Ruckmen

[blighty]

Keating proved in the Grand Final all you need is the ability to crash in, make a fierce contest & smash the ball into the forward line!

Stuff the so called science of palming......
that's fine at boundary throw ins & stop plays!

BUT if Hudson can crash into blokes,take there space,& belt it into the forward line I'll be more than happy all season....at least BOTH our ruckmen will be involved in a genuine physical contest every time there is a ruck contest!

That's why I think he's a pretty good chance to play a fair few games in 2004.

this crap about "genuine ruckman" is simply that.... CRAP!

we want blokes that can get the ball wherever they are.........call them whatever you like!!!

Sandlands at Fremantle isn't very scientific but plays to his strengths.........over 200 cm & gets first hand to the ball....nobody decries his efforts by calling for a "genuine ruckman"....lets hope Hudson makes the absolute best of his opportunities & if he takes just 4 marks around the ground per game he's way ahead of AFC's so called best ruckman !!!

Very soon he'll end up the number 2 to Biglands who should be given the number one mantle sooner than later!

Then & only then will we get a genuine physical contest at every ruck contest we are involved in .........something that Keating proved decisively in 2003 that the game begins with absolute ruck dominace a brutal physical statement leading the way for everyone else the follow........

 

[Stiffy_18]

What the hell are you on about?????? SO now Clarke doesn't give us a genuine ruck contest??????

 

[spindoctor]

blighty has a point I think.

Clarke is a great tap, but these days we need rucks who can do both rucking and marking, it is the trend. We might see the gradual phasing out of Clarke if Hudson plays well. Or even if Krueger does. Biglands will probably assume the no 1 role from the start of the season and go from there.

 

[blighty]

He doesn't crash into the opposing ruckman ....... he attempts to feel for the body but avoids a direct contest & reaches for the ball with his arms.......it's why Brogan belted him in a showdown last year & it's why Keatings methods against Fraser this year were so effective & would have been over Clarke too........nothing more than brutal physical strength at the contest something that Clarke clearly lacks in his game!

Besides Clarke cant take a mark around the ground to save himself.........

If you think seriously about it .....we must improve in all aspects of our game including our rucks & that includes a more aggressive physical approach [simply to protect the mid fielders] & the ability to play all over the ground & take marks in the forward half & defence.....

At 30 do you really think the match committee are going to wait around for Clarke to decide to move on........like everyone else in this side which has dissapointed in big games everyone's spot is up for grabs !

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by spindoctor
blighty has a point I think.

Clarke is a great tap, but these days we need rucks who can do both rucking and marking, it is the trend. We might see the gradual phasing out of Clarke if Hudson plays well. Or even if Krueger does. Biglands will probably assume the no 1 role from the start of the season and go from there.

I agree Clarke is pathetic when it comes to marking the ball but to say that he is not contesting at ruck contests is absolute crap. The primary role of a ruckman s to give his midfield first use of the ball and IMO Clarke does this. Clarke will be part of our ruck combination until he retires which could well be after the 2004 season.

Hudson might turn out to be a good pick up but to suggest that he will take Clarke's place in the team is a bit too ambitious IMHO.

 

[spindoctor]

I didn't say he's not contesting at ruck contests.

What I was saying was that if Biglands can take the no 1 mantle, and Hudson proves adept, then Clarke may find himself marginalised as the season goes on.

It all depends on Hudson really.

 

[Port01]

The crash and thump idea isn't any better than the palming technique.

Both rely on one simple premise. That your midfielders know where the ball is going to go.

It makes no difference which you use as long as your midfielders get their hands on the ball first.

Against a team with a half decent ruckman (as opposed to floating tall midfielder), the thumping approach is cut down in effectiveness dramatically, as your midfielders can be a long way out of position if you lose the ruck contest.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Port01
The crash and thump idea isn't any better than the palming technique.

Both rely on one simple premise. That your midfielders know where the ball is going to go.

It makes no difference which you use as long as your midfielders get their hands on the ball first.

Against a team with a half decent ruckman (as opposed to floating tall midfielder), the thumping approach is cut down in effectiveness dramatically, as your midfielders can be a long way out of position if you lose the ruck contest.

I agree.

It doesn't come down to ruckman alone. Midfielders have to read where the ball is going. I think our structure at stoppages is pretty good to be honset.

 

[blighty]

You seem to have forgotten what was happening towards the end of the season......sides were consistently reading the ruckmen, especially Clarke & were taking the ball away before our midfielders could get near it...... & we lacked the ability to change our tactics at the ruck contest.....

Collingwood were masters of the clearances up to the grand final when Mathews adopted the crash through approach of Keating which belted the ball past the defensive positioning of Buckley behind the play.

It was early in the season when Darcy was carving up Clarke that Jars suggested Biglands into the fray & turned the match...

Besides the best ruckmen in the comp are ruck types like Gardiner, Goodes, Brogan,Ball & Keating all exceptionally physical who can match it physically & do play a major role in field play... while Sandlands & Everitt have enormous reach something which hopefully Hudson has........he could be that terrific combination of a very tall[approaching 200cm] with physical strength at 105kg's, capable of playing a definite physical role at the centre bounces & in field play the height to take a goalsquare mark either end!

 

[naughty monkey]

Originally posted by blighty
You seem to have forgotten what was happening towards the end of the season......sides were consistently reading the ruckmen, especially Clarke & were taking the ball away before our midfielders could get near it...... & we lacked the ability to change our tactics at the ruck contest.....

Collingwood were masters of the clearances up to the grand final when Mathews adopted the crash through approach of Keating which belted the ball past the defensive positioning of Buckley behind the play.

That's because Clarke and co were far too predictable.
All they were doing was palming the ball down a metre in front. They did this (or attempted to, bounce permitting) all the time. If there was more variety, sometimes forward, sometimes back, even, god forbid, a big thump we could have maintained a dominance at clearances because our midfielders would have been the only ones to know where the ball was meant to go. (Of course, this relies on the midfielders - read McLeod, being strong enough to beat the scraggers to get to that position, but that's a whole other story)

Keating is equally as predictable as what the AFC had become. Malthouse should hang his head in shame that he did nothing to combat this in the GF.

The aim of a ruckman is to knock the ball to his team's advantage. i.e. ensure they get it first. The key to that is variety because without it the opposition know where the ball is going. And the key to variety is the ability to palm the ball where you want it to go. And that is why Clarke is still one of the best tap ruckman going around. The predictability is the coaches fault as much as anyones.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
It doesn't come down to ruckman alone. Midfielders have to read where the ball is going. I think our structure at stoppages is pretty good to be honset.

Spot on. Whilst our ruckman were predictable at times, overall they still had a good year. Our problem was the lack of support in the midfield for Roo & Burton. Expect better years from Macca & Goody, & our 2nd tier players which went backwards. This is where we must improve in 2004.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
Spot on. Whilst our ruckman were predictable at times, overall they still had a good year. Our problem was the lack of support in the midfield for Roo & Burton. Expect better years from Macca & Goody, & our 2nd tier players which went backwards. This is where we must improve in 2004.

The fact that so many players had poor years but we still finished 5th is a bit of a positive to take into next year. Players like, McLeod, Goodwin, Bode, Mark Stevens, Welsh, Carey, Doughty and a few others haven't played as well as they could for various reason.

If we can have Stevens and Welsh playing majority of the games and Goodwin, Bode and McLeod playing better than they did in 2003 we will still be around the mark. We would need to uncover a big strong defender. Maybe Hudson proves to be a success story so we can afford to use Biglands as a defender or Krueger just proves to be a roughy who can play on gorillas.

There are plenty of things to be positive about in 2004

 

[tinman]

Originally posted by naughty monkey
Keating is equally as predictable as what the AFC had become. Malthouse should hang his head in shame that he did nothing to combat this in the GF.

Fair go...........I can't stand Malthouse but let's be fair. Who would you have thrown in the ruck then for Collingwood given they went into the game with ONE ruckman? It was a selection error. One he may have been partly responsible for, but to say he did nothing to combat Keatings dominance when he had no other ruck options.....come on???

And while Fraser hates anyone who runs straight at him (just like Clarke), at LEAST Fraser can take a mark and kick a goal. I think that is the point of this thread......Clarke just can't. There are other parts of Fraser's game that compensate.

Now in all fairness, all you Clarke fans, would you trade him for Fraser????

I think so.........

 

[utility]

Originally posted by blighty
this crap about "genuine ruckman" is simply that.... CRAP!

Obviously you haven't seen Michael Gardiner in full flight, or Simon Madden etc.

 

[Port01]

Originally posted by tinman
Fair go...........I can't stand Malthouse but let's be fair. Who would you have thrown in the ruck then for Collingwood given they went into the game with ONE ruckman? It was a selection error. One he may have been partly responsible for, but to say he did nothing to combat Keatings dominance when he had no other ruck options.....come on???

As Collingwood did almost every other game this year, they should have started playing to keatings taps. Instead they stayed in close and time and again watched the ball go into space behind them with aker and co running full steam onto it.

Filling that space may have given them a chance in the midfield, as Keating may have had to change tactics.

As it was, Malthouse was outcoached because he could do nothing about it, and it had very little to do with ruck personnel.

 

[blighty]

"Obviously you haven't seen Michael Gardiner in full flight, or Simon Madden etc"

That's precisely my point........too many talk about so called "genuine Ruckmen" and they mean simply the ability to tap the ball..... the modern ruckman as Gary Lyon stated half way through last season to deserve his place & have a real influence on the game has to be taking between 8 & 10 marks a game, & going forward & presenting the pack mark option as Fraser does frequently invariably kicking 2 or 3 goals a game, [something which he's done in finals especially]. or filling a space across half back as Rehn did for years, & as Gardiner does superbly these days.

And if you want to go back even further have a look at Fox footy's black & white replays.... John Nicholls of Carlton was in everything, throwing his weight around protecting little blokes & dominating around the ground too, marking in defence & kicking goals up forward.

My overall point is that Clarke is not aggressive enough, cannot play that around the ground role now expected of top class ruckmen, & it's too late to teach the dog new tricks!........

Goodes proved as did Gardiner, the versatile high leaping ruckman capable of charging the body in a ruck contest & then either carrying the ball [particularly as Gardiner does] along with Goodes represent the new era of the modern ruckman playing as tall athletic leaping players with massive mobile height advantage all over the ground.....

In an Adelaide footy club environment can you imagine the benefits if we had two of the best mobile ruckmen in the game taking up to 15 marks, & kicking 4 to 5 goals between them & at stop plays fiercely charging the on coming player, splitting packs with there strength & feeding off to the midfield we have.......... & the footy smarts to drop back across half back & negate the opposition key forwards.

I don't have a problem with drafting young ruckmen just so long as they can play all over the ground KP forward or back......in today's footy you're either a midfielder or key postion /ruckman......Blight proved a long time ago the position of specialist full forward was redundant.......now nobody describes himself in the draft as a specialist full forward....."tall mobile forward" can mean anything from a wing to a forward pocket including full forward & CHF. Scott Welsh was interviewed the other night & said he was looking forward to getting fit enough to play in the midfield!

For too long we've cossetted ruckman as simply ruckmen & given them exalted titles such as 'geniune ruckman' an altogether meaningless term

 

[naughty monkey]

Originally posted by tinman
And while Fraser hates anyone who runs straight at him (just like Clarke), at LEAST Fraser can take a mark and kick a goal. I think that is the point of this thread......Clarke just can't. There are other parts of Fraser's game that compensate.

Now in all fairness, all you Clarke fans, would you trade him for Fraser????

I think so.........

The irony is if Clarke had played for CFC in the GF they would have gone close to winning it because no way known would he have let Keating smash the ball clear time and again, repeatedly giving the Lions first use of the footy!

Whilst I agree with your points in general that a top class ruckman needs to do it all these days, I think you are grossly underestimating the value of a really good tap ruckman (e.g. Clarke or Pirmus, King, Allan etc in their AA years) who can consistently get the ball to his midfield.

 

[spindoctor]

Of those four ruckmen you just named...all but Clarke are good players around the ground as well...

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by blighty
the modern ruckman as Gary Lyon stated half way through last season to deserve his place & have a real influence on the game has to be taking between 8 & 10 marks a game

Give me a ****ing break. Tell me a ruckman that takes that many marks a game. There isn't one.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Give me a ****ing break. Tell me a ruckman that takes that many marks a game. There isn't one.

Gardiner managed that in 7 games this year, Darcy in 5, Brogan in 1, Clarke and Biglands in none. 5-6 might have been a reasonable amount to expect.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Give me a ****ing break. Tell me a ruckman that takes that many marks a game. There isn't one.

Which is probably why Lyon thinks all ruckmen are passengers.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Porthos
Gardiner managed that in 7 games this year, Darcy in 5, Brogan in 1, Clarke and Biglands in none. 5-6 might have been a reasonable amount to expect.

That was my point. Its reasonable to expect ruckman to average around 5 marks a game but 8-10 is really a bit of a wishful thinking. Even the best ruckman in the comp doesn't average that. Hell the best marking forward in the comp don't average 10 marks a game.

There is no question we need ruckmen that can mark but hell tell me where we get those. They are not partucularly easy to find.

I would also have Gardiner and Ottens as my ruck duo and would love Lloyd at FF, Tredrea at CHF, Voss in the centre, Leppitsch at CHB and Michael at FB BUT reality is that it is not realistic.

 

[Portia]

Maybe you should've traded for Lade after all

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Porthos
Maybe you should've traded for Lade after all

And get ripped off by your mob?????? No thanks

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by Porthos
Maybe you should've traded for Lade after all

No thanks. He's actually got a heart, so you would have wanted 3 first round draft picks for him.