Remove this Banner Ad

Robbie Warnock

  • Thread starter Thread starter berisha
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

The Old Dark Navy's said:
Warnock 30 taps 11 to advantage
Kreuzer 22 taps 9 to advantage
Maric 26 taps 9 to advantage
Vickery 9 taps 1 to advantage

The benefit of playing two dedicated ruckmen is obvious. The only issue is Kreuzer having to go back and forward for great portions of the game where he struggled. This is usually because Warnock can not play anywhere else but Warnock did do more around the ground to justify being in the middle yesterday. I think a fit Hampson would have held his on just quietly. We are lucky to have 3 rucks capable of being first ruck. We just have to find a way to fill our key forward slots and play too ruckmen to our advantage all season long.

*Stats courtesy of [user]Big Kahuna Boot[/user] and his educating of the Richmond masses.
Click to expand...

Simply, that is the ball game there, worth there wait in gold are 2 dominant tap ruckman. A bit disappointed that Kreuzer gets in position to mark the ball quite often but it's just not happening.
 
I believe we are 9-2 this year with Robbie in the side. So frustrating that he can't take marks against blokes 20cm shorter than him. In saying that his tap ruck work is invaluable
 
Dont forget that Humphrey is playing with a plate in his thumb. It hurts like hell to have the ball thumping into the balls of your thumbs when one of them is broke. He will have about 3 months to let it recover properly and possibly have the plate removed.

I think that if we can get Knockers marking the ball on a regular basis in the forward line and dishing off to one of the small/medium forwards we have, we will be a lot better for it.

I think that Hampson is going to be on the outer now with Knockers good form and both Casboult and Rowe standing up as forwards and second string ruckmen.

It is going to be interesting come the trade/FA period this year.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

calman said:
thought for a trade out of left field. You need to trade quality to get quality. What woudl be peoples thoughts about offering kreuzer to GWS in a straight swap for their pick 1, We get to pick up a gun key forward, GWS get a strong bodied ruckman, I think kreuzer is the better player, but we can cover his loss with warnock. Gun key forwards are rare
Click to expand...
What the guy below this comment said...

Jeremias said:
Has been covered ad nauseum, and the answer is still an emphatic no.

We won't be trading Kreuzer and rightly so.
Click to expand...

Just no... you dont trade a heart and soul player just for a single pick in a draft.

If we were to trade humphrey, we should be getting GWS's #1 pick and their mid first round pick.
 
Dramoth said:
Just no... you dont trade a heart and soul player just for a single pick in a draft.
Click to expand...

OK, granted, Kreuzer IS heart and soul, and the cost of the trade might be more than just the player.

However, we must come up with a better asset mgt plan than just holding the rucks we have waiting for them to be different. 3 doesn't go into 1. All three have proven over years and years they need to be #1 to play their best. Warnock's form in the past month *has* been a real positive - but then are we getting everything we hope/want/expect out of Kreuzer? Are we then using an A-grade talent and paying A-grade money to Kreuze to deliver B-grade role/output (second ruck, ineffective forward)? And why are we paying Hampson AFL money to watch VFL games from the stands?

I'm not advocating shooting Bambi/trading Kreuzer, but I don't think it's an idea that should be dismissed outright. We do not have a strong enough list to afford the luxury of carrying three AFL first rucks. If Warnock is to own the #1 role due to his dominant hitout work, so be it. But what, then, for Kreuzer has to be the question? It was only a few months ago that there was almost universal agreement that finally Kreuze was looking like the man, and it was on the back of carrying the workload as primary ruck 80% of the time.

I still land firmly at one of Warnock or Hampson has to go.
 
Faz 2000 said:
OK, granted, Kreuzer IS heart and soul, and the cost of the trade might be more than just the player.

However, we must come up with a better asset mgt plan than just holding the rucks we have waiting for them to be different. 3 doesn't go into 1. All three have proven over years and years they need to be #1 to play their best. Warnock's form in the past month *has* been a real positive - but then are we getting everything we hope/want/expect out of Kreuzer? Are we then using an A-grade talent and paying A-grade money to Kreuze to deliver B-grade role/output (second ruck, ineffective forward)? And why are we paying Hampson AFL money to watch VFL games from the stands?

I'm not advocating shooting Bambi/trading Kreuzer, but I don't think it's an idea that should be dismissed outright. We do not have a strong enough list to afford the luxury of carrying three AFL first rucks. If Warnock is to own the #1 role due to his dominant hitout work, so be it. But what, then, for Kreuzer has to be the question? It was only a few months ago that there was almost universal agreement that finally Kreuze was looking like the man, and it was on the back of carrying the workload as primary ruck 80% of the time.

I still land firmly at one of Warnock or Hampson has to go.
Click to expand...

Problem with trading Kreuze to get Boyd is you have to assume that Boyd will take 3-4 years at a minimum before you see real benefits, by which time Murphy, Gibbs etc are entering the twilight years.

Any recruiting has to be directed at maximising our chances over the next 5 years imo.
 
Canyouhearthedrums said:
Any recruiting has to be directed at maximising our chances over the next 5 years imo.
Click to expand...


I reckon teams get good faster than people think. Hawks in 2008, Pies in 2010, these were not old teams. They weren't teams that built and built and peaked. They loaded up on quality kids who came good faster than expected. They've been perennial challengers since by trading in for needs and continuing to go back to the draft. I guess I mean... I don't think you need to aim for a particular year or short period.

I really think to continually be a strong club you have to err on the side of youngsters, and therefore I'm not scared of going "too young". If we load up with 3 years as our sole focus... then what? I think we should build with a view to having a strong list always. That to me means asset mgt is king.

I'm not explaining myself. I'm going to have some more coffee, do some work, then have another go.

I think it boils down to... why? Why should we maximise our chances over the next 5 years? What's special about our list now that says we have a window for 5 years? DO we have a window? How do we know? If so, when does it close, and why? I think why not have an open-ended policy of continually building the list strength. Get the right guys. Move on those who are not improving. And if/when we find ourselves right at the pointy end, then you make the tactical decision, rather than the strategic one.
 
Looks like Hampsons papers are stamped? Tigers and a few other clubs looking for a ruckman could we get a deal done for Hampson?
 
Has Warnock gone backwards this year or have teams figured him out and he simple cannot cover the ground like other ruck man can?

His lack of involvement in general play is becoming really obvious.
 
He's always been awful around the ground, just terrible.

And I'm a pretty big Warnock fan.

Wait until finals come around though :thumbsu:

Probably don't worry about that this year though...
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

The whole team was shit.

Never mind favourite sons unable to hit a target or our two most prodigious senior forwards useless in attack.

Get used to it, Kreuzer is gone 'til next year (or late July at best)
 
gbatman said:
Winning taps but no one's home.
Click to expand...
Statistics lie. None of his taps were decisive, although I take your point about the on-ballers share of blame.

Would we be better off if Knockers punched the ball instead of trying to tap it? It might give our outside players a chance.
 
AlecDuncan said:
Statistics lie. None of his taps were decisive, although I take your point about the on-ballers share of blame.

Would we be better off if Knockers punched the ball instead of trying to tap it? It might give our outside players a chance.
Click to expand...
There was one play when he absolutely hammered it on Sunday... punched it a mile... only for it to go back over his head towards the Essendon goals.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

thylacine60 said:
that's not outrucked, that's outcoached
Click to expand...
They played to his disadvantages, which weve known about for ages....until he fixes this, he really doesnt have a spot in the team.

Much like the essendon game of 2012, the game on sunday was a blueprint on how to beat us. If we dont make significant changes to our lineup, we will be smashed week in, week out.
 
thylacine60 said:
that's not outrucked, that's outcoached
Click to expand...

slashin_velvet said:
Much like the essendon game of 2012, the game on sunday was a blueprint on how to beat us. If we dont make significant changes to our lineup, we will be smashed week in, week out.
Click to expand...

This.

Everyone's talking about a wake-up call for our players, but if Sunday night's result doesn't light the fire under Mick's butt-hole, then nothing ever will.
 
Two fold problem.

When 206 dominates in the middle we don't get value for his tap work from our mids as they tend to bang it on the boot instead of looking to clear the ball via handball and use the outside runners to deliver the ball.

Second thing is he doesn't give any value at any other time.

Thompson used his brain, accepted he was going to lose the taps and used two guys who would provide options after the centre bounce with good link play and the ability to kick the ball to a target. They also appeared to gut run better.

With Warnock being so one dimensional and limited other options at the moment, to get the most value from his limited input our mids have to be a shit load cleaner with their disposal when he gives them first use of the ball.

I don't recall the bombers or any top ranking teams continually throwing the ball on the boot from a centre bounce, It's such a hit and miss tactic. All the good teams use handball effectively in close until the ball is cleared to a runner.

Mick needs to tell them to stop and guys like Robinson need to be pulled from the middle. If he plays at all he should be a defensive HF
 
Warnock, drafted in 2005, played his first game in 2007, had his best year in 2011. Strength Hit outs at ruck contests, Weakness- does not create concern for the opposition after the ruck contest, I'm not saying he doesn't try, but we don't kick to him, he is not a forward threat and doesn't take a grab. Of course the opposition will instruct their ruckman to run off him and create another target. After the ruck contest we are virtually down to 17 men and we paid alot of money for him?
I feel he has not been the same since he got ko'd in the Geelong game and kicked the losing point
 
Blue since 72 said:
Two fold problem.

When 206 dominates in the middle we don't get value for his tap work from our mids as they tend to bang it on the boot instead of looking to clear the ball via handball and use the outside runners to deliver the ball.

Second thing is he doesn't give any value at any other time.

Thompson used his brain, accepted he was going to lose the taps and used two guys who would provide options after the centre bounce with good link play and the ability to kick the ball to a target. They also appeared to gut run better.

With Warnock being so one dimensional and limited other options at the moment, to get the most value from his limited input our mids have to be a shit load cleaner with their disposal when he gives them first use of the ball.

I don't recall the bombers or any top ranking teams continually throwing the ball on the boot from a centre bounce, It's such a hit and miss tactic. All the good teams use handball effectively in close until the ball is cleared to a runner.

Mick needs to tell them to stop and guys like Robinson need to be pulled from the middle. If he plays at all he should be a defensive HF
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying, but feel that our constant thumping the ball forward quickly is part of our game plan as it is done repeatedly over and over, surely if it was not, these guys who kick in hope would cop a rocket? This is junior football at it's best
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Bundy Bear Bogan
    • Like
    • Love
Universal Love Can we love Robbie Williams any more
Replies
13
Views
1K
Aphrodite
Aphrodite

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom