How will our ruck division be structured this season?

[Quicky]

Will we play one ruck / one pinch hitter? Or will be play two rucks?

I thought it was interesting in the NAB cup game that we played two rucks and that Lynch wasn't used in the ruck at all.

The thinking all preseason was that we would play Jolly with Lynch pinch hitting. But perhaps we are looking at playing two rucks, Jolly and Witts.

How do you see us structuring the ruck this season?

 

[Peter Sidorkiewicz]

Hudson looked awful in NAB cup so fingers crossed he doesnt see any time at all in AFL.
Witts is a good prospect but for 208cm he got beat a lot at centre square hitouts. Needs to work on his technique.
I think Grundy will play the 'Ceglar role' this season in the VFL and spend the majority of the season up forward.

Therefore it will be status quo - Jolly will ruck 80% of the time and Lynch will support him.
Jolly will also get 2-3 rested games during the year. The Perth trip will be one of them.

 

[the mighty T]

Hudson looked awful in NAB cup so fingers crossed he doesnt see any time at all in AFL.

Im sorry but i have to disagree with this. He looked as good as he ever has and by all reports hasnt done a thing wrong this preseason. He looked fine on friday night and competed well.. we could do a lot worse than having Huddo ruck for us if Jolly goes down.

In regards to the thread, i found it interesting that we played the two rucks. Perhaps the idea will be to get early games into Witts in the ruck while jolly plays forward for about 40% of the game. It might make us top heavy though.

Overall i still think Q will be the number 2, unless Grundy can press for selection at some point. For mine, hes the only ruckman on our list with that versatility at this stage

 

[jonbe54]

Wittsy looked athletic and prepared to go to the contest, good below his knees, great 2nd and 3rd contests, tackling etc. He's still learning the craft of rucking from a start way back so its no surprise he is taking longer than some of the more optimistic posters think.

Huddo I thought competed well and provide a presence - which after all is exactly what he was rookied for.

Jols looked pretty sharp and his palm to Swan was almost textbook rucking, nice to see him working up well.

 

[jimmy35]

Agree with jon, I think Jolls will do most of it, Witts to get 8 games or so for his development and Huddo to be used to give the others a rest or if Jolly is injured.
Like the look of our ruck stocks this year and its been a while since you could say that.

 

[loki04]

Witts won some very nice taps to our mids in the dogs game, yet to watch all of the Essendon half as I was stuck out at the mine.

Jols will numero uno but I think he will be "rested" for a quite a few games in blocks this season to keep him cherry ripe for finals much like Ottens was lucky to play half a HnA season then played all finals games.

Witts needs AFL game time so hopefully he gets at least 5 - 8 games under his belt this coming season.

 

[Knightmare]

AFL: Jolly(75%)/Lynch(25%).

VFL: Witts (70%)/Grundy (30%).


Jolly only needs 15/16 H+A games.

Lynch just rucks when Jolly/Witts or whoever the senior ruck is needs a breather similar to Dawes last season.

Witts can play the others 6/7 or so senior games as that no.1 ruckman. I think his tackling can in a similar way to Mumford be a real factor through the midfield and make the job much easier for the midfield and back half in particular so while he will have his ups and downs being that younger ruckman, I'm happy to back him in to play some seniors as that first depth option.

Grundy I'm fine with giving a pure development year at VFL level. With his back issues I'd rather see him get his body right first and get some VFL time in a mixed ruck/fwd role.

Hudson is more a finals depth guy so I'd look to play him monthly at VFL level for the first half of the season. Look to build him up some in the second half playing every second game and just have him right to go come finals time if required to replace Jolly. During the H+A season I'd rather get some senior games into Witts.

Gault is that other guy who can step into the ruck but this is more a situational type move where if a Witts plays seniors for Gault then he would absorb some of those ruck minutes at VFL level.

 

[Quicky]

I get the feeling we may look to fast track Witts development. A lot of people think that will be to give Jolly a rest. I suspect we may want to bring Witts in while Jolly is there for that support. That may be as match-ups and opposition dictate and at the expense of a small.

 

[Scodog10]

Hudson looked awful in NAB cup so fingers crossed he doesnt see any time at all in AFL.
Witts is a good prospect but for 208cm he got beat a lot at centre square hitouts. Needs to work on his technique.
I think Grundy will play the 'Ceglar role' this season in the VFL and spend the majority of the season up forward.

Therefore it will be status quo - Jolly will ruck 80% of the time and Lynch will support him.
Jolly will also get 2-3 rested games during the year. The Perth trip will be one of them.

In what respect did he look awful? I must have been watching a different game to you because IMO he was no standout, but far from awful.

I'd say it'll probably be Jolly and Lynch in tandem to begin the season because we have a tough first 6 weeks or so, but then once things settle down a bit Witts will begin to be rotated into the team ala what we saw on Friday night.

 

[SnakePlisskin]

Hudson moved quicker than Jolly Friday night , thought he was good , although I liked the look if Witts I think Hudson will play more this year .

 

[mattys123]

AFL: Jolly(75%)/Lynch(25%).

VFL: Witts (70%)/Grundy (30%).

Poor Huddo.

I agree though, I think Jolly will still be asked to play as the main ruckman for 70-80% of our senior games, and Lynch will play that "Leigh Brown role" that was so good to us a few years back, and the role that Dawes was so bad at last year.

Once again in the VFL we have a plethora of ruck options though, with Witts, Grundy, Hudson, Gault and maybe even Ben Richmond spending time in the ruck. Hopefully Grundy can return in time for the early part of the VFL season.

 

[Knightmare]

Poor Huddo.

I agree though, I think Jolly will still be asked to play as the main ruckman for 70-80% of our senior games, and Lynch will play that "Leigh Brown role" that was so good to us a few years back, and the role that Dawes was so bad at last year.

Once again in the VFL we have a plethora of ruck options though, with Witts, Grundy, Hudson, Gault and maybe even Ben Richmond spending time in the ruck. Hopefully Grundy can return in time for the early part of the VFL season.

Huddo is still a coach first so I'm not so sure he'd really be all that disappointed. In your 30s it's no fun getting banged up every week and until we hired him as an assistant coach he had no intention of continuing to play so I don't think he would mind so much.

I'm just really keen to see what Witts can do at senior level. I don't think he is ready to play a full season at senior level but 5-8 games at senior level in a development sense is about what I'd like to see us get into him just to give him a feel for "this is the standard of these guys" and "this is where you need to get to" more than anything.

A case can be made that Hudson is the better and more reliable player. I certainly would be playing him first come finals time if Jolly is unable to play because being that more seasoned guy you have a better idea of what you are going to get, but during the H+A season I see more benefit in playing Witts who's growth with Jolly nearing the end is more critical than playing a ruckman who more likely than not won't be on the list beyond this year as a player (with his role being in the coaching box/for development).

 

[Stripes B and W]

I'm with Quicky's view that Witts may well play seniors with Jolly occassionaly dependent on opposition and season situation. Wouldn't read to much in to Q not rucking in NAB1, my thinking is the early preseason will be developmental for Witts. Jolly is an absolutely known quantity so his preseason is solely preparation for season proper.
I wont be surprised if we play 2 rucks in 6 to 8 games in 2013.

The certain thing is we are hugely advantaged in 2013 over 2012 in our ruck stocks. Very pleasing situation!!

As an aside, fantastic to be reading Mattys pre-game write up, and Snoop's reviews. Also our amazing posters keeping Collingwood BF members up to date with preseason training and interclub scratch matches. More power to you all!!

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Q not rucking much in the NAB just suggests to me we are more concerned with him & Cloke gelling as a fwd pair. More lessons to be learned playing fwd than ruck.

 

[ClaytonM]

I am confused why more people do not think we can/win play both Jolly and Witts in the same side. In 2010 we played Jolly, L Brown, Cloke and Dawes. Why in 2013 would we not play Jolly, Witts, Cloke and Lynch? Playing Witts (and Grundy if right) in the Brown role would be good development opportunities for both young ruck men. Why do people assume we would run the same structures as 2012 and not that used in 2010?

 

[Quicky]

I am confused why more people do not think we can/win play both Jolly and Witts in the same side. In 2010 we played Jolly, L Brown, Cloke and Dawes. Why in 2013 would we not play Jolly, Witts, Cloke and Lynch? Playing Witts (and Grundy if right) in the Brown role would be good development opportunities for both young ruck men. Why do people assume we would run the same structures as 2012 and not that used in 2010?

I agree. However the big difference from 2010 was the introduction of the sub rule. It robs you of an extra bench runner which makes it more difficult to justify spending that team selection on a tall. The sub rule lends itself to versatile rather than specialist talls.

 

[Quicky]

P.S. Welcome to BigFooty ClaytonM!

 

[cfx_1]

I am confused why more people do not think we can/win play both Jolly and Witts in the same side. In 2010 we played Jolly, L Brown, Cloke and Dawes. Why in 2013 would we not play Jolly, Witts, Cloke and Lynch? Playing Witts (and Grundy if right) in the Brown role would be good development opportunities for both young ruck men. Why do people assume we would run the same structures as 2012 and not that used in 2010?

I would suggest that this is an effect of the sub rule.

 

[ClaytonM]

P.S. Welcome to BigFooty ClaytonM!

I forgot about the change to the interchange rule. Hate that rule!

 

[Knightmare]

I am confused why more people do not think we can/win play both Jolly and Witts in the same side. In 2010 we played Jolly, L Brown, Cloke and Dawes. Why in 2013 would we not play Jolly, Witts, Cloke and Lynch? Playing Witts (and Grundy if right) in the Brown role would be good development opportunities for both young ruck men. Why do people assume we would run the same structures as 2012 and not that used in 2010?

My reason for not having all 4 of Jolly/Witts/Lynch/Cloke in my best 22 is because Jolly and Witts are ruck onlys.

Witts struggles badly forward of centre. He struggles reading the flight of the ball resulting in easy marks to his direct opponent both 1v1 and in the contest, he doesn't know how to get to front position, he doesn't know how to use his body and lacks any awareness of when to lead and what to do. So it's just not an option with him as was the case with Wood.

Jolly I also view as a ruck only. His strength is in his ability to get those meaningful taps to advantage to set up meaningful midfield drive. Some may say he could be a marking target up forward. But with Jolly he doesn't tackle but secondly is more dangerous pushing forward from the ruck to present as an uncontested target working into those spaces left behind rather than playing as a forward on an opponent.

Why L.Brown worked so well with Jolly/Cloke/Dawes was because he didn't need to play tall. He could play on a forward flank, on a wing, forward pocket or anywhere you needed him being that more versatile player. Additionally in a tackling sense we lost nothing from the forward half which allowed us to play taller.


It's a real squad dependent thing. If you have players as we did with the versatility to allow us to play tall that's fine. But with Witts/Jolly/Cloke/Lynch it is one ruckman too much and more a Jolly or Witts proposition.

 

[Vicky Park]

I have seen Witts playing in our VFL team in 2011 (after he arrived at the club) and in 2012. I agree he is not, at this stage, up to playing forward in the firsts or resting there between rucking. I was pleased with his efforts on Fri night, but still see him as a longer term ruck prospect. Seems to me we can have Jolly with Lynch in support, or Hudson with Lynch, but Witts as no. 1 ruck is still some way off. The good news is that, now we have rid ourselves of 'ruckmen' list cloggers, Witts and Grundy can learn their trade in the twos. I think transitioning Witts into the firsts this year will still give the club some headaches. It will also depend on how he performs at VFL level.

 

[Hva sher a]

My reason for not having all 4 of Jolly/Witts/Lynch/Cloke in my best 22 is because Jolly and Witts are ruck onlys.

Witts struggles badly forward of centre. He struggles reading the flight of the ball resulting in easy marks to his direct opponent both 1v1 and in the contest, he doesn't know how to get to front position, he doesn't know how to use his body and lacks any awareness of when to lead and what to do. So it's just not an option with him as was the case with Wood.

Jolly I also view as a ruck only. His strength is in his ability to get those meaningful taps to advantage to set up meaningful midfield drive. Some may say he could be a marking target up forward. But with Jolly he doesn't tackle but secondly is more dangerous pushing forward from the ruck to present as an uncontested target working into those spaces left behind rather than playing as a forward on an opponent.

Why L.Brown worked so well with Jolly/Cloke/Dawes was because he didn't need to play tall. He could play on a forward flank, on a wing, forward pocket or anywhere you needed him being that more versatile player. Additionally in a tackling sense we lost nothing from the forward half which allowed us to play taller.


It's a real squad dependent thing. If you have players as we did with the versatility to allow us to play tall that's fine. But with Witts/Jolly/Cloke/Lynch it is one ruckman too much and more of a Jolly or Witts proposition.

After watching Witts on Friday, I'm of the same opinion that he's ruck only. He could still provide nuisance/match-up value on the forward line like Sandilands. ie use him for shock value when we need a goal or to stretch defences.
although not a ruck, we've neglected to mention Paine as part of our forward structure. I see him as an early version of Ryan O'Keefe or another Jack Gunston. The point is, if Paine is fit, structurally he allows us to just have Jolly with Lynch as back up.
Jolly works best as a sole ruck and thrives on work. If I recall, during the Swans 2005 flag, Jason Ball was more of a back up ruck. Same with 2010 when we initially tried the tandem with Fraser. Jolls has suffered when we tried to play the tandem ruck (notwithstanding that Wood was a spud).
In the future, what none of us can answer is whether Witts is better as a sole ruck or whether he needs a genuine ruck partner (Grundy). For the sake of balance I hope its the latter. we'd be more dangerous with a Cox/Natanui set up rather than trying to fit 2 incompatible rucks (like North with Goldstein /McIntosh)

 

[TradeDraft]

No Idea at the Moment. Still Early

 

[Old Spice]

If we are playing a Jolly/Lynch set-up, or a Witts/Lynch one against lesser lights, I do hold concerns about Cloke being left one out. I know it should only be for 30% of the game, but that's a fair slice.

That said, booting a quality and pacey player from the side to accomodate that is too high a price. I could have gone for it with a decent mobile ruck option like Martin, but Hudson/Witts are too clunky. Grundy will be that option in time.

However, we may need to get away from this idea that Jolly has to get his reprieves from Lynch in some neat formulation of 75/25. I don't mean here just that other players might be able to step in for both in ball-ups or throw-ins (St Kilda in 2010 with 3rd man up), which is one element. But that if the opposition has possession, Jolly may then step off for a spell until needed for a centre-bounce or throw-in.

In other words, Jolly may spend 75% of TOG, but ruck 80% of contests. Lynch might only need to compete 20% - 4 times in centre bounces and 6 times deep in the foward line. In other words, we might onlymiss his presence up fwd 4-5 times a game. And with that, it's not all that common that a clear win is achieved where the ball is tapped to a mid and then sails cleanly to the forward line. There's time for Lynch to float forward to receive. His opponent can chance his luck with our defenders.

 

[Markfs]

Hudson looked awful in NAB cup so fingers crossed he doesnt see any time at all in AFL.
Witts is a good prospect but for 208cm he got beat a lot at centre square hitouts. Needs to work on his technique.
I think Grundy will play the 'Ceglar role' this season in the VFL and spend the majority of the season up forward.

Therefore it will be status quo - Jolly will ruck 80% of the time and Lynch will support him.
Jolly will also get 2-3 rested games during the year. The Perth trip will be one of them.

Well Pete, I dont know why we even bother to recruit players sometimes. I mean. You get a 34 year old player like Huddo and throw him into a practice match a month before the season starts and he doesnt dominate..... I'm sure both of us were expecting maybe 50 hit outs and a couple of goals..

And as for young Witts.....oh yes, he is about 20 years of age. I dont want to use that as a reason for him not dominating. He just should realise that he's got to be better than similar big blokes like Sandilands who didnt really get it together until his mid-20s......I mean... we're impatient....we've given him half a season to settle in....what more does his want???