the rest of his game standing alone might not be good enough . Certainly in front of goal he is very inconsistent.

Who knows maybe this is Harvey's new strategy to build a team of giants . A few years back I felt we needed more big guys to fill key positions . In our squad now we have 17 over 190cm and 2 young guys who might be there in a short while.

 

[Cica]

I was thinking about this last night and Clarke's time is NOW!!! He needs to be given every opportunity to develop this year. He and Sandilands to rotate between forward and ruck. Johnson is just not very effective in the ruck and is too loose in defence. I am not too sure where to play him but he needs to improve defensively wherever he plays. Bradley and Griffin should be seen as depth players.

 

[Rob]

I dunno, but at least there's some competition for it now.

 

[rgauci]

Clarke to GWS for the Jaegar bomb!

Nah hope that doesn't happen.

 

[willoblue]

Clarke for mine.
i think they were watching how he moved around the ground by playing him as an old fashioned ruck rover.
he certainly showed some good signs.
Griffin wasn't bad, but I think Clarke was better & probably more versatile, partly because of his great mobility.
I think Griffin & Bradley are outside our best 22, but part of the all important depth.
As for Johnson, I think he is needed forward of centre as our forward line looked desperate for a centre half forward.
the great man, Pav seems to prefer playing the floating half forward, high half forward role. Yes, I know he was midfield in the scratchy, but he doesn't seem to spend much time at CHF any more.

 

[Bluto]

Clarke to GWS for the Jaegar bomb!

Nah hope that doesn't happen.

If we are confident that Moller is going to be a player, and end up at Freo, I would take that trade.

 

[Kruges!]

I saw enough evidence of Zac Clarke's potential for East Perth last year; there were times he was a level or 2 above the other ruckmen on the ground in the WAFL. At the start of the season, Griff probably offers more stability, purely because he's been in the system a bit longer so right now, he's the back-up ruckman. I expect that to change later in the season though, I'm conviced Clarke will be a tremendous pick-up.

 

[dominguez]

I expect Clarke to start as the sub in quite a few games. Leave him on the bench then depending on who we're playing and the state of the game sub him on for Anthony, Bradley, Johnson, Grover, Silvagni or Faulks around half time.

 

[Rob]

I expect Clarke to start as the sub in quite a few games. Leave him on the bench then depending on who we're playing and the state of the game sub him on for Anthony, Bradley, Johnson, Grover, Silvagni or Faulks around half time.

If we ever, EVER not play a midfielder as our sub then the entire coaching panel should be summarily shot.

 

[dominguez]

If we ever, EVER not play a midfielder as our sub then the entire coaching panel should be summarily shot.

But that actually limits your rotations because you have to go in with an extra tall from the start. Better to go with an extra runner from the get go and have Sandi's back up come off the subs bench than have Griffin/Clarke available all game but only playing 50 minutes.

 

[Rob]

But that actually limits your rotations because you have to go in with an extra tall from the start. Better to go with an extra runner from the get go and have Sandi's back up come off the subs bench than have Griffin/Clarke available all game but only playing 50 minutes.

By the same token, a tall as the sub means 1 less tall in the rotations. Just by the percentages, if we lose someone to injury, it's more likely to be a runner, and a fresh midfielder coming in is more likely to have an impact than a fresh tall.

Unless we go in with a lot of talls under an injury cloud, I can't see any reason why we wouldn't go with the extra midfielder.

 

[Avid_Avenger]

By the same token, a tall as the sub means 1 less tall in the rotations. Just by the percentages, if we lose someone to injury, it's more likely to be a runner, and a fresh midfielder coming in is more likely to have an impact than a fresh tall.

Unless we go in with a lot of talls under an injury cloud, I can't see any reason why we wouldn't go with the extra midfielder.

I think it's more likely to be an 'impact' player. Having Kepler coming on for example would have more of an impact than having someone like Chrichton coming into the play. Or someone like Roger when he's recovered, coming on and slotting into the forward pocket to kick a couple of chancy goals. Alternatively a 'utility' type that could slot in anywhere on the ground could be a chance. And a 2nd ruckman is an option coz it changes the game dynamic, gives Sandi a break, allows him to come home strong in the 4th.

Any player that could potential change the game dynamic and make the opposition react to that is a chance.

At the same time we are still a developing team and could just inject players like Bollenhagen for experience at times.

 

[salim malik]

By the same token, a tall as the sub means 1 less tall in the rotations. Just by the percentages, if we lose someone to injury, it's more likely to be a runner, and a fresh midfielder coming in is more likely to have an impact than a fresh tall.

Unless we go in with a lot of talls under an injury cloud, I can't see any reason why we wouldn't go with the extra midfielder.

I think thats why Clarke was tried as an extra mid and on the wing
A player with Clarkes height and rucking ability plus the advantage of him being able to double up as a mid runner ,high half forward or tall marking deep forward makes him a perfect candidate for that sub position

 

[Kickett Punches Read]

i hate this sub rule already

 

[pistol17]

IMO i reckon the perfect guy for the Sub is Kepler...

Can play forward, back and ruck and he has shown in the space of a qtr of footy can have an impact. Be silly not to use him.

 

[Boppo]

The sub needs to be a tallish all rounder. If we lose Sandilands we're stuffed, someone will need to pinch ruck. The sub needs to be be big enough to ruck or hold down a key position while the KPP moves to the ruck.

But I cant see there being a single game where the sub isn't used, regardless of injury. Maybe the sub will come in for the last 20 mins of a game when a mid is stuffed and changes are made to release another largeish mid. Maybe Silvagni or MJ is the perfect size.

Couldnt see Griffen getting a shot. Too narrow a focus. Maybe Zac Clarke was getting all the NAB cup midfield work because he might be the tall rounder?

 

[Boppo]

Oops, look like Zac has already been identified as a possible sub. Nothing to see here..

 

[dominguez]

By the same token, a tall as the sub means 1 less tall in the rotations. Just by the percentages, if we lose someone to injury, it's more likely to be a runner, and a fresh midfielder coming in is more likely to have an impact than a fresh tall.

Unless we go in with a lot of talls under an injury cloud, I can't see any reason why we wouldn't go with the extra midfielder.

The fact that we have a couple of guys tall enough to fill a gap if someone goes down in McPhee and Johnson even though they aren't genuine KPP sets the club up well for the new rule IMO.

Certainly not suggesting Clarke/Griffin start as sub in the majority of games but think it's a good option. If we're going well at half time it would be great to see Grover subbed out for Clarke at half time with him playing the majority of the second half in the ruck allowing Sandi plenty of rest and exposing a younger player to more responsibility down back.