The Ruck Conundrum

[TradeDraft]

Like all of last season when he outperformed Grundy?

Yes - Witts did play better then Grundy in the 2nd Half of the Season. I still thought then Grundy will become the better out of the 2./

Though you Hope Witts come a good ruckman as well

 

[jackcass]

How about every now and again having both in the centre bouce....witts in ruck grundy ruck roving. ...

I'd prefer a Grundy/White or a WittS/White combo occasionally rather than Witts & Grundy both lining up in the square.

 

[jackcass]

Yes - Witts did play better then Grundy in the 2nd Half of the Season. I still thought then Grundy will become the better out of the 2./

Though you Hope Witts come a good ruckman as well

I think they'll both become very good ruckmen

 

[Good_Old]

How about every now and again having both in the centre bouce....witts in ruck grundy ruck roving. ...

Throw Blair in the ruck and have Witts, Grundy and Cloke doing the clearance work.

 

[PieNSauce]

All I can say is that I'm not sure how the hell I could make an informed call given this was Witts' first game back. Basing my opinion solely on Witts' form from last year and the obvious improvement in Grundy I have to go with both of them. I'm not sure how anybody could come to a different conclusion to be honest.

 

[Jelly Bean]

All I can say is that I'm not sure how the hell I could make an informed call given this was Witts' first game back. Basing my opinion solely on Witts' form from last year and the obvious improvement in Grundy I have to go with both of them. I'm not sure how anybody could come to a different conclusion to be honest.

Yet youve still decided to write a response...

 

[PieNSauce]

Yet youve still decided to write a response...

Yep. As I said, I can only base any assessment of Witts on last year and on that basis I thought I could at least put up some kind of opinion. Got a problem with that?

 

[Go Pies!!!!!]

Tend to agree with some thoughts here until the Sub rule goes I cant see it working with both in the team unless offcourse they can kick some goals every week then this changes everything.

 

[Jelly Bean]

Yep. As I said, I can only base any assessment of Witts on last year and on that basis I thought I could at least put up some kind of opinion. Got a problem with that?

None whatsoever.

 

[MarkT2]

Witts can't play as a key forward - he isn't quite good enough overhead and has nowhere near the game awareness. His future is as a ruckman but he isn't needed if Grundy plays in the ruck.

 

[NT.Thunder]

I must admit I love Grundy rucking solo pretty much with someone like White pinch hitting when needed. Grundy's work around the ground and at stoppages is outstanding for a guy of his experience and age.

Our big problem is finding that second forward/ruck.

Right now someone like Kurt Tippett would be handy.

 

[DaVe86]

Witts and Grundy is the ideal ruck combo if one of them can learn to take a contested mark forward.

Until this happens id stick with one or the other. Why Witts goes to ground so often ill never know. His advantage is height so going to ground removes this advantage.

 

[domin8tors]

Im in san francisco and so couldn't watch the game but I was wondering how grundy and witts worked together? i know grundy prefers the no1 ruck role and im not convinced witts is good enough YET to force out a runner. what are everyones thoughts?

I'm not sure the debate is does witts force out a runner. he replaces a 3rd tall . and atm that is Gault. so is he better then Gault yes.

 

[legendstatus]

Cox & Grundy going forward no doubt, trade Witts for a tall forward!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tommyv49]

Witts is 22, besides Grundy and possibly Longer what other clubs have a 22 yr ruckmen running around and dominating.
Why do we win a few games and expect every young bloke to be a star. Before we started this year we all know that it was a developing year. Playing Witts and Grundy together will hold us in a good place for the future. FTR Witts had a better game than Gault did in the 3 he played.

 

[jimmy35]

Both very promising young ruckmen but one of them needs to become a viable forward option in his own right because I doubt there'll be a spot for 2 genuine ruckmen only in the same side.
Wittsy showed a glimpse of his potential early in the game but trailed badly with a couple of howlers, big Brodes is a beast of a ruckman and seems to be building his tank nicely but needs a chop out through the game.
Interesting dilemma coming up.

 

[domin8tors]

I too cannot agree with this, Witts second efforts and below the knees was great last year.
Shoulder injury, limited pre-season, he wasn't the worse last night.

yeah agreed, 16 hitouts 15 touches. a few shots at goal and clunked some good grabs. I think everyone is hung on the one dropped mark.

 

[TradeDraft]

Witts and Grundy is the ideal ruck combo if one of them can learn to take a contested mark forward.

Until this happens id stick with one or the other. Why Witts goes to ground so often ill never know. His advantage is height so going to ground removes this advantage.

Witts and Grundy has shown Glimpses of taking marks in the Forward line but nothing Consistent though

 

[Lord Wilberforce]

Your thinking makes sense but if everyone has athletic rucks like Blicavs and Zac Clarke, then the advantages are negated. Sandilands shows that you can have a point of difference. If Witts can be as dominant as Sandilands then our mids are going to have an armchair ride.

Agree that someone like Witts needs support from a mobile ruck. We already have that with both Grundy and White.

Understanding, but if athletics rucks are the standard (in the future) then maybe we'll be behind if we don't go that way. The Sandilands situation works for Fremantle now, but will it in 3 years time?

Personally, I don't think Witts is fast enough to be either the 1st or 2nd ruck option. Grundy is fine for our 1st option, but we need a more agile and faster tall to give him the rest he needs from time to time.

 

[Lefthanded]

Both, if you realise we are playing more for the future than the now. Both are young and talented with strengths in different areas eg height versus mobility. Both will develop in the ruck, marking around the ground and develop up forward and are at least 2 to 3 years from their peaks. Add in that the midfield around them is also yet to peak - take your pick as to why (I believe both)
a) missing talents / experience of Sidebottom & Greenwood
b) Adams, Crisp, Broomy, BK, DeGoey still to reach potential.

Only conundrum involving the ruck that I see is if we end up with 3 stars - Grundy, Witts & Cox - would make it that much more important for at least 2 to develop their forward game or we trade one for KPF when we can get good value.

Those thinking elimination of the sub rule will change things may be premature - if it goes the interchange cap may be reduced.

 

[doppleganger]

Witts actually shows more signs that he will be able to play as a deep forward, he can make well timed leads and is good below his knees. Witts is also a very good kick.

If Witts is in the team he should be alternating between ruck and FF.

Grundy doesn't seem as suited to a deep forward role, he doesn't seem to know when to lead. He is better suited to just roaming all over the ground, he is more ruck, follower, CHF.

The only scenario I could see us not playing both of them would be if Reid is fit and plays forward. Would then pick1 of them and have White as relief.

 

[doppleganger]

Buckley will play both this year, but I don't think Witts has a long term future in the game. Just my opinion.

Witts is too slow for the modern game. The best rick combinations have a mobile-ish ruck with a very mobile or fast forward that supports. Port is a good example. North less so. Freo a bit of an exception as Sandilands is quite slow, but Zac Clarke makes up for this.

Grundy fits the mobile ruck model, we just haven't found the right support player. Better to have a fast tall who battles in the ruck than a extremely tall ruck who is slow.

It appears the ideal scenario is having a gun ruck who can go solo for 85% of game time - Jacobs, Golstein, Mumford - and then have a key forward who is good in ruck and also a dangerous forward option - Petrie, Tippett etc.

The Hawks tend to plat two lumbering rucks, the Dogs have dropped Minson and appear to prefer to hv no actual ruck. Cats too going down this path instead preferring a group of tall athletes to get it done. WCE are trying two rucks, Saints also trying two rucks

I guess all that shows is you need to work with the hand you have been dealt, we have two promising young rucks and are light on for KPFs at the moment, so I'd be playing the two young rucks.

 

[Old Spice]

I think Witts actually shows more mobility, is better in the centre (Grundy at throw ins) and has okay hands and a good kick. I only saw Witts drop that mark at full back but he took one overhead amongst 2 or 3 Cats by himself and then picked up the 1/2 volley. He turns okay actually too so no idea what people are going on about.

The real issue is what we lose with both playing. It's not a case of having to put one on a pedestal and then shitting off said pedestal on other ruck. They both project as super rucks with slightly different qualities, but both as number ones. That's the issue and I don't know how we get around it. The solo ruck with 20 per cent chop out from a tall is the way to go in my opinion. Two slow rucks just puts so much pressure downstream to cover the opposition defensively.

If they can develop Grundy as a tall forward I'll be wrapped but I don't see that he has enough burst speed to get any separation up forward. If we trade for a Dixon type and bring in a mature depth ruck I won't be devastated.

 

[Lord Wilberforce]

It appears the ideal scenario is having a gun ruck who can go solo for 85% of game time - Jacobs, Golstein, Mumford - and then have a key forward who is good in ruck and also a dangerous forward option - Petrie, Tippett etc.

The Hawks tend to plat two lumbering rucks, the Dogs have dropped Minson and appear to prefer to hv no actual ruck. Cats too going down this path instead preferring a group of tall athletes to get it done. WCE are trying two rucks, Saints also trying two rucks

I guess all that shows is you need to work with the hand you have been dealt, we have two promising young rucks and are light on for KPFs at the moment, so I'd be playing the two young rucks.

I wouldn't call Nic Nat a ruck... Well, not in the traditional sense...

What I wrote was in reference to the long term. So yes, we have to, and are using what we've got ATM. IMO KPF/ruck is needed for the future though.

 

[Helfarch]

Delist White, Witts to FF.