Two Rucks - No Names

[The Royal Sampler]

So we are 4-1 with one ruckman this season.
0-2 with two ruckmen in 2015 so far.

Is this significant or an anomaly? I don't want this to turn into a Witts vs Grundy debate, I want to debate prioritizing the development of two ruckmen over winning games of football... if in fact you agree that the above statistic is not just noise.

I think our ability to press the opposition ball carrier is shot with two ruckmen in our side currently. It was shown up very clearly against Geelong with Stanley and Blicavs who run like deer. We won the hitouts but got destroyed everywhere else.

I'd prefer that if we're going down the route of development for development's sake, that we wait until we're out of finals contention. Creating and maintaining a winning culture is more important. However maybe I'm just cherry-picking stats to suit what I think I'm seeing on the field.

What do you think?

 

[robertg22]

It's a frustrating conundrum. We look noticeably slower with the two ruckmen but I don't see a sustainable alternative. Gault is not the answer and White isn't really setting the world on fire. Would be nice if we had Moore and Reid both fit and firing (and, playing up forward of course). Unfortunately I think we have to try and persist with it.

 

[DAWESOME!!]

I think there was a difference in quality between Geelong and Richmond compared to Brisbane, Carlton and Saints. Even the Dons have issues.

More evidence might be needed. Equally, I don't mind some priority being given to development this year. Without naming names, we have two promising young prospects and I don't mind them giving the two up approach a decent trial before we make a decision re whether it can work or not.

 

[DinoSoar]

There's not enough data as yet to determine whether there is any correlation, too many variables have changed in order to attempt to pin it down having 2 ruck men playing as the cause. In both recent losses, we lost it in the midfield and not because of a resting ruck man in the forward line. The loss of Rama and the Seed also threw out the defence and the HB line which has upset the balance too. I'm of the opinion that the combo of Grundy and Witts will pay off and be the way of the future, patience is needed for it all to come together.

 

[Vicky Park]

Agree, more evidence is needed. We dont have a big enough sample yet to make a call. Problem is, we might go on losing games before we have a big enough sample to decide it isnt working. But I want it to work, I think Witts will get there. I'm a fan of both.

 

[TradeDraft]

Witts be a Lumbering Ruckman hurts our Pressure Act wit no Pressure from Witts. White and Gault did a better job at that

 

[jmac70]

Surely Gault would not be much faster than Witts?

 

[MagpieBat]

So we are 4-1 with one ruckman this season.
0-2 with two ruckmen in 2015 so far.

Is this significant or an anomaly? I don't want this to turn into a Witts vs Grundy debate, I want to debate prioritizing the development of two ruckmen over winning games of football... if in fact you agree that the above statistic is not just noise.

I think our ability to press the opposition ball carrier is shot with two ruckmen in our side currently. It was shown up very clearly against Geelong with Stanley and Blicavs who run like deer. We won the hitouts but got destroyed everywhere else.

I'd prefer that if we're going down the route of development for development's sake, that we wait until we're out of finals contention. Creating and maintaining a winning culture is more important. However maybe I'm just cherry-picking stats to suit what I think I'm seeing on the field.

What do you think?

The ledger of wins and losses currently stands at 8-8 from 16 games featuring Witts and Grundy as a combo, from Round 18 2013 to the present.

At the end of last year, the ledger was 8-6.

Stats are fun.

 

[Old Spice]

It's a frustrating conundrum. We look noticeably slower with the two ruckmen but I don't see a sustainable alternative. Gault is not the answer and White isn't really setting the world on fire. Would be nice if we had Moore and Reid both fit and firing (and, playing up forward of course). Unfortunately I think we have to try and persist with it.

If Reid (or Moore) come in to play forward then we have Cloke, Reid and White as forward options, at least to me that would be the most potent set-up. I don't see a place for 2 rucks of this sort I have to say. That said I don't want to give up either ruck as they're as rare as rocking horse sh*t.

But if we don't play both, one will surely walk. A difficult scenario.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

The loss of Rama and the Seed also threw out the defence and the HB line which has upset the balance too.

Good point; the stats mentioned in the OP could equally apply to Ramsay in/out if I'm not mistaken.

 

[boxy99]

2 rucks 0 cups

 

[Mukesh]

Surely Gault would not be much faster than Witts?

I reckon he might be....

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Yeah he definitely is. Gault can't take a contested mark at the moment but he moves like a midfielder.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Surely Gault would not be much faster than Witts?

Gault is faster. Watch him in the VFL. Faster running and faster at ground level. Faster to fling himself from side to side. Gault is faster. I would stake my integrity as a poster and person on him being able to beat Witts over any given distance other than vertical.

In the air, Witts makes Gault look the pitts. Witts can catch a ball and kick it. Gaults not the worst kick of a ball either, but his aerial work looks to be choreographed for a shadow puppet rather than an AFL KPF/ruckman. At best, he needs a year or two of intensive training in on-field thuggery and aerial domination. At worst, he will be gone by year's end.

So take your pick. The question is do we need either of them? Until Reid returns, the answer is probably yes. But as of today, Reid looks as far from a return as ever. It's the epitome of a rock and hard place choice. Buyer beware.

 

[jmac70]

Yeah he definitely is. Gault can't take a contested mark at the moment but he moves like a midfielder.

That may well be the case but I just can't see how we are better off with Gault. Simply put he is just not up to it. I back Witts to find form.

 

[jmac70]

Gault is faster. Watch him in the VFL. Faster running and faster at ground level. Faster to fling himself from side to side. Gault is faster. I would stake my integrity as a poster and person on him being able to beat Witts over any given distance other than vertical.

In the air, Witts makes Gault look the pitts. Witts can catch a ball and kick it. Gaults not the worst kick of a ball either, but his aerial work looks to be choreographed for a shadow puppet rather than an AFL KPF/ruckman. At best, he needs a year or two of intensive training in on-field thuggery and aerial domination. At worst, he will be gone by year's end.

So take your pick. The question is do we need either of them? Until Reid returns, the answer is probably yes. But as of today, Reid looks as far from a return as ever. It's the epitome of a rock and hard place choice.

Witts and Grundy are still so young. We just need to get games into them.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Fair enough, I'm not trying to make this a pro-Gault (or anti-) thread either.

 

[jmac70]

Fair enough, I'm not trying to make this a pro-Gault (or anti-) thread either.

Fair enough. Perhaps we should be giving Grundy more time up forward and leaving Witts in the ruck.

 

[Old Spice]

That may well be the case but I just can't see how we are better off with Gault. Simply put he is just not up to it. I back Witts to find form.

Witts' form is fine when played in position, i.e. 1st ruck.

 

[mike123]

Witts takes marks and gives Grundy a good rest. Grundy actually looked like he could compete in the last quarter.

Gault gives us forward pressure and the three tall structure, but does sfa.

An extra running player makes us faster, but then Cloke gets doubled team, especially when White has to ruck and White overall output is even worse when he is forced to second. Just look at most of last year, then Quinten Lynch, and Chris Dawes' last year for us for examples of this structure not working.

 

[mike123]

Witts and Grundy are still so young. We just need to get games into them.

And we need them to get games in together. They aren't just going to wake up one day and be able to ruck together in the same side, we need to develop them so they can.

 

[jmac70]

And we need them to get games in together. They aren't just going to wake up one day and be able to ruck together in the same side, we need to develop them so they can.

I agree. There may be games when one gets dropped because of strategic reasons but in my opinion it should not be for Gault to come in. If Gault can lift his game to the required standard I would prefer him to take White's position.

 

[TradeDraft]

Witts and Grundy are still so young. We just need to get games into them.

Well we need to play well and win games to keep them out there Together

 

[TradeDraft]

Witts takes marks and gives Grundy a good rest. Grundy actually looked like he could compete in the last quarter.

Gault gives us forward pressure and the three tall structure, but does sfa.

An extra running player makes us faster, but then Cloke gets doubled team, especially when White has to ruck and White overall output is even worse when he is forced to second. Just look at most of last year, then Quinten Lynch, and Chris Dawes' last year for us for examples of this structure not working.

So we have no real 1 thing to do to solve the Problem

 

[jmac70]

Well we need to play well and win games to keep them out there Together

That will come with time. This year was always going to be about developing the young players. If by the end of the year Scharenberg, Moore, Freeman, De Goey etc have played a few games we will have achieved something.