Review Round 6, 2022 vs West Coast

Remove this Banner Ad

The same early 2000's period where there was an average of 50 interchanges per side yet teams still had 2 rucks as opposed to now when they're permitted 25 more changes than that?
Yeah, when the game was a lot slower and teams set up forward lines that stayed forward instead of emptying them out to help in defence.

Apples and hand grenades.
 
Of course we won't. You're comparing the style of football played in the early 2000s, where there was no interchange cap so you could afford to have a second ruck on the bench, to now, where there is an interchange cap and therefore a lot more running required of the midfield. No one is putting 5-6 rucks on a modern AFL list because of the restraints that the AFL have put on interchange.

The only time you're ever going to have two rucks in a team is if you have an elite one like Gawn and a ruck/forward like Jackson. that can swap on the field and both still produce for the team.
They used 30 rotations in the early 2000's. Its hardly relevant.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

That's not the reason why we had 5 on the list and added Brooks in 2001 and quickly traded him out 12 months later to end up with 4 on the list.

We had 2 experienced rucks who had, had serious injuries, Primus an ACL and Lade back to back broken leg - the same spot, we drafted a kid in Ackland and we rookie drafted 2 non footballers and gave them a go developing them - we built insurance into our list.

And what a bloody smart move it proved to be, in that 2001-04 period, especially in 2004.

You are not going to see 5-6 when there are only 42 max on the list and there are no long term injuries, but why not when there are maximum lists of 47??

How many sexy flakey flankers who can run up and back, up and back and have average skills and go missing when it counts, do you need on a list?

When you have someone who is out for 12 months, like Primus or Lade were, why not have 4 others on the list, buying a bit of insurance knowing that someone could do another serious long term injury, given ruckmen in general compete in the most contests, and they are notorious for getting collision injuries?

And so what if you have 3 one week playing in the B grade. They might develop skills to play somewhere - like CHF or CHB. i don't think Mr Frampton chose to play at CHB as his first preference.

And its just not Melbourne who play 2 rucks. St Kilda play an ageing Ryder and younger Marshall, WCE regularly play 2 rucks, have for years and did the most amount of running at Subi. Collingwood played Grundy and Cameron yesterday. And every weekend there is around half the sides who do it.

I get it that the 2nd ruck can't be just a tall bloke who can't do much. I'm not saying draft/trade for those sort of players.
 
That's not the reason why we had 5 on the list and added Brooks in 2001 and quickly traded him out 12 months later to end up with 4 on the list.

We had 2 experienced rucks who had, had serious injuries, Primus an ACL and Lade back to back broken leg - the same spot, we drafted a kid in Ackland and we rookie drafted 2 non footballers and gave them a go developing them - we built insurance into our list.

And what a bloody smart move it proved to be, in that 2001-04 period, especially in 2004.

You are not going to see 5-6 when there are only 42 max on the list and there are no long term injuries, but why not when there are maximum lists of 47??

How many sexy flakey flankers who can run up and back, up and back and have average skills and go missing when it counts, do you need on a list?

When you have someone who is out for 12 months, like Primus or Lade were, why not have 4 others on the list, buying a bit of insurance knowing that someone could do another serious long term injury, given ruckmen in general compete in the most contests, and they are notorious for getting collision injuries?

And so what if you have 3 one week playing in the B grade. They might develop skills to play somewhere - like CHF or CHB. i don't think Mr Frampton chose to play at CHB as his first preference.

And its just not Melbourne who play 2 rucks. St Kilda play an ageing Ryder and younger Marshall, WCE regularly play 2 rucks, have for years and did the most amount of running at Subi. Collingwood played Grundy and Cameron yesterday. And every weekend there is around half the sides who do it.

I get it that the 2nd ruck can't be just a tall bloke who can't do much. I'm not saying draft/trade for those sort of players.
I think a large part of it is now clubs don't want to be repeatedly drafting players, that even if they come good, you're unlikely get many games out of for the first 4-6 years. Clubs (or at least recruiting departments) are more risk averse. The other one is, until maybe last year with Gawn when was the last time a gun ruck was one of the main reasons a club won a flag? Richmond's was/is average, Hawks didn't rely on it, West Coast had Lycett rather than NicNat in the winning GF, Bulldogs didn't. I'd say you'd have to go back to 2006 and Dean Cox at West Coast to have a ruck be such a key part. 15 years between them and I can see clubs rationale.

Take Hayes, if he'd been around in the early 2000's there's a good chance he'd have been a first round pick. Lots of clubs would rather just take a punt later in the draft and accept an average ruck, plus one more good mid or KPP drafted earlier. That or they are willing to pay a premium to pry a semi-decent one out of another club, as the apparent steep cost is more than offset by not carrying them on the books for years, whilst developing. Personally I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way (I'd always have a project ruck as one of our rookie list players and one from another sport / background as a Cat B rookie at all times), but it's not going back to how Port were early 2000's again (assuming rotations, list sizes etc. don't change radically).
 
Last edited:
Nick Naitanui did his ACL in Rd 22 of 2016. They knew he was out for all of 2017, he played next in Rd 1 2018.

WCE in 2017 had 5 even 6 ruckmen on their list, they were still playing at Subi.

WCE in 2017 had 39 on the main list + 5 rookies + 3 cat B rookies - none were ruckmen. Irish player, Sudanese NGA type, and footballer who didn't play state league footy for 3 years to finish his apprenticeship.

They had Lycett and Jonathan Giles ( we bloody drafted him in 2005 and never played him, played at GWS and Essendon), traded in Nathan Vardy in for a pick in the 70's, and rookie listed a 34 year old 300 gamer in Drew Petrie as cover given Nick Nat wasn't playing in 2017.

They knew they needed insurance given Nick Nat had a 12 month injury.

And weren't Vardy and Petrie useful in ruck double teaming Ryder and stretching our defence in 2017 EF and helping them to a 31 pt lead before Charlie said enough is enough.

And they had Fraser McInnes on their list as 198cm tall forward / back up ruck for about 8 years from the 2011 draft with the last 3 years sitting on their rookie list. Clubs don't rookie list KPF's for 3 years after 5 years on the main list. He's there for back up.

Nick Nat comes back in 2018 - they cut Petrie and Giles, and normal rookie list 201 cm Kenyan Tony Olango, so with Fraser McInnes they still have 5 potential rucks on their list.

Nick Nat does an ACL ( in the other knee IIRC) in Rd 15 and Lycett and Vardy lead their rucks all the way to a flag.

2018 WCE's list is 39+5+1 cat B (2 of the 2017 guys were cut).
 
Last edited:
Youre never going to have 5 rucks on a list. Its bad salary and lost management

The only circumstances i can see it working are, and even typing this i thought this was a strech

1 is a Cat B rookie, atheltic long shot
1 is a premium ruck who can go forward - see Max Gawn
1 is a forward ruck who is also in your best 22 (Ladhams, Jackson)

Then
You would have an older ruck break glass in type of emergency- Mumford, Stefan Martin, Pruess at Melbourne

Then you would have another draftee ruck coming through

The above set up would be 20% ish of your salary cap on one position where its been proven you dont need a gun ruckman to win a flag
 
Youre never going to have 5 rucks on a list. Its bad salary and lost management

The only circumstances i can see it working are, and even typing this i thought this was a strech

1 is a Cat B rookie, atheltic long shot
1 is a premium ruck who can go forward - see Max Gawn
1 is a forward ruck who is also in your best 22 (Ladhams, Jackson)

Then
You would have an older ruck break glass in type of emergency- Mumford, Stefan Martin, Pruess at Melbourne

Then you would have another draftee ruck coming through

The above set up would be 20% ish of your salary cap on one position where its been proven you dont need a gun ruckman to win a flag
Then how come WCE managed it when they had a list of 47 in 2017 and 45 in 2018 and got a flag out of this policy??

I don't expect to see it when lists are 42. But I would like to see 4, one in each 3 year age group.
 
Youre never going to have 5 rucks on a list. Its bad salary and lost management

The only circumstances i can see it working are, and even typing this i thought this was a strech

1 is a Cat B rookie, atheltic long shot
1 is a premium ruck who can go forward - see Max Gawn
1 is a forward ruck who is also in your best 22 (Ladhams, Jackson)

Then
You would have an older ruck break glass in type of emergency- Mumford, Stefan Martin, Pruess at Melbourne

Then you would have another draftee ruck coming through

The above set up would be 20% ish of your salary cap on one position where its been proven you dont need a gun ruckman to win a flag
How much of our salary cap do umpteen fukcing flankers take up?
 
Yes, your first 2 points are the reason I am feeling ok with the win but still very flat.

...

I have this bloody awful chant in my head from a group that sits behind us “Power, Power, kick another goal”. Most of their other chants are ok but this one makes me cringe.

Maybe I am just a miserable old soul.
Maybe...
But you are a poet, and didn't know it.
 
Then how come WCE managed it when they had a list of 47 in 2017 and 45 in 2018 and got a flag out of this policy??

I don't expect to see it when lists are 42. But I would like to see 4, one in each 3 year age group.
Petrie is a stretch, they also knew they had Nic Nat out with a knee. Dont know why you point to that as if its the shining example
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

That's not the reason why we had 5 on the list and added Brooks in 2001 and quickly traded him out 12 months later to end up with 4 on the list.

We had 2 experienced rucks who had, had serious injuries, Primus an ACL and Lade back to back broken leg - the same spot, we drafted a kid in Ackland and we rookie drafted 2 non footballers and gave them a go developing them - we built insurance into our list.

And what a bloody smart move it proved to be, in that 2001-04 period, especially in 2004.

You are not going to see 5-6 when there are only 42 max on the list and there are no long term injuries, but why not when there are maximum lists of 47??

How many sexy flakey flankers who can run up and back, up and back and have average skills and go missing when it counts, do you need on a list?

When you have someone who is out for 12 months, like Primus or Lade were, why not have 4 others on the list, buying a bit of insurance knowing that someone could do another serious long term injury, given ruckmen in general compete in the most contests, and they are notorious for getting collision injuries?

And so what if you have 3 one week playing in the B grade. They might develop skills to play somewhere - like CHF or CHB. i don't think Mr Frampton chose to play at CHB as his first preference.

And its just not Melbourne who play 2 rucks. St Kilda play an ageing Ryder and younger Marshall, WCE regularly play 2 rucks, have for years and did the most amount of running at Subi. Collingwood played Grundy and Cameron yesterday. And every weekend there is around half the sides who do it.

I get it that the 2nd ruck can't be just a tall bloke who can't do much. I'm not saying draft/trade for those sort of players.
Our current ruck stocks are Lycett, Hayes and Visentini…but I’d say our list management views Dixon as a forward/ruck.

To get the multifaceted player you want you need to either have a great draft pick (Naitanui, Jackson, Andrew) or keep churning through late round draft picks. Since 2013, we’ve drafted Howard, Frampton, Hayes, Ladhams and Visentini with late picks, so it’s not like we don’t value rucks (or players that can ruck). If there’s talent that we rate, and can play how we want to play in a position we have a need, we draft it. That’s the modern “big board” draft strategy at work.

 
I don’t understand why it’s any different to swiping your card?
Phone brightness, screens locking, pure ignorance to not have it up ready all plays a part.

I also don’t think the scanners read the phone as well. So many people I saw struggling with it, including my partner who is pretty tech savvy.
 
Petrie is a stretch, they also knew they had Nic Nat out with a knee. Dont know why you point to that as if its the shining example
Petrie at 34 wasnt drafted as a backup for Kennedy and Darling, he was drafted as a back up for Nick Nat, and thats why he ended up playing 16 games in 2017, Darling played 23 of 24, Kennedy 19 of 24, Lycett 1 game, and Nick Nat 0 games.

Edit Vardy played 22, Giles 5 and McInnes 2.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top