Is White returning to ruck?

[CAS79]

If we have a look at our trading and draft picks we seemed intent on adding to our forward line, as well as moving O"Keefe back for more time up forward in the late season.

Our drafting shows a real indication towards KPP players but no one has added to our ruck division and we are really a ruck down and all our back up rucks are aged over 27.

With no clear sign of a ruckman under development are we going to see Jesse White return to this position, playing, if he does, solely as a second ruck and not as our lead out full forward?

 

[AG]

I liked the set-up we had towards the end of the year. Goodes, Reid, Spangher, Mumford and White as our talls. Sub Walsh in for Spangher and Seaby/Pyke in for White as a second ruck/forward if needed but I liked that balance. While Jesse's ruck work certainly improved, it's still a fair way short of what's required to stay in the team if he is only going to be rucking.

Either way I doubt we'll have a player in the side purely as a backup ruckman.

 

[drivative]

Good point. It makes sense in some ways. He's the youngest player listed at his height of 197cm. He's 1.5 years younger than Mumford (and only 2cm shorter) and 4 years younger than the other 2nd rucks, Pyke and Seaby.

He started to do more good things around the ground, but still hasn't shown enough to hold a valuable forward spot for long periods.

If only he had the talent to play full back he could take the 'monster' forwards of other teams because of his size, speed, etc, but he's probably not good enough. Yes we've got more KPPs, but apart from Tommy Walsh, we don't have an up-and-coming really big, strong defender, and of course Tommy's better in the forward line if he's got the talent to do it well.

But 2nd ruck seems good for White.

 

[scottwade]

Our drafting shows a real indication towards KPP players but no one has added to our ruck division and we are really a ruck down and all our back up rucks are aged over 27.

With no clear sign of a ruckman under development are we going to see Jesse White return to this position, playing, if he does, solely as a second ruck and not as our lead out full forward?

TBH I've always thought White looked fairly clueless as a ruck.

LRT looked better than him last year, both in the ruck & up forward.
Pyke's football sense is improving & IMO he is a better ruck than White & may be at a stage where he offers a viable 3rd/4th forward option.
Everitt's best ever game for the WBD was probably as a mobile (albeit undersized) ruckman.
Walsh played occasional spells as a ruck at St Kilda (although I would imagine more educational than long term planning)

Presumably we are going to go with a 90% game time ruckman, as that is the type of player Mumford is (as indeed is Seaby).

So the question then is what skills (fwd/ruck)are most important for the back up.

If White can hold down a place as a key fwd, then he may well be the best option, with short ruck spells.
But I think he has regressed and unless he can prove himself as a forward I'd prefer to go with other second option ruckmen, who can actually do that job better than him and still be relatively useful if called on up forward.

 

[S120]

I also really like the 3 talls up forward model as well. I think that works wonderfully well especially with guys like Rohan, Parker, ROK, Jude, McGlynn floating in and around that lot. Reid is a lock obviously and it then it's a real competition for the other tall forward spot and then the forward/2nd ruck spot.

White, Walsh, Spangher, Pyke and Seaby are the competitors it would seem. I think I'd probably pick Walsh and Pyke at this stage for the respective positions but that is without seeing any pre-season action so it's not really worth mentioning atm.

Spangher I really liked the look of as a forward and I wouldn't be upset to see him get another go in the seniors in such a role. I imagine Walsh won't be used as a 2nd ruck with White, Pyke and Seaby all on the list so he should be left to develop his forward skills. Walsh I think will almost certainly get first crack at locking down FF.

Incidentally I really hope ROK gets more time up forward in 2012. I think he can prove to be very valuable there. Could allow someone like Rohan more time up on the wing and would also allow us to really stretch a defence with 3 talls constantly there and ROK able to play on a smaller defender that he can out-mark.

 

[swansfan51]

Why are people so desperate to find a spot for White? It is obvious that Reid and Spangher have gone past him as forwards, and I don't want to see him getting a game in the ruck ahead of either Seaby or Pyke.

 

[Aardvark]

Why are people so desperate to find a spot for White? It is obvious that Reid and Spangher have gone past him as forwards, and I don't want to see him getting a game in the ruck ahead of either Seaby or Pyke.

+1 White would be lucky to get a game IMO.

 

[MF]

Why are people so desperate to find a spot for White? It is obvious that Reid and Spangher have gone past him as forwards, and I don't want to see him getting a game in the ruck ahead of either Seaby or Pyke.

I tend to agree but the 2nd ruck spot can really only be effectively filled by one of White, Pyke or LRT and for me it's a toss up between the 1st 2. I'd be happy to go with Pyke but I think it really comes down to where both players are at after the pre-season.

LRT is the player we should be desperately trying to find a spot for.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

Our ruck situation is an interesting one.

Mummy's obviously the number one.

I see Pyke & Seaby in a similar position. Both are ruckmen 1st, and don't really offer anything spectacular around the ground (at this point). Seaby's pretty much past the development phase of his career, Pyke can hopefully add something extra to his game. Pyke offers good defensive pressure around the ground (for a big guy), Seaby's not quite as mobile and has limited impact up forward. It's a shame that Pyke's been out for so long through injury as he's still got alot to earn and can't afford missing games at his age.

White & LRT are similar in that they've both got preferred positions, with ruck being their 2nd position. Between the two, I'd prefer White in the ruck simply because you can take him out of the forward line without upsetting the team balance. Mummy can rest up forward, or Goodes can go up forward and our structure remains the same.

With LRT, we don't have that luxury. Assuming he'll be played in defence, (which is his best position by a long way) it's important to get the chemistry right, and taking him out of defence for a few spells in the ruck would disrupt our defence. Particularly since LRT would be performing at a lower standard than Mummy. I could see opposition coaches using it as a tactic against us. When LRT goes into the ruck, the opposition go hard in the ruck contest and bomb it forward to a destabilized defence. It'd be an opportunity for opposition to pile on a couple of goals and turn the game in their favour. So imo, it's too risky. And at his best, LRT is an extremely valuable defender.

With White, he's really going to have to step up in 2012 or he'll be delisted/traded at the end of the year. I see him do a couple of good things a match, and the part of me that wants him to succeed is cheering. But in the back of my mind I know that he lacks the footy brain to really be a solid contributor for us. A couple of good phases of play are not enough to keep your spot long term and I'm concerned that he'll never be able to offer us any more than that. I hope he proves me wrong in 2012.

In order, after Mummy, my preference would be:

Pyke: Hopefully the injury hasn't kept him from developing. If he continues on his path, he'll be our (outright) second best ruck.
White: He has to prove that he has what it takes up forward first. I don't think he'll be gifted games as the backup ruck unless he's a solid contributor up forward.
Seaby: Is serviceable, but unlikely to provide much more than he's shown in the past. Most likely will be delisted at the end of the year.
LRT: Pretty much a last resort imo. He should be played in defence, in which case I don't think it would be wise to play him as a backup ruckman.

It all depends on how Horse plays it tactically. If he wants two genuine ruckmen (and Pyke has continued to improve) then Pyke is likely to get a start early. However if he just wants a backup, then I see White getting first shot, and whether he keeps the gig depends on how he performs up forward. If White's not offering enough up forward, I think Horse will switch it up and give Pyke an extended run of games and see how he performs. I think it all comes down to how White/Pyke perform over the pre-season/nab cup. The recruitment of Walsh also works against White, if Horse feels we're too top heavy in the forward line, Pyke becomes the better option due to his work around the ground/defensive pressure.

 

[mark121]

With Goodes Reid and Walsh all likely to spend most or all of their time forward while Mumford and the second ruck spend limited time down there is there space for White as another big forward?

I doubt it unless there are injuries or a positional change for Goodes Walsh or the second ruck. Its for this reason i expect White will fight for the second ruck position.

Clubs will always deny giving guarentees to players for senior game time but Walsh wasnt recruited to fight White for the final spot and should start of the season ahead unless White lifts his game considerably.

 

[S120]

LRT is the player we should be desperately trying to find a spot for.

This. I would be tempted to try all of Richards-Grundy-LRT in defence to start the year until something gives. I can't come to a conclusion on the matter cause Johnson proved to be so effective, it's just that LRT is such a good tall defender, it would be such a waste to not have him there. And when push comes to shove, if I had to choose one of Reg or LRT to be one of only 2 tall defenders, I'd pick LRT.

Longmire seems to be, deservedly or not, a fan of White getting back on topic, so I wouldn't be surprised to see him in the 22 somewhere early in the year. I'd be picking Pyke and Walsh ahead of him though.

 

[RUNVS]

With Goodes Reid and Walsh all likely to spend most or all of their time forward while Mumford and the second ruck spend limited time down there is there space for White as another big forward?

I don't want to see Goodes as a forward next season unless it is for short bursts as he is a much better midfielder than he is a forward.

 

[S120]

I think the penny finally dropped during the 2011 season regarding how to use Goodes at his best. It seemed during say 2009, 2010 and for the first bit of 2011 Roos/Longmire were convinced he was best used as a forward who could play in the middle every now and then despite dominating when being employed permanently in the middle during those years. But after his ludicrous form this year the club seems to have made a more concerted effort to shore up its tall forward stocks.

Seems to be not just an effort to secure the future of our forward line but also to get the best out of Goodes over the next few years, which could lead to a big push into the finals if he continues to play at such a high level in the midfield (incidentally, I saw him interviewed on the website and he says he is as fit as ever at this stage of the offseason, so more good signs there).

 

[GoTheSwannies]

I don't think there's room for Goodes up forward in 2012 unless it's for a short stint.

We've got so many forward options, it's hard to think who will be a regular.

Reid & Walsh should be a lock for round 1. Then we've got White, Spangher, Morton, TDL. ROK who's a natural forward will probably see more tiem up forward. Bolton can go up forward, is a good mark for his size and a reliable kick for goal. Mcglynn goes up forward, Rohan can play there (although he was apparently earmarked for a hb role before 2011). Mcveigh's best position imo is up forward as well. Forgot about Everitt as well.

So many options up forward. I'd say Horse is looking to leave a couple small forward roles for players who can rotate through the midfield as well as playing up forward.

 

[scottwade]

Sub Walsh in for Spangher

Walsh I think will almost certainly get first crack at locking down FF.

Walsh wasnt recruited to fight White for the final spot and should start of the season ahead unless White lifts his game considerably.

Reid & Walsh should be a lock for round 1.

I think the expectations for Tommy may have exceeded reality.

By all accounts he was promising for St Kilda reserves and looked reasonable in the Test matches, BUT he has yet to play a senior game.

Ross Lyon may have been reluctant to play younger players, but if Walsh had been dominating in the reserves I think it unlikely he would have continually overlooked him.

Walsh certainly offers promise and we do have a history of giving recruits opportunity, but I think we should temper our expectations and allow Tommy to continue his development rather than assume he is a certainty for our opening game.

I'd prefer to wait and see how he goes in the NAB Cup before annointing him our new FF.

 

[S120]

Just because a lot of us think the same that he will get first crack at FF doesn't necessarily mean our expectations are too high.

We're not predicting he'll win the Coleman. But the fact he was specifically targeted to be traded in means to me that the club has the intention of playing him (in line with many of the players we have recently traded into the club).

 

[scottwade]

Just because a lot of us think the same that he will get first crack at FF doesn't necessarily mean our expectations are too high.

We're not predicting he'll win the Coleman. But the fact he was specifically targeted to be traded in means to me that the club has the intention of playing him (in line with many of the players we have recently traded into the club).

But I don't see the same expectations for Armstrong or Morton and both those players have at least exposed AFL form.

I'd be thrilled if Tommy came in and held down FF, but at this stage I have that as a possibility rather than probability.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

I agree with S120, Walsh specifically wanted to come to Sydney, and you can bet it wasn't just about the money. A big part of the pitch would have been Walsh getting regular senior games. We were so convincing that he chose not to stay at St Kilda even with a new coach coming in and assurance that he'd be given more opportunity. Considering the circumstances of his acquisition I'm expecting him to start round 1, whether he repays the faith is another question altogether. I'm confident he will.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

I believe one of the big motivations behind the Walsh trade was so Goodes can continue playing the role he played throughout 2011, not so we could have Reid, Walsh, Goodes and Spangher/White all up forward.

Whether or not he stays in the 22 for long or not, Walsh will start with Reid and Goodes will play cameos like he did this year which great results. The third tall forward is tough one to predict and it could be out of White/Spangher/Morton/Pyke depending on how we use our rucks and whether or not we're worried about going too tall.

 

[S120]

But I don't see the same expectations for Armstrong or Morton and both those players have at least exposed AFL form.

I'd be thrilled if Tommy came in and held down FF, but at this stage I have that as a possibility rather than probability.

The position they each are being brought in to play and the depth of those positions we have on our list have something to do with that I think. The vast majority of Swans fans I think are of the opinion that we need another tall forward to step up to the plate next to Sammy Reid in order for the side to be a top 4 side (and to keep Goodes in the midfield, which is an important ingredient in us being a top 4 side, I think we'd all agree).

I agree on it being a possibility rather than a probability that Walsh will lock down the FF spot but I think that is a fairly commonly held belief amongst most on here.

 

[AG]

I think the expectations for Tommy may have exceeded reality.

I don't think it has much to do with Walsh personally but more to do with where our forward line is at. Reid is the only one most would consider a lock at CHF. Goodes in his floating role is the preferred role. So that leaves Pyke/White/Spangher/Seaby/Walsh as the other key forward and a backup ruckman. No one really stands out from those names and that's why Walsh is being talked up a fair bit.

 

[baja]

I think the expectations for Tommy may have exceeded reality.

agree we havent even see him play AFL yet, but I hope he kills it.

 

[Ed_Gein]

Either way I doubt we'll have a player in the side purely as a backup ruckman.

agreed. especially considering the sub rule makes it difficult to have a specialist ruckman sitting on the bench or as a sub. we'll need someone who can make an impact up forward as well as pinch hit in the ruck while resting mumford up forward or on the bench.

white, well he's had a few years in the forward line to try and have an impact and i am sure the coaching staff are frustrated with his output. i think he's become a depth player that will probably only get a run due to injuries perhaps after the acquisition of walsh and the emergence of reid.

lets wait and see.

 

[drivative]

To clarify the talk about White's potential as a ruckman at the start of this thread, at least for me, the idea was to discuss where HIS best hope was in the side. It wasn't about talking him up as the best option for 2nd ruck. I'd probably try Pyke first.
Basically, I'm with most opinion here, that he's not actually the best option for any position. But if we're looking for what his optimal potential is, I thought 2nd ruck might be the best bet.

It'll be very interesting see how it actually pans out. I like the idea of starting with: Mumford - 1st ruck; Pyke - back up ruck/forward; Reid - FF; Walsh or Spangher - CHF pushing further up the ground and making room for Goodes to go forward when he wants.

(Thinking about the forward structure/line-up leads to another issue) ... the structure and delivery inside 50 (to whoever is there) must be better. We got smashed by Gibson in the semi against Hawthorn partly because Spangher (and Reid) couldn't keep Gibson accountable, so he ran off to wherever the ball came to our forward line, jumped over the pack and smashed it clear. It's partly their fault, but also we were too rushed, pressured and disorganised in the midfield transition to create 1-on-1 contests. Hopefully a massive effort is being put into avoiding the bombing 'strategy' we had. The talent has been slightly deficient, but with that being potentially improved* it's up to Horse and the new forward (John Blakey) and midfield (Leigh Tudor) coaches to make our forward transition smarter, less predictable and beatable.

*improvement expected in current young mids and forwards and/or whoever rises from the new names ..Lamb, Morton, Armstrong, Mitchell.

 

[scottwade]

The talent has been slightly deficient, but with that being potentially improved* it's up to Horse and the new forward (John Blakey) and midfield (Leigh Tudor) coaches to make our forward transition smarter, less predictable and beatable.

*improvement expected in current young mids and forwards and/or whoever rises from the new names ..Lamb, Morton, Armstrong, Mitchell.

FWIW Playfair will actually be our forwards coach in 2012.
Blakey moves to the backs.

Given Henry's development/teaching role with the Reserves in 2011, I actually like having him as forwards coach, as the structure (allied with lesser talent as well) hasn't worked all that well IMO in recent times.