Universal Love JESSE WHITE

[Kilmo]

We won the hitouts to advantage against Essendon, White kicked 2 goals, enough said.

Agreed, and B. Grundy kicked a goal, so there's our one goal for the ruckmen!

Witts is getting better each week, seems to be relishing his game time.

 

[Masked Magician]

Loving his work as is ATM... cant wait to see him when reid comes in for witts and white has to do the rucking.. may well be down on goals but boy will our pressure be even better when this is the case

 

[piedpiper32]

Swans fans would agree that he performs best when solely playing forward, I think having to play in the ruck may either be too demanding physically/mentally for him to be able to contribute at his optimal level as a forward.

He's no superstar, but he's a great 2nd/3rd tall. Hope he has a great career with you guys.

This.

Hopefully bucks keeps him as a permanent forward where his best footys always been played.

And this.

The Sydney fans watched him develop and play over 6 years and noted White gave his best performances playing solely as a forward. Evidence in his first 7 games for us (Rds 2-6 plus NAB challenge) further supports this.

Not sure why playing two genuine rucks is so unthinkable for some. If we only went with one (Grundy 1st choice) that means not only are you reducing White's effectiveness, BUT you are also reducing Grundy's as he doesn't have the tank to go a full game with just occasional chop-outs from White. It's no coincidence he has been finishing games more strongly with Witts in the team.

Is Reid that much more effective forward than back to make it worthwhile to reduce the output of BOTH White and Grundy?
Does our forward line currently need Reid to play there without question instead of the back line?
Surely he can still be used as a swingman with two ruckman in the team so something for both the Reid forward and Reid back camps.

As for White yes he was recruited with the idea of him playing back-up ruck as it was very uncertain whether Witts could come in and be a solid tag team with Grundy. The last few games have shown us this can work. We should therefore see it as a bonus that we can then play White full-time in the forward line, stick with the two rucks, fast-track the development of Witts, and get the best of Grundy as well.

 

[jonbe54]

I think we are suffering from a Reid led recovery last year hangover Clearly last year he was a bit of a saviour and helped rebuild a pretty ordinary season. Now that we have another option in White who is demonstably far more effective as a permanent forward than a 2nd ruck/forward we already have the extra firepower Reid was providing late last year.

The two rucks are working for us and each other, plus its getting valuable game time into what we hope will be a decade long partnership and building a synergy which is just essential, I certainly wouldn't be tampering with this as it will hamper both young men's development.

So we have a problem of an overflow of mobile talls and Reid is the odd man out at the moment but of course far too good not to find a position for, both Keefe and Frost are working well so I wouldn't be tampering there that leaves only one position unfortunately.

We are screaming out for a distributor coming off the backline and who better than a mobile tall with superior footskills who is also 7th man? Maxy has fullfilled that loose man in defense role with courage and merit for ages and I'd be the last to want him gone.

BUT.

Team balance may demand it.

 

[piedpiper32]

Some interesting stats for all games White has played for us:

White as back-up ruck
3 games, 3 goals (1.0 avg). 11.7 disposals, 6.7 hitouts

White as permanent forward
4 games, 12 goals (3.0 avg). 12.3 disposals.

Yes it's only a small sample size, but the difference so far is significant.

Also interesting is Grundy averages 81% Total Game Time when White is his only back-up vs less than 70% when another ruck is playing. The two games where he had to ruck with only White backing up (Rd 2 Sydney, Rd 3 Geelong) he was laboring in the second half.

 

[ClaytonM]

I think it is too early to make a call either way give Reid hasn't even got on the park yet. The sample size is too small and white will be learning our structure and players.

I think we need to trial both options over the h&a season to see what works best. It may in the end come down to what works best against each team.

I like the idea of Reid forward with White as the second ruck, but time will tell what is the better option. Need further evidence ie Reid on the park before call can be made.

 

[MooreTreloar]

Everything I hoped Lynch could've been. White has age on his side in that factor too.

Still not sure how the forward line will structure up when Reid is fit.

 

[jimmy35]

Everything I hoped Lynch could've been. White has age on his side in that factor too.

Still not sure how the forward line will structure up when Reid is fit.

Reid CHB and swing man if needed, same forward setup as we've got now. The 2 ruckman thing seems to work and lessens the burden on Jesse as a true forward and Brodes in the ruck.

 

[Dogs_Playing_Poker]

What about Witts out (although I really am liking his progress) Reid in..... White stays as a permanent forward and we get a chop out in the ruck from Keeffe? Could this work?

 

[SpongePie]

What about Witts out (although I really am liking his progress) Reid in..... White stays as a permanent forward and we get a chop out in the ruck from Keeffe? Could this work?

Possibly but on the other hand I wouldn't over complicate things with Keefe. He is just finding form again. I think expecting him to play in a difficult enough position (taking a key forward) and then ruck duties might be too much IMO.

 

[piedpiper32]

What about Witts out (although I really am liking his progress) Reid in..... White stays as a permanent forward and we get a chop out in the ruck from Keeffe? Could this work?

Interesting idea, but every time someone mentions Keefe in the ruck I just think back to last year's Elimination Final against Port where we tried playing him as back-up ruck and forward, and he was completely useless.

I'm a big proponent of playing guys where they do their best work and keeping them there, e.g. White forward, Keefe back.

Reid is the one that has shown he can go both forward and back so keeping Witts in actually helps keep those options open. Once Witts is out and White is back-up ruck, that pretty much means Reid has to play forward all the time otherwise we get Cloke having to take on a few guys on his own.

 

[MooreTreloar]

Reid CHB and swing man if needed, same forward setup as we've got now. The 2 ruckman thing seems to work and lessens the burden on Jesse as a true forward and Brodes in the ruck.

I seem to agree with this. Witts as the third tall/second ruck has been doing a great job.

 

[BEEG]

Blue supporter started a thread about Jesse White on their board and was closed very quickly

This makes me happy

 

[SuperSub17]

Blue supporter started a thread about Jesse White on their board and was closed very quickly

This makes me happy

Lol took 3 minutes to lock it!

 

[BEEG]

Lol took 3 minutes to lock it!

How was the guy that lol to the post

Seriously they have Waite Casbolt

White would be a walk up start

 

[Tommy Magpie]

How was the guy that lol to the post

Seriously they have Waite Casbolt

White would be a walk up start

What a frightening forward line, about as intimidating as Casper

 

[BEEG]

What a frightening forward line, about as intimidating as Casper

Do not forget Garlett

 

[Shaneprice97]

What about Witts out (although I really am liking his progress) Reid in..... White stays as a permanent forward and we get a chop out in the ruck from Keeffe? Could this work?

Trengove from Port does something unique, he plays as a key defender but he also gives Lobbe a chop out in the ruck.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[blaze036]

Carlton would be a better side if they traded us Gibbs for White.

Sadly for them we would reject it

 

[Optimax]

Some interesting stats for all games White has played for us:

White as back-up ruck
3 games, 3 goals (1.0 avg). 11.7 disposals, 6.7 hitouts

White as permanent forward
4 games, 12 goals (3.0 avg). 12.3 disposals.

Yes it's only a small sample size, but the difference so far is significant.

Also interesting is Grundy averages 81% Total Game Time when White is his only back-up vs less than 70% when another ruck is playing. The two games where he had to ruck with only White backing up (Rd 2 Sydney, Rd 3 Geelong) he was laboring in the second half.

Explain this too me

If White has played 5 games, and kicked 9 goals...how'd yiu get these stats?

 

[Jonno94]

Explain this too me

If White has played 5 games, and kicked 9 goals...how'd yiu get these stats?

Check his 2013 stats compared to previous years, he is far better as a key forward.

 

[Optimax]

Check his 2013 stats compared to previous years, he is far better as a key forward.

I don't necessarily dispute that, I just couldn't work out how 5 games became 7

 

[piedpiper32]

Explain this too me

If White has played 5 games, and kicked 9 goals...how'd yiu get these stats?

Includes both NAB challenge games. That's why I said ALL games. Increase the sample size to see if there's a trend. He kicked 5 against Geelong in NAB 1 when Lynch backed up Grundy.

 

[SuperSub17]

Do not forget Garlett

Who?

 

[piedpiper32]

Got an alert about the Bucks on Talking Footy thread where I have never posted before Seems I have been quoted from here

To keep from derailing that thread I'll continue it here. My original post was to point out White's effectiveness clearly being diminished when asked to play back-up ruck plus Grundy having to take on an excessive load.

Having said that I am not completely against the idea and wouldn't mind seeing it tried. It's a good problem to have now with the emergence of the Grundy-Witts tag team. BUT to reiterate there could be a few issues with dissolving that partnership and letting White be back-up ruck:

1) Grundy: has to improve his tank as he will be asked to ruck the majority of the game with little chance of being subbed out. So far his endurance is definitely a weakness. Furthermore let's not forget he just turned 20 and now we are asking him to be the no.1 ruck. Many have expressed fear about burning him out too early in his career. This would not help.

2) Witts: only gets games when Grundy is given a week off which means his development is slowed. Same problem as Grundy when he does get a game in that he'll need to play out entire games with no chance of being subbed.

3) Reid: if White is the back-up ruck this almost locks us into playing Reid forward all the time otherwise our talls up forward will only be Cloke and White or Cloke and the resting ruck. It would reduce our flexibility in being able to swing Reid back without having a forward line that was too short.

4) White: his reduced effectiveness has already been covered.

For the Reid forward camp:
If we kept two rucks and let White stay forward this doesn't mean Reid has to only play back. He still can be a swingman and move forward when one ruck is resting on the bench or subbed out, or another scenario even is to have Grundy or Witts play back in the hole in front of the leading forwards and then run with a Cloke-Reid-White forward line.

So far we have seen Grundy and Witts play mainly forward when not rucking and there may be reasons why we don't let them drop back, but maybe it's something we can try at times to get Reid forward.