The claim that Ackland would have been in St Kilda's best 22 only because of their lack of a ruckman, really undersells his performance, particularly in 2005 when he was placed 10th in their best & fairest at 23 years of age. An age at which most ruckman are still playing off the bench, not carrying the ruckload.
The comparison with McKernan, though, just has no validity. You are comparing apples & oranges. McKernan was no more a ruckman than Steve Kernahan was. He was a tall forward who occasionally had a run in the ruck. His inability to 'time' his jumps was based on not being a true ruckman & not being coached as such. Ackland is a ruckman, first, second & third & at 24 years of age has already performed better as a ruckman than McKernan ever looked like doing during his short stints on the ball.
FWIW,we don't need a Rudi Webster to continue Ackland's development as a ruckman. I am more than happy to pin my faith on our ruck coach, Gary Dempsey, someone who I'm sure you know a little bit about.
To get back on the topic, though, Ackland is a far more viable option than Perry because he has already established himself in the AFL, whereas Perry has done little to suggest that he will play anymore than his 8 AFL games. He may find his way on to a rookie list, although with 4 years in the system & so little to show for it, I can't imagine a club wasting a rookie pick when there is going to be plenty of 17 & 18 year old kids more worthy of a rookie spot.
