Stop the Madness!

[Mego Red]

Oh for fecks sake - can we quit it with all the ruckman obsessing!

Other than Kane (good posts) - has anyone checked thye make-up of our list?

We have FOUR ruckmen on our list:

30 Clarke 198cm/100kg
26 Biglands 199/105
25 Hudson 199/98
20 Kreuger 195/90

- plus the 197cm Watts, who can pinch-hit for us at some point in the future.

Our midfield? Well, amazingly, our best players are also our oldest:

28 Ricciuto 183/90
27 Edwards 180/81
27 Goodwin 183/84
27 McLeod 180/83
25 Burton 184/80

- of those, both Goodwin and McLeod are already showing the beginning of the descent, as they're not the players they were 2-3 years ago due to injuries, etc. it's only hgoing to get worse, and after them, we have no real quality coming through. Perhaps Johncock, perhaps Reilly, but no guarentees ...

You can survive and win with okay ruckmen - but show me a successful side with a mediocre midfield ...

 

[spindoctor]

McLeod is not beginning to show 'signs of descent'. He was used poorly by Ayres towards the end of the season, when he was actually in the midfield he dominated.

Goodwin wasn't quite right after his arm injury, but was n great form beforehand. He was tentative, but should be fine this season.

They all have several years left in them, more than enough time for us to develop some midfielders in next year's draft crop.

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by Kristof
Oh for fecks sake - can we quit it with all the ruckman obsessing!

Other than Kane (good posts) - has anyone checked thye make-up of our list?

We have FOUR ruckmen on our list:

30 Clarke 198cm/100kg
26 Biglands 199/105
25 Hudson 199/98
20 Kreuger 195/90

- plus the 197cm Watts, who can pinch-hit for us at some point in the future.

Our midfield? Well, amazingly, our best players are also our oldest:

The AFC is suffering from ruckman phobia at the moment IMO!!

While our leading mid-fielders are our oldest 5, there is a fair bit of life in them yet.

Having said that we MUST ensure the pipeline of quality mid-fielders is always full. West Coast have a strong mid-field and drafted for even more strength this year.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Kristof, the point that you are missing here is that ruckman are hardest to replace. Clarke is 30, Biglands 25/26, Hudson 25, Krueger is 20 and is undersized for a ruckman. We need someone to take over from Clarke. Hudson and Krueger are not certainties.

Generally, you can get a couple of good midfielders in every draft. I am not too fussed about the midfield this year. However, in 2004 draft, midfielders would have to be priority.

 

[Mego Red]

Originally posted by spindoctor
McLeod is not beginning to show 'signs of descent'. He was used poorly by Ayres towards the end of the season, when he was actually in the midfield he dominated.

Perhaps. Or perhaps the fact that he has the knees of a sixty year old is starting to work against him.

Kristof, the point that you are missing here is that ruckman are hardest to replace. Clarke is 30, Biglands 25/26, Hudson 25, Krueger is 20 and is undersized for a ruckman. We need someone to take over from Clarke. Hudson and Krueger are not certainties.

Generally, you can get a couple of good midfielders in every draft. I am not too fussed about the midfield this year. However, in 2004 draft, midfielders would have to be priority.

The thing is - we alsmot never go for quality midfielders at the top of the draft. We draft in preseason and end up with "Doughty's" - good, honest footballers who won't win you games.

But that's not really my point. How many ruckmen do you need on your list? Where do Brisbane's ruckmen sit in a list of the league's best? Collingwood's? Hell, even Port's, considering how little impact Primus had in 2003. As I've said in the past - mostly, the league's best ruckmen sit on the league's worst teams, and while I wouldn't argue that a good ruckman is important, it's easy to overrate that importance and get obsessed with padding your list - as Adelaide seems to be ...

 

[napsyd]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Kristof, the point that you are missing here is that ruckman are hardest to replace. Clarke is 30, Biglands 25/26, Hudson 25, Krueger is 20 and is undersized for a ruckman. We need someone to take over from Clarke. Hudson and Krueger are not certainties.

Generally, you can get a couple of good midfielders in every draft. I am not too fussed about the midfield this year. However, in 2004 draft, midfielders would have to be priority.

Spot on.

The whispers continue that 2004 will be Clarke's last year.

If this is the case we will need Biglands and Hudson (fingers crossed) to carry us through 2005 with maybe injury back up from Krueger.

Our stocks have risen but we are still a long way from having an assured successful ruck combo beyond next year let alone a satisfactory back up. The club still has issues to address here and I assume they will do so in the pre-season/rookie draft.

I understand the concern about our midfield but really it is less of an issue at this time than our ruck stocks. As Stiffy says, if all goes well with the ruck, next years draft will be the time for us to address the midfield.

 

[DaveW]

I agree with Kristof - we took four talls this post-season and neglected other areas.

We still have no young first tier midfielders. Where are they going to come from?

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by DaveW
We still have no young first tier midfielders. Where are they going to come from?

Your wooden spoon year in 2005 netting you Cooney in the pre-season draft and two of the best young midfielders at #1 and #3.

 

[spindoctor]

I'm sorry...we never pick up midfielders at the top of the draft? What the hell was Reilly?

Oh, and there is no way AFC was picking up a midfielder when Watts was sitting here waiting to be drafted. You'd have to be a bloody nincompoop.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by spindoctor
I'm sorry...we never pick up midfielders at the top of the draft? What the hell was Reilly?

He was taken in the first round of the best draft ever and has done nothing since.

Oh, and there is no way AFC was picking up a midfielder when Watts was sitting here waiting to be drafted. You'd have to be a bloody nincompoop.

Show me where I said where I said we should've taken a midfielder with our first pick?

All I asked for was a balance.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Collingwood has sh|t rucking division and it failed short in the GF for 2 years running. Every football person will tell you that when you are building a team the 1st player you select is a ruckman, 2nd is a CHF. The rest pick themselves.

Kristof, what is wrong with Brisbane's ruckmen. I reckon they are just about the best in the eague and are still young. Keating, McDonals, Charman and now Spaanderman. That is one hell os a ruck unit IMHO.

We might be OK for 2004 but if Clarke retires at the end of 2004 (as has been suggested lately) then we are back to square one.

A club should have 4 ruckman on their list. 3 that can play straight away and 1 that is a genuine prospect. We need midfielders BUT we need ruckman before we need midfielders.

 

[Damp Squarie]

Originally posted by Kristof
Oh for fecks sake - can we quit it with all the ruckman obsessing!

At last.
A decent statement.
This board has driven me to self exile while the jerkoffs do just that.
Wake me up when the footy starts

 

[lozstar]

I guess it's better to be over prepared (like they are in this case) than be under-prepared without any backup ruckman at all.

It doesn't bother me they're getting so much ruckman - They obviously know what they're doing with it.

 

[maccas_no1]

Originally posted by Kristof
Our midfield? Well, amazingly, our best players are also our oldest:

28 Ricciuto 183/90
27 Edwards 180/81
27 Goodwin 183/84
27 McLeod 180/83
25 Burton 184/80

Ricciuto 5-6 yrs left

Edwards 6-7 yrs left

Goodwin 6-7 yrs left

Mcleod 6-7 yrs left

Burton 8-9 yrs left

And you are worried about our midfield

Most players are playing till 33-34 these days

 

[maccas_no1]

Originally posted by Porthos
Your wooden spoon year in 2005 netting you Cooney in the pre-season draft and two of the best young midfielders at #1 and #3.

Mate it will be a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG time before we even get near a WOODEN SPOON you Port Choking Feral ****, Port will have ten Wooden Spoons before we even get close to getting one

Porthos you are a ****ING TOOL

 

[spindoctor]

Port have also got closer to a wooden spoon than Adelaide ever have.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by DaveW
I agree with Kristof - we took four talls this post-season and neglected other areas.

We still have no young first tier midfielders. Where are they going to come from?

Dave we drafted for the correct type of players we were lacking in our squad - talls. I feel far more comfortable with the balance of our squad now, than I did this time last year. If Biglands or Clarke had got a major injury like Primus, we would have been in strife!

The only mistake we made IMO was not trading some our fringe midfielders to freshen our list. Will probably need to look at doing this at the end of next season. However, our midfield is still in good knick for 2004.

 

[Mego Red]

Originally posted by DaveW
I agree with Kristof - we took four talls this post-season and neglected other areas.

We still have no young first tier midfielders. Where are they going to come from?

Ah, Dave, I knew you were wise ...

I just think we now have invested in ruckmen and key position players, and it's foolish to keep stocking up.

Not to disagree with Stiffy, but this alone seems clear to me - Brisbane has Keating, Collingwood has McKee, and Port has Brogan; while Richmond has Ottens, Bulldogs have Darcy and Geelong have King. Of course, if you have the choice, you want a fantastically deep and young ruck group, but it is not as important as a vibrant midfield. And as Stiffy has said in another post we don't have the talent and youth coming up.

It is completely and utterly naive to think that our midfield is going to play at its current quality for even four more years. Players have a swift descent from 29 onwards - especially players that have already had injury problems.

We're completely sitting on our hands with this. And while it's a problem that's not going to be solved in a preseason or rookie draft - our potential midfield replacements have come too often from these drafts - they're not going to be solved by placed three more ruckmen on our list.

And Reilly? Still done nothing - but compared to our other early draft picks Brent Williams, Gilligan, Angwin, Jericho (okay - he was late second round), and our first three picks of 1999, which we used to get Clarke and Biglands ...

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by Kristof
Brent Williams...

At least we were able to turn him into Nathan Bassett... or was that Clay Sampson? Or was that Trent Ormond-Allen? We got something from Melbourne for him anyway

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by dyertribe
At least we were able to turn him into Nathan Bassett... or was that Clay Sampson? Or was that Trent Ormond-Allen? We got something from Melbourne for him anyway

Brent Williams & Matthew Collins = Nathan Basset.

we got Clay for a bag of chips and Trent for not much more.
may have actually paid too much for trent, but that's another story.

 

[Crow-mosone]

In the 1997 draft, Essendon was in desperate need for a tall running defender, preferably to play CHB or tall on a flank. It was publicly what they stated they really needed?

So they spent their 1st 3 picks on players of a very similar mould, high picks they were - especially considering it was thought of at the time as the best draft pool ever.
Pick 4 - Mark Bolton
Pick 18 - Dean Solomon
Pick 36 - Judd Lalich

they hoped to get one, and for a very long time in looked like that was all they got (Solomon) but Bolton has come on strong recently. It didn't do them any harm, and if our picks turn out well, we will be well placed. A good ruck still carries a lot of currency in trade.

Besides it ultimately doesn't matter what happens to our ruckman, we need Fergus to be a success - and he will be a kpp. If he pans out, the rest doesn't really matter. If he doesn't, well I don't care too much what happens to the other 2, it would seem a waste draft. presuming they don't turn into stars, but the more likely role player.

A team needs at least 1 good, good player in any draft pool to consider it a success. It all hangs on Fergus, unless someone else becomes a star.

To get back to my original point, if like Essendon, we come up trumps more than once, fantastic! we can trade one of them for a midfielder, who are always cheaper than a good tall.

Also, We shouldn't fail to acknowledge the roll that Adam Goodes played in Sydney's run this year. Not only was he their best player, he played in the ruck. The position isn't dead yet. if it was Matthew Clarke wouldn't and would never have gotten an afl game.

I think the key is not the positions of the players we selected, but the players themselves. If they're good, everything will take care of itself in due course.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
Also, We shouldn't fail to acknowledge the roll that Adam Goodes played in Sydney's run this year. Not only was he their best player, he played in the ruck.

He doesn't really amass the hit outs though.

It's in general play he does his best work.

If Ball is fit, he'll do most of the ruck work.

I don't think Goodes is a good ruckman, just a good player who plays in the ruck.

And Mark Bolton at four was a terrible waste of a good draft pick.

 

[noddy]

Originally posted by DaveW

I don't think Goodes is a good ruckman, just a good player who plays in the ruck.

Try telling that to the Port Power !!

Goodes destroyed both Brogan & Lade in that infamous final not long ago, & if i had the choice of any big man in the AFL i would find it very hard to choose between Adam Goodes & Warren Tredrea.

 

[noddy]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
Dave we drafted for the correct type of players we were lacking in our squad - talls. I feel far more comfortable with the balance of our squad now, than I did this time last year. If Biglands or Clarke had got a major injury like Primus, we would have been in strife!

The only mistake we made IMO was not trading some our fringe midfielders to freshen our list. Will probably need to look at doing this at the end of next season. However, our midfield is still in good knick for 2004.

Your spot on Kane with the points that you made, we were crying out for future kpp & a couple of rising ruckmen that could help out Biglands & Clarke when needed & eventually replace Matty Clarke when he decides to pull the plug.

If we can't develop at least 2 regular kpp from the big man squad we have decided on ie Rutten, Hentshel, Parker, Stevens, Watts, & Kreuger then we are in trouble.

Not that worried at this time about our mid-field & still believe we can get a lot more out of Bode, Ladhams, Johncock, Reilly, Stenglein, Shirley & with a full pre-season would not be surprised if Kris Massie takes another step upward to join the midfield rotation.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by noddy
Try telling that to the Port Power !!

Goodes destroyed both Brogan & Lade in that infamous final not long ago

Interestingly when we played a tagger in Cochrane on him midseason, he faded noticeably. I reckon he's more midfielder than ruck, for sure.