Opinion Rucking Situation

[foxdog50]

Please discuss our Ruck situation...

At his best Stanley is our best ruck, but you have to reward players when playing well eg Fort, and than if Stanley not performing you have to drop him...

I love Geelong, I really do.. but I'm not a fan of this rucking situation in Blitz and Esava.. as Esava only had 4 hitouts which is basically just a back up ruck. Which Blits needs to play in defence as our no 1 kDF..
It's a major concern atm with the ruck, in not backing a genuine ruckman in either Stanley or Fort. Yes we won both games with them, but come Finals it won't work

 

[foxdog50]

Plus also 12 hit out to advantages to St Kilda.

 

[STPer18]

I'd be dropping Z.Guthrie, playing Blicavs more down back for the 200+cm key forwards, and playing Sav as the no.2 alongside Stanley/Fort.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

I think it depends on who the opposition ruckman is as to who should play. I thought Rhyce would've been better against Marshall/Ryder, to be honest. I don't know why he's out of favor with the MC at the moment, and if it's just off one bad game then that's a lame decision. Fort is playing OK in the VFL and you'd think he'd get a go in the 1's eventually. Not keen on Sav playing ruck, he's a backup ruckman at best.

 

[year of the cat]

I think Rhys is our no.1 ruck but has to be managed. He can’t play a full season so will need regular spells to get through. Ratagolea is still learning the caper. He’s a reasonable fill in for those weeks that Stanley gets rested.

 

[Down at K Park]

Depends on the opposition. Stanley is our best ruck, but also our worst, depending on the day. He was horrid against sydney.

A lot of it has to do with our opponents. Do they play 2 genuine good rucks like st kilda. Or one good one and a part time back up? Do they have 3 tall forwards, or just 2. St Kilda had both the 2 genuine rucks, and the 3 tall forwards. We really should have played all 3 of stanley, sav and blitz.

Horses for courses.

 

[foxdog50]

And Fort was BOG again to Geelong vfl Twitter. That's best on in 3 of 4 games

 

[CatToTheFuture]

I put a bit of thought into what I'd do about this in the preseason. My conclusion was that we were probably most vulnerable in the key defense department which may be because I don't really rate hitouts particularly highly, but with Blitz having to ruck its essentially the same problem.

Key points:
▪︎ Sav alongside Hawkins/Cameron/Rohan is far too many talls and Sav is just going to drag his defender into the other's way so he can't rest forward
▪︎ Stanley/Sav can't ruck anything like a full match so we need two
▪︎ Blitz needs to be CHB at all times. I actually don't mind him as a ruck, I think having him ruck/wing last year was huge for us, but without Harry Taylor I don't think we can replicate it.

So how do we turn two weaknesses into a single, less awful weakness?

I would play both Stanley and Sav, and would drop the extra midfielder playing forward to get them in. The centre bounce has one of Stanley/Sav in the f50 and one in the ruck for the 666 rule. The second the ball is bounced the f50 player starts moving back through the corridor to either run to d50 or provide a half foward marking target depending on who wins the clearance.

Once we have both rucks behind the play we use one as an extra defender and the other follows the contest when in the midfield. F50 stoppages to be Hawkins or Cameron if Hawkins is off (not expecting Jez to do anything but neutralise the advantage there).

We essentially borrow some advantage from our forward line by asking them to beat an outnumber. We then drop that advantage in our back 50.

Imagine Stanley or Sav parked in front of King in marking contests last night. OK they're not great defenders, in fact I'm confident they'd be terrible defenders, but if it means Henry can be a loose defender then I think we add a lot more than we lose.

We are probably still at a ruck disadvantage a lot of the time but if one is having a 'mare we have the other to roll the dice on.

Strengths:
▪︎ improved defensive capability against tall forwards lines
▪︎ improved ruck capability when shared between two
▪︎ less vulnerable backline allows mids the license to make riskier, faster attacking plays

Weaknesses:
▪︎ loss of midfielder playing forward allows easier oppo rebound out of d50 (must be very diligent in setting up the wall to defend the rebound before it gets turned over). Must not push up and must be effective in using our outnumber behind.

Opportunities:
▪︎ extra tall to set up a defensive wall to protect rebounding exits. If this is done well we can pepper them with entries over and over again.
▪︎ if the extra player is working we can probably look at the defensive mix and move the extra midfielder we drop from f50 and have them rotate out of d50 instead to regain some midfield rotations
▪︎ our forwards likely get extra leading space from reduced congestion

Threats:
▪︎ potential to have us bogged down in a flooded d50 with less speed to use to exit through the corridor.

If anyone wants to add to that or call out anything that doesn't gel feel free but I think a system like that could hide our weaknesses a bit.

 

[Cursed Cat]

Big fan of Esava, and he can ruck in bursts, but I am starting to agree with Seeds in that his best position is as a key forward.
I'm nearly his biggest supporter but even I'm not sure we can shoehorn the big fella into the team, despite the undeniable contested marking firepower he provides, given the acquisition of Jeremy Cameron.

Stanley still our best ruck, although Blicavs probably his equal these days as a pure tap ruckman (i.e. they are both shite) - Stanley at his best though is a good hybrid; mobile and fit enough to cover the requisite kilometres, can provide a strong marking target on his day, is also capable of winning the centre bounce stoppage off the deck and running it for a long-kicking clearance.

The ruck was a potential problem coming into the season and one we have failed to adequately plan for in a decade, notwithstanding a few optimistic hail marys.

 

[Turkey Tom]

If there was ever a game where we should of played Stanley/Fort with Esava and have Blitz permanent in the backline (because of their forward marking options) it was against St Kilda. Another head scratching selection decision that could of (and probably should have) resulted in a loss. We probably could have gotten away with leaving out a defender (as the side is full of them) and played another ruckman instead.

Maybe it does make us too tall, but there were occasions where we had Parfitt as the deepest forward one out in the square (for some reason), so we can't be that tall if they are doing that.

Selection panel needs to be flexible and not stick to the their perceived perfect 'template'. I know Scott has said in the past he is more concerned about our game than the oppositions game, but surely you do need to look at what the opponent is doing/structured.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I put a bit of thought into what I'd do about this in the preseason. My conclusion was that we were probably most vulnerable in the key defense department which may be because I don't really rate hitouts particularly highly, but with Blitz having to ruck its essentially the same problem.

Key points:
▪︎ Sav alongside Hawkins/Cameron/Rohan is far too many talls and Sav is just going to drag his defender into the other's way so he can't rest forward
▪︎ Stanley/Sav can't ruck anything like a full match so we need two
▪︎ Blitz needs to be CHB at all times. I actually don't mind him as a ruck, I think having him ruck/wing last year was huge for us, but without Harry Taylor I don't think we can replicate it.

So how do we turn two weaknesses into a single, less awful weakness?

I would play both Stanley and Sav, and would drop the extra midfielder playing forward to get them in. The centre bounce has one of Stanley/Sav in the f50 and one in the ruck for the 666 rule. The second the ball is bounced the f50 player starts moving back through the corridor to either run to d50 or provide a half foward marking target depending on who wins the clearance.

Once we have both rucks behind the play we use one as an extra defender and the other follows the contest when in the midfield. F50 stoppages to be Hawkins or Cameron if Hawkins is off (not expecting Jez to do anything but neutralise the advantage there).

We essentially borrow some advantage from our forward line by asking them to beat an outnumber. We then drop that advantage in our back 50.

Imagine Stanley or Sav parked in front of King in marking contests last night. OK they're not great defenders, in fact I'm confident they'd be terrible defenders, but if it means Henry can be a loose defender then I think we add a lot more than we lose.

We are probably still at a ruck disadvantage a lot of the time but if one is having a 'mare we have the other to roll the dice on.

Strengths:
▪︎ improved defensive capability against tall forwards lines
▪︎ improved ruck capability when shared between two
▪︎ less vulnerable backline allows mids the license to make riskier, faster attacking plays

Weaknesses:
▪︎ loss of midfielder playing forward allows easier oppo rebound out of d50 (must be very diligent in setting up the wall to defend the rebound before it gets turned over). Must not push up and must be effective in using our outnumber behind.

Opportunities:
▪︎ extra tall to set up a defensive wall to protect rebounding exits. If this is done well we can pepper them with entries over and over again.
▪︎ if the extra player is working we can probably look at the defensive mix and move the extra midfielder we drop from f50 and have them rotate out of d50 instead to regain some midfield rotations
▪︎ our forwards likely get extra leading space from reduced congestion

Threats:
▪︎ potential to have us bogged down in a flooded d50 with less speed to use to exit through the corridor.

If anyone wants to add to that or call out anything that doesn't gel feel free but I think a system like that could hide our weaknesses a bit.

There are points there i agree with but my biggest issue is we need to defend from our front half as otherwise our lack of pace in defence gets exposed and it is harder to defend that way with a second ruck in the forward line. Ideally you have one ruck ruck 80 % (stanley or fort as sav doesnt have the tank for it imo) blicavs plays back 80% and 20 % as the second ruck but that means for parts of the game either hendo kolo or henry really need to step up when they are undersized or we need to find a quality kpd from somewhere. Its a conundrum.

 

[crocsta]

Getting Cameron has been great but it has thrown a spanner in our rucks. I’m not seeing a spot for Sav this year. Fort or Stanley plus Blitz seems the best option


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CatToTheFuture]

There are points there i agree with but my biggest issue is we need to defend from our front half as otherwise our lack of pace in defence gets exposed and it is harder to defend that way with a second ruck in the forward line. Ideally you have one ruck ruck 80 % (stanley or fort as sav doesnt have the tank for it imo) blicavs plays back 80% and 20 % as the second ruck but that means for parts of the game either hendo kolo or henry really need to step up when they are undersized or we need to find a quality kpd from somewhere. Its a conundrum.

I definitely agree we'd risk locking ourselves in the back half. Our last to of the dice here for an 80% time in ruck player is Fort. If that doesn't work I don't know that we really have any choice

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I definitely agree we'd risk locking ourselves in the back half. Our last to of the dice here for an 80% time in ruck player is Fort. If that doesn't work I don't know that we really have any choice

Agreed. If only we could put blitz elite running ability in a decent ruck so he could ruck 95 %of the game and blitz could stay in defence-then there would be no conundrum.

 

[My Tilly]

I recall years ago there were posters on here insisting we needed to draft a quality young ruck but others were quite satisfied with Stanley becoming the answer.
Even praise given to the drafting of Hamish McIntosh and Orren Stephenson which were absolutely woeful decisions in the first place. Two oldies to paper over the cracks for the short-term.
I thought we learnt our lesson with McIntosh but nope, club went and got Mitch Clark.

Even trying to bring in Todd Goldstein this off season was a bad idea. He's now officially cooked so we dodged yet another bullet no thanks to Todd who said 'no thanks' himself.

I still maintain that Sean Darcy is the ruckman we should have been trying to recruit.
We have to do everything we can to bring him back to Geelong. It sux that he's now developed into a quality ruck as his stocks have risen considerably.
I'd happily trade overs for Darcy. If it means a player like Clark is thrown in the deal, so be it. Sean Darcy is worth it.
Get it done Cats!

 

[gaz love x]

We look small in defence at the moment so Blitz needs to go back (he won't). Stanley has been demonstrably not good enough for a long time and outside of a half decent performance against a Nic Nat showing worse running ability than Charlie Constable has been event worse than usual this season. Esava is not a ruckman but might give us the most around the ground and as a marking target if he gets a run of games and builds confidence. Fort is clearly a below average specialist ruck but might be our best chance of breaking even in the ruck and probably deserves a chance on the back of good VFL form.

I don't see a good solution but I'd at least be giving Ratugolea a few more games for now because he's a player who needs continuity. Then give Fort a chance in a more traditional role to see how it looks before falling back to Stanley and hoping his three good games for the season come in September.

 

[Hamingja]

It's not a problem we can solve this year with our current list. Just play Stanley and wear his stinkers and hope he bobs up for his decent games when we need it. All we can do.

 

[Lana]

I hope we play Fort the next two weeks. You'd expect him to be dominant against who ever GC throw in there and to against the wall against Grundy. Great way to see if he can provide value.

 

[Seeds]

If there was ever a game where we should of played Stanley/Fort with Esava and have Blitz permanent in the backline (because of their forward marking options) it was against St Kilda. Another head scratching selection decision that could of (and probably should have) resulted in a loss. We probably could have gotten away with leaving out a defender (as the side is full of them) and played another ruckman instead.

Maybe it does make us too tall, but there were occasions where we had Parfitt as the deepest forward one out in the square (for some reason), so we can't be that tall if they are doing that.

Selection panel needs to be flexible and not stick to the their perceived perfect 'template'. I know Scott has said in the past he is more concerned about our game than the oppositions game, but surely you do need to look at what the opponent is doing/structured.

Remember the mc always know better then us armchair critics. a number of us were all saying we needed an extra ruck for those two reasons.

clearly the mc/coaches knew that king was going to choke on all his kicks. They just know things we don’t.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

I recall years ago there were posters on here insisting we needed to draft a quality young ruck but others were quite satisfied with Stanley becoming the answer.
Even praise given to the drafting of Hamish McIntosh and Orren Stephenson which were absolutely woeful decisions in the first place. Two oldies to paper over the cracks for the short-term.
I thought we learnt our lesson with McIntosh but nope, club went and got Mitch Clark.

Even trying to bring in Todd Goldstein this off season was a bad idea. He's now officially cooked so we dodged yet another bullet no thanks to Todd who said 'no thanks' himself.

I still maintain that Sean Darcy is the ruckman we should have been trying to recruit.
We have to do everything we can to bring him back to Geelong. It sux that he's now developed into a quality ruck as his stocks have risen considerably.
I'd happily trade overs for Darcy. If it means a player like Clark is thrown in the deal, so be it. Sean Darcy is worth it.
Get it done Cats!

Trading for Darcy might be an option but trading overs for him would be a poor decision.

He is a fairly decent but one dimensional tap ruckman without a second string to his bow. Rucks that aren't highly capable as the extra forward or extra defender, or a marking target around the ground are a liability for long stretches of game time especially now with less stoppages. Plus the repeat knee injuries are a concern.

If you want a tap ruckman then Darcy isn't the worst trade target but trading out Clark for him is just drinking the bathwater. It buys us some hitouts to advantage and loses us some ground level pressure and around the ground marking impact. It's not a slam dunk premiership trade.

 

[catempire]

Saw a bit of Darcy today. I’d pay up if he’s available.

 

[Seeds]

Saw a bit of Darcy today. I’d pay up if he’s available.

I thought hit outs don’t matter?

 

[moond0g]

I thought hit outs don’t matter?

I didn’t watch the game to be fair.

But 22 disposals and 8 tackles is pretty handy regardless of the hit outs

 

[catempire]

I thought hit outs don’t matter?

Good to see you catching on Seeds!

It’s everything but the Hitouts I’m interested in.

 

[catempire]

I didn’t watch the game to be fair.

But 22 disposals and 8 tackles is pretty handy regardless of the hit outs

And 8 frickin clearances!