This has been a contentious issue so far in 2011. Can we carry 2 ruckmen? Can we afford 2 have mummy handle a majority of the ruck duties? Do we have players who are capable of providing a decent chop out if mummy goes solo?
It appears as though horse thought having 2 ruckmen was a liability (after the initial seaby sub debacle). Mumford seemed to be really struggling on his own, often going to the bench holding his knees, hammys etc. It was obviously taking a toll on him. I, like many others, was calling for a second ruck to support mummy, but it appears its a little late, mummy goes down due to the heavy workload, our second ruck option is also down, leaving seabs to carry the load. I was disappointed that I read in the paper that horse conceded that perhaps mummy has been worn down by his workload AFTER he was facing time on the sidelines. It was obvious to most that he was being worked into the ground.
Horse trying out white & lrt in the ruck leads me to believe that he's preparing for the possibility of playing mummy solo with perhaps white & lrt rotating though the ruck. In theory that could he the perfect solution but in reality don't think it'd work. Besides, I'm somewhat bemused by horses use of lrt altogether, playing him forward & ruck where he's nothing more than average when he's been an absolute asset down back.
I personally think mummy/pyke combo is a winner. Gives mummy a rest, which allows him to perform at his best when he is in the ruck. It also means that he's able to contribute around the ground with 2nd & 3rd efforts & tackling pressure (something that's been missing for most of the year because he's spent). And most importantly reduces the risk of injury (facing stints without our #1 ruck) and prolongs his career.
The only negative (other than the midfielders having a higher workload) is that a midfielder misses out on a game. Someone like parker could be getting a game if we didn't field the 2nd ruck, but after careful consideration over the course of the.season & seeing horses different strategies, & the outcomes of these strategies, I don't think it negotiable. Imo we must play a second ruckman.
1 possible strategy to overcome the issue of having a ruckman hogging game time would be to inject the sub into the game half way thru the 3rd. That way the ruck division play a little more than 1.5 games between them and the sub gets a little less than a half. Obviously there's a risk in losing a player after the sub is utilized. The swans have been extremely conservative with their sub use, but what I suggest is they look at the stats for injuries.that have occurred late in the 3rd & if its not a regular occurance then its a calculated risk. 9 times out of 10 you'll get away with taking the risk, and when an injury does occur it'll be a test of the players resolve. Well worth the risk imo, and doesn't necessarily equal a loss if a player does go down.
What are your thoughts? 2 rucks a must? Or would you prefer an extra midfileder?
It appears as though horse thought having 2 ruckmen was a liability (after the initial seaby sub debacle). Mumford seemed to be really struggling on his own, often going to the bench holding his knees, hammys etc. It was obviously taking a toll on him. I, like many others, was calling for a second ruck to support mummy, but it appears its a little late, mummy goes down due to the heavy workload, our second ruck option is also down, leaving seabs to carry the load. I was disappointed that I read in the paper that horse conceded that perhaps mummy has been worn down by his workload AFTER he was facing time on the sidelines. It was obvious to most that he was being worked into the ground.
Horse trying out white & lrt in the ruck leads me to believe that he's preparing for the possibility of playing mummy solo with perhaps white & lrt rotating though the ruck. In theory that could he the perfect solution but in reality don't think it'd work. Besides, I'm somewhat bemused by horses use of lrt altogether, playing him forward & ruck where he's nothing more than average when he's been an absolute asset down back.
I personally think mummy/pyke combo is a winner. Gives mummy a rest, which allows him to perform at his best when he is in the ruck. It also means that he's able to contribute around the ground with 2nd & 3rd efforts & tackling pressure (something that's been missing for most of the year because he's spent). And most importantly reduces the risk of injury (facing stints without our #1 ruck) and prolongs his career.
The only negative (other than the midfielders having a higher workload) is that a midfielder misses out on a game. Someone like parker could be getting a game if we didn't field the 2nd ruck, but after careful consideration over the course of the.season & seeing horses different strategies, & the outcomes of these strategies, I don't think it negotiable. Imo we must play a second ruckman.
1 possible strategy to overcome the issue of having a ruckman hogging game time would be to inject the sub into the game half way thru the 3rd. That way the ruck division play a little more than 1.5 games between them and the sub gets a little less than a half. Obviously there's a risk in losing a player after the sub is utilized. The swans have been extremely conservative with their sub use, but what I suggest is they look at the stats for injuries.that have occurred late in the 3rd & if its not a regular occurance then its a calculated risk. 9 times out of 10 you'll get away with taking the risk, and when an injury does occur it'll be a test of the players resolve. Well worth the risk imo, and doesn't necessarily equal a loss if a player does go down.
What are your thoughts? 2 rucks a must? Or would you prefer an extra midfileder?
