Analysis Stanley Vs Smith - For Rucks Sake...

[cynical]

Tigers win a flag with Nankervis and Grigg
Yesterday they were smashed by NN and Lycett, conceding nearly every contest.
We have won 5/9 games with who we have, and it's not the coach who is out there playing. They know our rucks are poor this year. It's up to the players to get themselves up.
Many are now thinking we go back to Stanley.

Tigers win a flag because none of the other top sides had dominant rucks.

Playing with 2 poor rucks is better than playing with 1 poor ruck and having a mid ruck.

Smith and Stanley are going to be the same players they aren't going to turn into Max Gawn.

 

[Down at K Park]

Tigers win a flag because none of the other top sides had dominant rucks.

Playing with 2 poor rucks is better than playing with 1 poor ruck and having a mid ruck.

Smith and Stanley are going to be the same players they aren't going to turn into Max Gawn.

Sam jacobs is decent.

 

[Sttew]

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but for mine right now I think Stanley has shown heaps more.

I agree.

I could not believe Danger nominated to ruck several times on Saturday. When did the penny drop for Chris Scott?

 

[Sttew]

But smith is a poor mans mark Blake.

No, atm, a poor man's Dawson Simpson

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

Sam jacobs is decent.

Not this year - he's been killing me in SuperCoach all bloody year!

 

[Down at K Park]

Not this year - he's been killing me in SuperCoach all bloody year!

I was referring to last year. From memory he had a pretty good game against us in the prelim.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

I was referring to last year. From memory he had a pretty good game against us in the prelim.

Yeah, he's been good for years now - great even, for a season or so. But he's been terrible this year (the one year I picked him in SuperCoach, of course) so I'm taking any chances I can to voice my displeasure!

 

[Catsmaninamerica]

No, atm, a poor man's Dawson Simpson

I wanna like this more than once

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

I'm as frustrated as everyone but I'd like to know who , if anyone, is our ruck coach and how much emphasis is placed at training on clearance work.
I know the Dockers and Eagles place huge emphasis on clearance work at training - I wonder how much focus we dedicate to it?
Our taps to advantage numbers must be in the toilet , time to change it up Cats

 

[cynical]

Sam jacobs is decent.

He is but I dont think he is a totally dominant ruck like a Gawn, Nicnat or Sandilands. Plus Adelaide's midfield wasn't that strong last year.

 

[Down at K Park]

I'm as frustrated as everyone but I'd like to know who , if anyone, is our ruck coach and how much emphasis is placed at training on clearance work.
I know the Dockers and Eagles place huge emphasis on clearance work at training - I wonder how much focus we dedicate to it?
Our taps to advantage numbers must be in the toilet , time to change it up Cats

Ottens works part time as ruck coach.

 

[Stig_90]

Might as well give Abbott a go at this point..

 

[catstragic]

Scotts clearing the decks for the Blicaves, Ratagolea combo.

I for one am curious why it was Danger and not Blitz hitting. Sure Blitz is no Sandy but he is aaalloot more competitive in the ruck the Danger, and its not like the Dons had a Gawn/Nic Nat combo....

 

[Partridge]

Tigers win a flag because none of the other top sides had dominant rucks.

Playing with 2 poor rucks is better than playing with 1 poor ruck and having a mid ruck.

Smith and Stanley are going to be the same players they aren't going to turn into Max Gawn.

I get what you're saying, but not sure about that. There's nothing wrong with Jacobs as a ruckman, and Lobb is no slouch. Smith is rated on here depending on how the wind is blowing. The key thing was Nankervis was able to at least limit their respective influences, and their (Richmond's) midfield was good enough to get on top when the ball hit the ground.

Football clubs being the remarkable institutions they are, no doubt some have interpreted it as "Richmond won the flag, therefore you only need one ruckman", but it's more likely to me (as it always is) it was one factor among many. West Coast showed pretty comprehensively on Sunday that two proper ruckmen can still work quite well.

 

[Larry Donohue]

I have to say, Smith has not had much of a shot at it this season. Give him more consistent game time and show some belief in him. I actually think that dropping him has dented his self belief. The kid can play.
At this rate I think the advertiser's article on the cats targeting Dahlhaus, indicates they might be looking at him rucking
Ridiculous
Either give Smith the go ahead as number 1 ruck, or put all your efforts into targeting a real ruckman next year. Can't go half ass.
Smith with Stanley as the Ratogalea backup for mine

 

[Down at K Park]

I get what you're saying, but not sure about that. There's nothing wrong with Jacobs as a ruckman, and Lobb is no slouch. Smith is rated on here depending on how the wind is blowing. The key thing was Nankervis was able to at least limit their respective influences, and their (Richmond's) midfield was good enough to get on top when the ball hit the ground.

Football clubs being the remarkable institutions they are, no doubt some have interpreted it as "Richmond won the flag, therefore you only need one ruckman", but it's more likely to me (as it always is) it was one factor among many. West Coast showed pretty comprehensively on Sunday that two proper ruckmen can still work quite well.

2 ruckman can work when one goes forward and kicks goals regularly, and both can be good around the ground. The second ruck has to contribute outside the ruck contest.

Otherwise you are just wasting a selection you could use for another mid for example.

 

[iameviljez]

Tigers win a flag because none of the other top sides had dominant rucks.

Jacobs is one of the best tap ruckmen in the competition.

 

[iameviljez]

2 ruckman can work when one goes forward and kicks goals regularly, and both can be good around the ground. The second ruck has to contribute outside the ruck contest.

Totally agree. Your ideal second ruck is someone with that Tom Boyd/Cam Pedersen/Westhoff skillset - is mobile, can play generally play well as a second tall forward, has a good height advantage over someone like Roughead or Fyfe.

 

[cynical]

I get what you're saying, but not sure about that. There's nothing wrong with Jacobs as a ruckman, and Lobb is no slouch. Smith is rated on here depending on how the wind is blowing. The key thing was Nankervis was able to at least limit their respective influences, and their (Richmond's) midfield was good enough to get on top when the ball hit the ground.

Football clubs being the remarkable institutions they are, no doubt some have interpreted it as "Richmond won the flag, therefore you only need one ruckman", but it's more likely to me (as it always is) it was one factor among many. West Coast showed pretty comprehensively on Sunday that two proper ruckmen can still work quite well.

The Tigers were still the best team, but the whole 1 ruck is good enough is a joke. It's the same with 1 KPF is enough cos Richmond did it.

The same ideal structure is still optimal now as it was 20 years ago, it's only that the competition is so weak that teams can get away with 1 good ruck or 1 kpf due to being dominant in other areas.

Nankervis does the job but a team with 2 good rucks should be able to grind him down. In a final every opposition player should be hitting him hard so by the last quarter he is cooked.

 

[iameviljez]

The same ideal structure is still optimal now as it was 20 years ago, it's only that the competition is so weak that teams can get away with 1 good ruck or 1 kpf due to being dominant in other areas.

I think it's more about having an optimal mix of strategy and structure. I don't know that the competition is that weak compared to 2014-15 - Richmond is a bloody good side.

For Richmond, picking such a mosquito fleet up forward works simply because their game is built around that kind of mobility and pressure and they have the perfect player set to execute that. They don't have a second tall forward - but if they did, it would in some ways be a hinderance to their game as they'd be depriving their ability to execute that strategy so well.

Same goes for having one ordinary ruckman - it works for Richmond, because Cotchin and Martin are just so bloody good at winning the football in tight that it's better to have the extra running player, especially given how exhausting their game style is.

You could do the same for most lists - for Hawthorn's threepeat run, they didn't have much in the way of pace, but it didn't matter because their ball use was so good.

 

[Down at K Park]

Totally agree. Your ideal second ruck is someone with that Tom Boyd/Cam Pedersen/Westhoff skillset - is mobile, can play generally play well as a second tall forward, has a good height advantage over someone like Roughead or Fyfe.

I think having sav as the back up to give smith a chop out is the best way to go though. No point playing smith, stanley and sav. Sav has made the 2nd ruck redundant.

 

[iameviljez]

I think having sav as the back up to give smith a chop out is the best way to go though. No point playing smith, stanley and sav. Sav has made the 2nd ruck redundant.

Yes, I completely agree - and it's good for Sav, too. It gets him up and around the footy, stops him from stagnating up forward on a six-touch game.

 

[Partridge]

The Tigers were still the best team, but the whole 1 ruck is good enough is a joke. It's the same with 1 KPF is enough cos Richmond did it.

The same ideal structure is still optimal now as it was 20 years ago, it's only that the competition is so weak that teams can get away with 1 good ruck or 1 kpf due to being dominant in other areas.

Nankervis does the job but a team with 2 good rucks should be able to grind him down. In a final every opposition player should be hitting him hard so by the last quarter he is cooked.

Yep and it's interesting a couple of Richmond fans I know are unbelievably frustrated that they aren't playing a second ruckman AND a second key forward. They were saying it before Sunday too.

 

[cynical]

I think it's more about having an optimal mix of strategy and structure. I don't know that the competition is that weak compared to 2014-15 - Richmond is a bloody good side.

For Richmond, picking such a mosquito fleet up forward works simply because their game is built around that kind of mobility and pressure and they have the perfect player set to execute that. They don't have a second tall forward - but if they did, it would in some ways be a hinderance to their game as they'd be depriving their ability to execute that strategy so well.

Same goes for having one ordinary ruckman - it works for Richmond, because Cotchin and Martin are just so bloody good at winning the football in tight that it's better to have the extra running player, especially given how exhausting their game style is.

You could do the same for most lists - for Hawthorn's threepeat run, they didn't have much in the way of pace, but it didn't matter because their ball use was so good.

A sub optimal game plan only works until teams learn how to counter and exploit it. 2 good rucks to beat up Nankervis and Grigg and put pressure on the midfield to force high kicks forward and block Riewoldt. A good tagger which most teams no longer have (Ben Jacobs vs Martin).

The competition has been weak since a few years after the franchise clubs diluted the talent pool 2014+

Hawks had Smith, Cyril and Hill that is plenty of pace. The hawks team had good structures and exceptional ball movement. Dont need pace when players know where to kick it and can hit the targets. Only real weakness was their midfield wasnt that strong (it was still very good). They had a problem with a small backline pre Lake which we exploited a lot.

 

[iameviljez]

A sub optimal game plan only works until teams learn how to counter and exploit it. 2 good rucks to beat up Nankervis and Grigg and put pressure on the midfield to force high kicks forward and block Riewoldt.

Huh? You force the high kicks forward by clogging up the midfield - like Richmond do now - not by playing a dominant ruckman. In playing with a dominant ruckman, you hope to win clean ball out of the stoppage, not force a messy clog-fest.