The positives thread

[jackess]

If we get Dixon next year who can ruck part time, 1 of the two wont be in the team.
Close, Freeman and McStay should all be available leaving not enough room to play 2 genuine 1st choice ruckman.

If Dixon is our number 1 forward do we want him rucking 15-20% of the game? Plus time on the bench means he won't spending so much time forward. Plus the dodgy ankles.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Dixon won't be rucking imo

 

[chopperduck]

I would simply get him to take the ruck contests inside 50.

 

[chopperduck]

Have seen a few say that they would prefer Leuy as the Number 1 Ruck, I would like some to expand on why. He has never got close to the season that Martin had in 2015 aside from glimpses, and we lose virtually another midfield in numbers when Martin isn't left to play virtually sole ruck.

We have tried Martin up forward many times and it just hasn't worked, and Leuy just cannot play forward at all. There just seems to be a wave of Leuy support, but in all honesty as much as I have appreciated his efforts and loyalty I do wonder if it would be better for himself and the club if he did move on. Is it emotion that is creating the wave of support? If we do land a key forward of significance there is a massive doubt they would both get a game in 2016 anyway.

A case of two guys that just play their best footy in the ruck (has been this way for some time) and given they are both so one dimensional, something needs to give.

Bergs actual tap work is better than Martin's. Martin works well as a number 1 because he competes well around the ground and after the ruck contest. Bergs has a better ability to get clean taps, especially when he gets up and running for awhile and the mids get use to reading him.

 

[a mayes ing]

If Dixon is our number 1 forward do we want him rucking 15-20% of the game? Plus time on the bench means he won't spending so much time forward. Plus the dodgy ankles.

The only reason teams have 2 genuine rucks is if 1 of them can play mostly forward. Martin and Leuy can't.
I would rather have another forward (Close) in the team than both Leuy and Martin.

2016 possible forward line:
Christensen, Close, McStay
Zorko, Dixon, Green

Close can do a bit of rucking if absolute necessary.
As chopperduck said, Dixon can ruck in the f50s, MArtin can do everywhere else.

 

[Bobby Beecroft]

Bergs actual tap work is better than Martin's. Martin works well as a number 1 because he competes well around the ground and after the ruck contest. Bergs has a better ability to get clean taps, especially when he gets up and running for awhile and the mids get use to reading him.

The only reason teams have 2 genuine rucks is if 1 of them can play mostly forward. Martin and Leuy can't.
I would rather have another forward (Close) in the team than both Leuy and Martin.

2016 possible forward line:
Christensen, Close, McStay
Zorko, Dixon, Green

Close can do a bit of rucking if absolute necessary.
As chopperduck said, Dixon can ruck in the f50s, MArtin can do everywhere else.

I agree with both of these.

As per a mayes ing my issue is that I am unable to see room for both rucks if we get our injured forwards returning let alone an experienced player from another club. Martin to me remains clear number 1, so the $$ being thrown about to retain Leuy is extremely large for someone that I fear will likely be a back-up and far from guaranteed game time.

How many top teams running around with 2 rucks, with one being incapable of taking a mark when resting up forward? That is the cold hard fact of the matter.

Will be interesting to see which way it goes at year end.

 

[lions27]

Bergs actual tap work is better than Martin's. Martin works well as a number 1 because he competes well around the ground and after the ruck contest. Bergs has a better ability to get clean taps, especially when he gets up and running for awhile and the mids get use to reading him.

I'd add to that Lueys disposal efficiency is far higher. Kind of nullifies Martins extra disposals.
Luey is also nearly 2 years younger.

 

[jackess]

Did people not see how we won the ruck contest against the best ruckman in the league? Or Stef leading our marks inside 50 last night?

 

[T Rick]

Really impressed with our 2 rucks last night and Bergers "physicality"...looks like we have 2 rucks many other teams would be genuinely envious of and I really hope we can keep both going forward after well and truly thinking Berger was not worth fighting for...

 

[Lace Out]

Keep both,Dixon up forward full time would be a good scenario.There are no doubt a million other scenarios come trade time but this is simple and might work

 

[Skoob]

If Dixon is our number 1 forward do we want him rucking 15-20% of the game? Plus time on the bench means he won't spending so much time forward. Plus the dodgy ankles.

No.

 

[a mayes ing]

Did people not see how we won the ruck contest against the best ruckman in the league? Or Stef leading our marks inside 50 last night?

We did, very good job. However, we also lost the game because we were incabable of kicking a winning score. Having 2 ruckman is part of the issue.

What would l prefer: 2 ruckman who are very good on their day but are rarely going to get a goal or 1 ruckman and 1 forward who could kick 2/3 goals.

We need to kick goals not win a ruck contest. 1 of Leuy or Martin should suffice. Most of the competition only have 1 dominant ruck

 

[jackess]

We did, very good job. However, we also lost the game because we were incabable of kicking a winning score. Having 2 ruckman is part of the issue.

What would l prefer: 2 ruckman who are very good on their day but are rarely going to get a goal or 1 ruckman and 1 forward who could kick 2/3 goals.

We need to kick goals not win a ruck contest. 1 of Leuy or Martin should suffice. Most of the competition only have 1 dominant ruck

Maybe if we had a functioning forward line and midfield Stef or Leuey could kick some goals. Stef had 4 shots on goal last night. He did alright.

We can't kick goals but we can win a ruck contest. I think 1 is better than neither.

 

[Bobby Beecroft]

Call me greedy Jackess - but I want both.

 

[a mayes ing]

Maybe if we had a functioning forward line and midfield Stef or Leuey could kick some goals. Stef had 4 shots on goal last night. He did alright.

We can't kick goals but we can win a ruck contest. I think 1 is better than neither.

That is just guesswork tho thinking that they could more goals if we had a better forward line.

How often does Martin get 4 shots on goal tho?
He did great but he was the only forward up there so the midfield was more inclined to kick to him. Staker is finished imo.

Tell me, would you prefer a forward line of Dixon, McStay and Close or Dixon, McStay and Martin/Leuenberger. Our goal is to kick as many points as possible, if our midfield is functioning properly then the ruck contest isn't as important as that extra forward that is capable of kicking multiple goals.

 

[jackess]

That is just guesswork tho thinking that they could more goals if we had a better forward line.

How often does Martin get 4 shots on goal tho?
He did great but he was the only forward up there so the midfield was more inclined to kick to him. Staker is finished imo.

Tell me, would you prefer a forward line of Dixon, McStay and Close or Dixon, McStay and Martin/Leuenberger. Our goal is to kick as many points as possible, if our midfield is functioning properly then the ruck contest isn't as important as that extra forward that is capable of kicking multiple goals.

I don't think playing 2 rucks is the main issue with our dysfunctional forward line and I definitely think when our ball movement is a lot better it'll be easier for Martin or Leuey forward.

We've only had 3 games with the rucking time being split around 50/50 and last night and round 23 Martin looked ok forward. Martin is our best marking target ATM so he is valuable inside 50 and up on the wings.

I would prefer the second most definitely. If we get Dixon it'll be so he can kick goals so we probably don't want him rucking too much especially with dodgy ankles on the Gabba centre wicket. I don't think Close will ever be a big goal kicker.

We also have to remember Martin will be out of contract next year and may look elsewhere and we don't want to lose 2 gun rucks in 2 years. And the fact that we've rarely had ruckmen that stay fit for 2 full seasons in a row.

 

[Skoob]

Most of the competition only have 1 dominant ruck

Like McEvoy & Hale?
Lobb & Downie?
Maric & Hampson?
Sandilands & Griffin?
Grundy & Witts?

Plenty of dual rucks getting about, and those not playing 2 rucks have more than one good forward.

 

[John_Proctor]

Main question is. Is letting leuie go worth more to us than keeping him?

Top clubs have something called depth... Keeping leuie would give us depth at ruck. Give us options to play two rucks against say Sandilands (and Goldstein), give us cover when one or the other is suspended or injured.

And give us the option of playing them together regularly either for better (if their firm together improves) or worse as per this year if all our forwards are injured.

Is the above worth more than pick 20 (likely fa compensation) in the draft? Remembering If we sign anither free agent then we kind of lose leuei for nothing.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

Can someone who has a good idea about things tell me what the chances of us actually getting Dixon are?

 

[Bert Man]

Can someone who has a good idea about things tell me what the chances of us actually getting Dixon are?

If you want a good idea of things you shouldn't ask on bigfooty

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

What if by some miracle we did one of those things where the teams goes from bottom 4 to top 4 in a season

 

[a mayes ing]

Like McEvoy & Hale?
Lobb & Downie?
Maric & Hampson?
Sandilands & Griffin?
Grundy & Witts?

Plenty of dual rucks getting about, and those not playing 2 rucks have more than one good forward.

So 5 out of 18...
McEvoy and Hale are capable of hitting the scoreboard on a weekly basis so they can afford to have 2 rucks. Grundy is also capable of taking a grab and hitting the scoreboard. Same goes with Sandilands, capable of hitting the scoreboard with his 200+cm body.

I don't know much about the other rucks so l can't comment on them

If at leasst 1 of the 2 rucks can hit the scoreboard, then it is worth trying, ours dont. They may get the odd goal every 2nd or 3rd game but it isnt worth it.

 

[AFLQLD]

Lewis Taylor's work rate is extraordinary. There are flaws in his game and he makes some terrible errors still but as a second year player he has time to fix that. I hope other clubs keep letting him run around unmanned because as the team improves so too will he. And then his efforts will pay off. Game sense, timing and vision will all improve as he matures but the hardest thing to teach young players is involvement, regardless of skill level, that desire to be in the game every moment is irreplaceable.

 

[Skoob]

So 5 out of 18...
McEvoy and Hale are capable of hitting the scoreboard on a weekly basis so they can afford to have 2 rucks. Grundy is also capable of taking a grab and hitting the scoreboard. Same goes with Sandilands, capable of hitting the scoreboard with his 200+cm body.

I don't know much about the other rucks so l can't comment on them

If at leasst 1 of the 2 rucks can hit the scoreboard, then it is worth trying, ours dont. They may get the odd goal every 2nd or 3rd game but it isnt worth it.

Well I didn't look at every team. The point is, none of those are relied on to kick goals. None of those teams rely on their forwards to share the ruck load. With the list we have, if we got Dixon, he is to play forward, fullstop. He can provide a chop out in the forward 50, but would be wasted in the middle. On the other hand, Martin provides plenty around the ground. An extra ruck doesn't have to rest forward (particularly if the sub is done away with), but both ours can still provide a target and bring the ball down, even if they're not taking big grabs and scoring.

 

[Sausages]

I'll stick with Matthews on ruckmen - he always advocated 2 in the side every week, so that's good enough for me.