Ruckman & The sub/concussion rules

[Corpuscles]

Just my opinion, but interested in your comments?

Ruck is a pivotal important position in AFL. It has been super important for Swans old game plan due it's to stoppage centric nature.

Having played all my footy as a endurance rover I was always astounded at how the big heavy blokes managed all that run. I am staggered at the extra enormous energy sap that goes with top elite level in particular the 'wrestling' that occurs and seemingly is permissable.

I do not believe Swans can ever again afford to name a 2nd Ruck as the substitute.

Mumfords 2010 was senstational but mainly for the around the ground stuff and the one percenter pressure he delivered.

He is NOT (IMHO) a brilliant tap or thump ruckman but above average competitor in that area and will improve

He has to face:
Sandilands - can't beat him in ball ups anyway
Hille- Not so good at b/ups but handy markand can go forward, so lots of defensive running for Mummy
Jolly- Same as above but better and knows Swans midfield and is tactically smarter
Cox- Huge engine . Mummy will have to run the soles off his boiling boots
etc

I think he needs regular breaks , his output diminished badly R1 due to exhaustion.

The sub

Have a utility midfielder SUB that is scheduled to replace another at mid 3rd quarter.One midfielder has to put nearly everything into 2.5 qtrs


Swans won games when one or two short with injuries by slowing the tempo , to DO THAT, they must get control of clearances first!

2nd RUCK must be in the 21 and rest at forward pocket if close game, or as back pocket sweeper, if Swans well ahead.

(Edit: I have said on here before: Wooshas best tactic in 2006 GF was to start Seaby in forward pocket with early goal.It streched our undersized defence

WE have complained about no one left forward tokick to in R1! The ruckman STAYS in or near the goals regardless whilst he is resting)


Yep, someone may go down early , but a 2nd ruck can't play or replace many positions.

Swans have many that can be /become a specialst utility eg even Shaw played forward with success and has a big enough tank to take some midfield duty, surely?

ur 'foughts???

 

[legend166]

I think we should continue to play two ruckmen. It's served us very well for years, and a reason we struggled (relatively) after 2006 was that we really couldn't get a good back up for Jolly. Spida played a couple of good games but that was about it.

I think both our ruckmen (Mumford/Seaby) are pretty good around the groud, and Seaby can go forward and kick a couple.

So basically, I agree with you completely.

 

[spuzzlord]

read an article about this on the afl website by leigh matthews, he basically said the despite the fact everyone thought it would spell the end of the second ruckman, you definitely still need them.

if mummy has to go alone against hille and ryder this week it will be nothing but trouble

in conclusion, i agree

 

[Faz 2000]

Tough gig for Mummy coming up against Jamar, arguably one of the few ruckmen who can genuinely out-body him. In most other ruck contests I'd see Mummy doing better than average in the bullocking and ruck-tap-work, including against Hille and Ryder this week.

He does need a rest, though, or Hille/Ryder will burn him badly drifting forward.

I think the second ruck lives on.

Warnock-Kreuzer (when he's fit)
Cox-Natanui
Hille-Ryder
McIntosh-Goldstein

These to me are the better combos going around. Mumford-Seaby should be right there competing with that, and last week could have proven a decisive edge against Jamar who could not have taken on TWO legit ruckmen on his own.

 

[grimlock]

I wouldn't worry too much about seeing a ruckman as our sub on Sunday. There were extenuating circumstances:

1. Mummy had a shortened pre-season and as you could all see on Sunday was struggling near the end of the game.
2. They only obviously rated Jamar and not Martin (who played really well btw) and thought that by playing White, at the very worst he would breakeven with Martin
3. With Ryder/Hille making one of the best ruck duos, Longmire would be crazy (no pun intended) to go in with only Mummy as the only fulltime ruck . He has already stated he will be going in with a horses for courses (no pun intended) policy when it comes to selecting the sub, and the track conditions for this week indicate that 2 fulltime ruckmen are needed to counter the Essendon duo.

 

[BIGBEZ]

Tough gig for Mummy coming up against Jamar, arguably one of the few ruckmen who can genuinely out-body him. In most other ruck contests I'd see Mummy doing better than average in the bullocking and ruck-tap-work, including against Hille and Ryder this week.

He does need a rest, though, or Hille/Ryder will burn him badly drifting forward.

I think the second ruck lives on.

Warnock-Kreuzer (when he's fit)
Cox-Natanui
Hille-Ryder
McIntosh-Goldstein

These to me are the better combos going around. Mumford-Seaby should be right there competing with that, and last week could have proven a decisive edge against Jamar who could not have taken on TWO legit ruckmen on his own.

youre kiddin yourself, a Mumford and Jetta ruck combo would be better than Kreuzer-Warnock or McIntosh-Goldstein combo, they are spuds.

 

[theboxmike]

Love big Mumford, glad he finally found his feat at the swans. At Geelong he seemed lost and was scared of getting involved with play. If you can play Mumford with another ruckmen i have no doubt he will be able to match if not beat Hille/Ryder and jolly. Just a question Swany supporters does Mumford have the capability to go forward? it's just that i've never really seen him go there.

 

[Riders of Rohan]

He has played forward before, though not for any long period of time. Not great on a lead as you can imagine. But I'd back him to win any stationary 1 on 1 contest unless it was against Sandilands. Pretty handy at ground level, has great hands below his knees.

He crumbed a goal against North from memory looked very slick.

 

[Corpuscles]

I wouldn't worry too much about seeing a ruckman as our sub on Sunday. There were extenuating circumstances:

1. Mummy had a shortened pre-season and as you could all see on Sunday was struggling near the end of the game.
2. They only obviously rated Jamar and not Martin (who played really well btw) and thought that by playing White, at the very worst he would breakeven with Martin
3. With Ryder/Hille making one of the best ruck duos, Longmire would be crazy (no pun intended) to go in with only Mummy as the only fulltime ruck . He has already stated he will be going in with a horses for courses (no pun intended) policy when it comes to selecting the sub, and the track conditions for this week indicate that 2 fulltime ruckmen are needed to counter the Essendon duo.

Thanks for trying to offer a different opinion. Sorry didn't read other threads so I didn't realise this didn't need a separate thread

Shortened pre season surely means ....don't ask him to run 3.5 qtrs give him a partner?

Whilst I hate rule changes... I like impact on tactics.

So Horse should be going through the next 16 rounds NOW and identifying the ideal horse that will be the sub and a bloody good reason for choice.THINK, and schedule them and prepare them for it. Careful choices only to change if injury causes some valuable player need a half week break on the bench, or opposition personel change.

This bloody rule will have a big impact on games.. much more and different than AFL anticipates ..and it will not decrease injury ....rather it will make it worse!

Horse stuffed up. But forgiven this time on debut.