Opinion Grundy as a Forward

[Finn Jim]

Look, I'm just a small-time poster stinging off a loss. I have no business making threads about crazy opinions. But hear me out; here goes:

I'm done drinking the cool-aid of Grundy the dominant ruckman. TV commentary gushes over his hitout dominance. Yes he had 47 of our 55 yesterday. Yes GWS as a team had 21. And yet GWS had 36 clearances to our 31. So these amazing hitouts aren't doing anything. Last week he had 30 and we only won hitouts 34-29, but had the advantage in clearances. This to me proves a couple of things: Hitouts are a useless stat (seriously, its like saying someone who kicks 2 goals and 87 behinds is a dominant set shot taker because he has taken so many),

AND

You could put any useless potato in the ruck and so long as the opposing ruckman couldn't take possession the outcome of the ruck contest falls to the midfield.

We have a useless potato, his name is Mason Cox. He's actually not that bad at rucking (flying donkey-kicks aside), but otherwise he's mostly a passenger with maybe a goal, guaranteed 2-3 dropped marks, and calls to be dropped himself every week. Meanwhile Grundy earns praise for his work around the ball, is a reliable mark on the wings, is not completely useless playing the ground ball, etc.

Here's my thought: If Cox could maintain his statline as a ruckman, we'd all say he's a mediocre ruckman and accept it. If Grundy could maintain his statline as a forward and kick 1 or 2 each week, he'd still be at least as good any other option we have.

So what am I missing? Is there a reason this swap can't happen? Is Grundy not capable of being a forward? Is there a talent or skills gap I'm missing? Am I a crazy supporter smarting over a loss? Let me know.

 

[TradeDraft]

So we can just throw someone like Mayne in the Ruck and don't care IF they get Injured or not.

Grundy has lot of Influence in the Midfield and not just thru his Ruck Work. Get lot of Contested Ball and Clearances.

We scored Goals from Stoppages vs Saints and was Very good vs Dogs and Tigers.?

Yes he did not have a Big Influence last Night.

Big Reason we won the 2010 Flag that we got Jolly in as our Ruckman where Wood/Richards/Bryan could not get us over the Hump

 

[Soups]

 

[WalterBlaknWhte]

Look, I'm just a small-time poster stinging off a loss. I have no business making threads about crazy opinions. But hear me out; here goes...

You got the 'like' for having a crack - there are no small-time posters, comrade

Grundy is superb around the ground - we would miss this

Also, yet to show he has forward-line ability like Dean Cox, Peter Moore, Simon Madden etc to make-up for this loss

 

[Chameleon75]

Short answer: no
Long answer: Hell no

 

[pablo disco bar]

Cox takes bounce...grundy on the ball

Cox moves forward after the bounce

 

[barrackers]

Look, I'm just a small-time poster stinging off a loss. I have no business making threads about crazy opinions. But hear me out; here goes:

I'm done drinking the cool-aid of Grundy the dominant ruckman. TV commentary gushes over his hitout dominance. Yes he had 47 of our 55 yesterday. Yes GWS as a team had 21. And yet GWS had 36 clearances to our 31. So these amazing hitouts aren't doing anything. Last week he had 30 and we only won hitouts 34-29, but had the advantage in clearances. This to me proves a couple of things: Hitouts are a useless stat (seriously, its like saying someone who kicks 2 goals and 87 behinds is a dominant set shot taker because he has taken so many),

AND

You could put any useless potato in the ruck and so long as the opposing ruckman couldn't take possession the outcome of the ruck contest falls to the midfield.

We have a useless potato, his name is Mason Cox. He's actually not that bad at rucking (flying donkey-kicks aside), but otherwise he's mostly a passenger with maybe a goal, guaranteed 2-3 dropped marks, and calls to be dropped himself every week. Meanwhile Grundy earns praise for his work around the ball, is a reliable mark on the wings, is not completely useless playing the ground ball, etc.

Here's my thought: If Cox could maintain his statline as a ruckman, we'd all say he's a mediocre ruckman and accept it. If Grundy could maintain his statline as a forward and kick 1 or 2 each week, he'd still be at least as good any other option we have.

So what am I missing? Is there a reason this swap can't happen? Is Grundy not capable of being a forward? Is there a talent or skills gap I'm missing? Am I a crazy supporter smarting over a loss? Let me know.

Cox could ruck a lot more than he does currently and he's a pretty good tap ruckman who could develop further with more experience. Grundy however offers a significant amount more around the ground and his leap as a junior hasn't really been seen much since. I see we trialled Madgen as an inside mid for a quarter in the practice game yesterday; he's also played a few minutes in that role early this year in the seniors. If we're going to mix it up on occasion I'd play Cox in the ruck and Grundy as a mid.

 

[TradeDraft]

Also, yet to show he has forward-line ability like Dean Cox, Peter Moore, Simon Madden etc to make-up for this loss

Barley plays up Forward so we don't really know how he would go as a Forward

 

[sr36]

Grundy won't get seperation as a forward. He also doesn't take pack marks. We'd be losing a great follower without upgrading our forward stocks, because Cox for all his flaws is more dangerous in a pack than Grundy, which is what we most need from our tall forward.

 

[Markfs]

you cant pay grundy a headline salary and play him as a second ruck/forward.

i think Rupert did a ruck contest last year and looked good. i'd put the Rupe in the ruck and play grundy off the bench when rupe needs a rest...

we need to drop at least 10 players this week..

 

[TradeDraft]

Grundy won't get seperation as a forward. He also doesn't take pack marks. We'd be losing a great follower without upgrading our forward stocks, because Cox for all his flaws is more dangerous in a pack than Grundy, which is what we most need from our tall forward.

Are we that bad off for Tall Forwards

 

[Finn Jim]

Grundy won't get seperation as a forward. He also doesn't take pack marks. We'd be losing a great follower without upgrading our forward stocks, because Cox for all his flaws is more dangerous in a pack than Grundy, which is what we most need from our tall forward.

As a relatively newbie to the game, I ask honestly is there a tremendous difference between pack marks taken on the wing from a kick-in and pack marks taken in the forward 50? Grundy seems to have the wing mark down pretty good, I don't see why that would translate up front.

 

[magpies42]

Look, I'm just a small-time poster stinging off a loss. I have no business making threads about crazy opinions. But hear me out; here goes:

I'm done drinking the cool-aid of Grundy the dominant ruckman. TV commentary gushes over his hitout dominance. Yes he had 47 of our 55 yesterday. Yes GWS as a team had 21. And yet GWS had 36 clearances to our 31. So these amazing hitouts aren't doing anything. Last week he had 30 and we only won hitouts 34-29, but had the advantage in clearances. This to me proves a couple of things: Hitouts are a useless stat (seriously, its like saying someone who kicks 2 goals and 87 behinds is a dominant set shot taker because he has taken so many),

AND

You could put any useless potato in the ruck and so long as the opposing ruckman couldn't take possession the outcome of the ruck contest falls to the midfield.

We have a useless potato, his name is Mason Cox. He's actually not that bad at rucking (flying donkey-kicks aside), but otherwise he's mostly a passenger with maybe a goal, guaranteed 2-3 dropped marks, and calls to be dropped himself every week. Meanwhile Grundy earns praise for his work around the ball, is a reliable mark on the wings, is not completely useless playing the ground ball, etc.

Here's my thought: If Cox could maintain his statline as a ruckman, we'd all say he's a mediocre ruckman and accept it. If Grundy could maintain his statline as a forward and kick 1 or 2 each week, he'd still be at least as good any other option we have.

So what am I missing? Is there a reason this swap can't happen? Is Grundy not capable of being a forward? Is there a talent or skills gap I'm missing? Am I a crazy supporter smarting over a loss? Let me know.

We won centre clearances by 5 last night, rucking is more effective because there is less congestion. More congestion around the ground means it’s harder to get an effective clearance. Our mids let us down last night, it’s the quality of the clearances that count most though and we had more inside 50’s so potentially we were more effective. Not all clearances are equal o guess. I think Grundy in the ruck gives us a strategic edge, opponents need to throw more resources at winning the clearance than what we might have to on any given day. In my view, Grundy’s value has been more about what happens after the hit out...the follow up, the tackle, the running power, the clearance. Because of his short legs he’s actually pretty good at ground level.

Grundy has become more serviceable up forward when he rests, he kicks truly and is marking more consistently over head. He lacks speed and I think we lose out switching him forward.

Grundy on ball for me, every day of the week. We just have to get better at using him to advantage.

 

[sr36]

As a relatively newbie to the game, I ask honestly is there a tremendous difference between pack marks taken on the wing from a kick-in and pack marks taken in the forward 50? Grundy seems to have the wing mark down pretty good, I don't see why that would translate up front.

He doesn't really take many pack marks on the wing though. He's getting very good at stationary one on one's with both feet on the ground.

When the ball gets kicked high inside forward 50, it's usually a pack where blokes get really high and come over the top of anyone standing still. I'm not convinced he's very good at timing his jump at the footy.

 

[sr36]

Are we that bad off for Tall Forwards

I actually don't think we are. I think that we're all obsessed with having the complete package - a196cm bloke who offers an excellent hit up target and is also dangerous in a pack marking situation. There's only about 2 of them in the league. I think Stephenson will be the best hit up target for the next decade. And I think Cox (when he's not having a shocker) is a very dangerous pack mark. Last year, I think our issue was not getting enough numbers to the fall of the ball.

 

[mike123]

The only thing you’re missing is Grundy doesn’t have the forward smarts and he prefers playing as a full time ruck.

I think he’d be more useful up forward if he was able to develop the forward craft but perhaps that ship has sailed and his ruck work usually only amounts to stat padding.

 

[mike123]

I actually don't think we are. I think that we're all obsessed with having the complete package - a196cm bloke who offers an excellent hit up target and is also dangerous in a pack marking situation. There's only about 2 of them in the league. I think Stephenson will be the best hit up target for the next decade. And I think Cox (when he's not having a shocker) is a very dangerous pack mark. Last year, I think our issue was not getting enough numbers to the fall of the ball.

I just want a key forward that can hold their ground against defenders make a contest and throw their weight around.

 

[jimmy35]

No Grundy stays in the ruck and we get a better system/ruck coach/midfield coach or whatever is holding us back from capitalizing on his dominance.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Cox could ruck a lot more than he does currently and he's a pretty good tap ruckman who could develop further with more experience. Grundy however offers a significant amount more around the ground and his leap as a junior hasn't really been seen much since. I see we trialled Madgen as an inside mid for a quarter in the practice game yesterday; he's also played a few minutes in that role early this year in the seniors. If we're going to mix it up on occasion I'd play Cox in the ruck and Grundy as a mid.

It would be kind of fun to see both men at the center bounce in different roles. I am not averse to it as an experiment. The loss of Howe is so devastating that I am open to trying something from left field. Wills is not the answer as an inside mid. Sier never ever even seems in the frame for a game. Grundy might profit from a change of roles. Or prove why he only plays ruck. But I guess the coaches and knowledgeable bf posters know why it wouldn't work.

 

[Seedsfan]

I just want a key forward that can hold their ground against defenders make a contest and throw their weight around.

I just want a key forward

 

[TradeDraft]

I just want a key forward

Been saying it for Years

 

[jackcass]

As a relatively newbie to the game, I ask honestly is there a tremendous difference between pack marks taken on the wing from a kick-in and pack marks taken in the forward 50? Grundy seems to have the wing mark down pretty good, I don't see why that would translate up front.

As a ruckman, I'd presume those few pack marks he takes on a wing he's hitting the pack with his opponent floundering meters behind him so essentially unopposed. Wouldn't have that luxury playing as a forward.

 

[TradeDraft]

With his Tap Work being so Poor at the Moment and Was Thrown Forward tonight and Kicked a Goal and took a Few Marks.

Should we try Grundy more Forward and Give Cox/Cameron more time in the Ruck?

 

[PIEWITHSAUCE]

Grundy has no plan with his tapwork and we have no plan going forward - so might suit

I think Cameron is showing signs and Grundy is okay overhead . If we must persist with this bomb it in style while JDG is out then anything is worth a try.

 

[TradeDraft]

Grundy has no plan with his tapwork and we have no plan going forward - so might suit

I think Cameron is showing signs and Grundy is okay overhead . If we must persist with this bomb it in style while JDG is out then anything is worth a try.

Wish we get a Proper Ruck Coach and Better Midfield Coach