Updated Round 1 lineup

[maddog37]

Crammeri is the ideal type to cut up the Pies defence IMHO.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

No way does Dunkley play over Jong.

 

[The 4th Horseman]

FB: Wood Morris Boyd
HB: JJ Roberts Murphy
C: Macrae Hunter Dahlhaus
HF: Crameri Stringer Jong
FF: McLean Cloke Smith
R: Boyd Bont Liberatore
IC: Picken Daniel Suckling Biggs

Crameri plays, allows Stringer that extra bit of freedom. Dunkley and Cordy unlucky, but Jong and Roberts get the nod for mine.

 

[Yojimbo]

No way does Dunkley play over Jong.

Alphabetically he does.

 

[Cudi]

Crameri was instrumental in a comeback against Gold Coast last week. He is also pretty important even when he doesn't have the ball with all the gut running he and space he creates for Stringer and the like.

Has to play imo.

 

[jmac70]

Excuse the interruption, just wondering who you think will relieve Boyd in the ruck?

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Excuse the interruption, just wondering who you think will relieve Boyd in the ruck?

Cloke and/or Cordy. Neither are ideal options and we certainly wouldn't be running that setup if we had an alternative, but unless Campbell plays we don't really.

 

[gangsta deluxe]

Excuse the interruption, just wondering who you think will relieve Boyd in the ruck?

Tom Campbell or nobody (I.e. Cloke and others will pinch hit).

 

[jmac70]

Cloke and/or Cordy. Neither are ideal options and we certainly wouldn't be running that setup if we had an alternative, but unless Campbell plays we don't really.

Will be interesting for us if Cloke does help out in the ruck because he was not rated at all for that ability by Bucks and co.

Anyway, should be a great game and all the best.

 

[gangsta deluxe]

Will be interesting for us if Cloke does help out in the ruck because he was not rated at all for that ability by Bucks and co.

Anyway, should be a great game and all the best.

Bev isn't the biggest fan of hitouts really. On a few times he's played Jong in the ruck.

 

[Doggies7]

Will be interesting for us if Cloke does help out in the ruck because he was not rated at all for that ability by Bucks and co.

Anyway, should be a great game and all the best.

The way we play, our backup ruck and sometimes even starting ruck isn't really important to us. We often play a guy like Jong or Cordy etc in there just to have someone next to the other team's ruck. Cloke's rucking ability won't really concern Beveridge haha

 

[Wetdog]

Crameri will play.

Bev likes to reward players for hard work and commitment. And who deserves it more than Crameri given what he has been through over the last few years?

Crameri's form is decent. He has worked hard. Bev will reward this.

 

[Mattdougie]

Ok I do wonder what some of you think about ruckman

True that Bev doesn't rate them or simply doesn't rate our ruckman so works around it but with the change in rule of third man he will have to adjust.

We were able to use a smaller man to compete when we could use someone to go in ruck and another to jump over the top but this is totally against the rules now so we will be unable to play a dummy ruckman as much as we did last year.

Bont was excellent at the third man up but now rucks must be determined before the contest and that negates this. We will have to go in with another tall and forget the fantasy of using certain players in this role Coz some of you are so desperate to squeeze them in.

 

[SayerTheCreator]

Crameri will play.

Bev likes to reward players for hard work and commitment. And who deserves it more than Crameri given what he has been through over the last few years?

Crameri's form is decent. He has worked hard. Bev will reward this.

I had the same thought a few days ago, doubt Bevo will deny Crameri that chance to run out round 1

 

[Wetdog]

I had the same thought a few days ago, doubt Bevo will deny Crameri that chance to run out round 1

I also feel that Cloke is a 100% lock. It just makes sense to pick him as:

- form is decent;
- confidence player, so important to reward decent form early;
- TBoyd will be in the ruck;
- at a pinch, he can back-up for TBoyd in the ruck; and
- big match against old side.

All this points to him playing in R1.

 

[BRWB]

I had the same thought a few days ago, doubt Bevo will deny Crameri that chance to run out round 1

I'd be disappointed for Crameri if he isn't picked after what he's been through. Plus I reckon he makes Stringer et al better. Not a great ball user but a running beast and still best 22 IMO.

 

[dogwatch]

Ok I do wonder what some of you think about ruckman

True that Bev doesn't rate them or simply doesn't rate our ruckman so works around it but with the change in rule of third man he will have to adjust.

We were able to use a smaller man to compete when we could use someone to go in ruck and another to jump over the top but this is totally against the rules now so we will be unable to play a dummy ruckman as much as we did last year.

Bont was excellent at the third man up but now rucks must be determined before the contest and that negates this. We will have to go in with another tall and forget the fantasy of using certain players in this role Coz some of you are so desperate to squeeze them in.

This is fair comment but Bev's adjustment comes down to what's the best option (or "least bad" option).

• Do you select a tall bloke just because he's tall? No, look what happened to English in JLT2. You need bulk as well.
• Do you select a big heavy bloke who's not a natural ruck but can at least apply body pressure in the hope of minimising taps to advantage? Maybe, but he needs to have other AFL standard abilities. Cloke is a good example - even if he gets beaten in the ruck for 20% of the game you know he will be an asset for the remaining 80% whether he's playing high forward or as a target who can actually take a mark within the 50. The problem with this is you are robbing Peter to pay Paul. You might suffer for not having that player as a KPD, KPF or wherever he normally plays, especially if the team is undersized to begin with. And also he might still get smashed in the ruck anyway, so we're worse off on both counts.
• Do you just say "ahh, stuff it, let's put anyone with a decent leap in there" - someone who normally plays a different role and is already selected anyway - or is marginal best 22? A good example would be Jong. Again the main aim here is to minimise the opposition's taps-to-advantage and subsequent clearances. This will be worth while if you achieve that, especially as you will now have another player in the guts who has demonstrated he can provide second efforts after the ball-up. The danger is that the opposition ruck figures him out quickly and works out a useful counter-measure that capitalises on the ring-in's lack of height.

Perhaps a good variation is to keep mixing it up all day so that the opposition ruck never knows who his next opponent is going to be?

I can see some clubs - maybe us - developing new types of negating tactics for these situations, which draws the attention of the rules committee. Then we'll have even more rule changes next year. Better to drop the no-TMU rule altogether - TMU offers greater unpredictability and more chance of a quick clearance, both of which improve the game as a spectacle. Isn't that the whole idea?

tl, dr: Make sure you've always got two fit blokes who can genuinely ruck for extended periods.

 

[BrunswickDog]

I think campbell will play and so will roberts.
My round 1 line up

FB: Wood Roberts Morris
HB: Biggs Cordy Murphy
C: Macrae Bont Hunter
HF: Crameri Cloke JJ
FF: Smith Boyd Stringer
R: Campbell Liberatore Dahlhaus
IC: Picken Daniel Suckling Mclean

Pies have a very big forward line and we will need the height in defence with cordy, roberts and morris.

 

[geoffjennings79]

I like dogwatch's 'variation' in the ruck theory. In effect you could have 5-6 players contest a few ruck contests each and there's the game covered. Toyd in general play, Roberts/Zordy defensive 50, Cloke forward 50, random Wood, Morris, Crameri, Stringer (Jong!) to mix it up. They don't need to crash into Grundy, if he's anticipating contact but they deflect around him, no other Pie can interfere with them, bet on our pressure preventing clean takeaways even if they get the tap out.
I like BTC, but his mobility concerns me.

 

[The Original Swooper]

If BTC does not get up, one out of left field. Roberts as chop out ruck. Cordy, Moz take their Kpf's whilst doing so ?.

 

[Libba39]

Excuse the interruption, just wondering who you think will relieve Boyd in the ruck?

Z.Cordy. Can play forward or back and pinch-hit in the ruck.

 

[DelRe]

• Do you just say "ahh, stuff it, let's put anyone with a decent leap in there" - someone who normally plays a different role and is already selected anyway - or is marginal best 22? A good example would be Jong.

tl, dr: Make sure you've always got two fit blokes who can genuinely ruck for extended periods.

I agree with your variation points but not sure about this specific point. I can't quite see this tactic working in a one-on-one scenario particularly around the ground where it's a bit of an arm wrestle. Not sure how you get the run up to leap over the other in that scenario. Perhaps slightly different in a centre bounce but its risky having a lightly bodied leaper in there as I'm sure the opposition ruckman can easily put a knee into the chest and end that tactic fairly quickly although it would be interesting to see it tried. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if there's the odd one-off surprise tactic this year of either not engaging in body contact around the ground to put off a big ruckman or potentially not even contesting it at all and having the nominated ruckman shark the tap or immediately tackle if the ruckman grabs it.

Z.Cordy. Can play forward or back and pinch-hit in the ruck.

Around the ground i agree but not so much in a centre bounce.

Tend to agree with others that the combination of no TMU and an injured Rough and Campbell creates a potential weakness (worse still if there's an in-game injury). Looking forward to seeing how it is tactically overcome if Campbell doesn't get up.

(So I'd change Dogwatch's comment slightly to 'make sure you've got two big blokes who can genuinely ruck)

 

[dogwatch]

I agree with your variation points but not sure about this specific point. I can't quite see this tactic working in a one-on-one scenario particularly around the ground where it's a bit of an arm wrestle. Not sure how you get the run up to leap over the other in that scenario. Perhaps slightly different in a centre bounce but its risky having a lightly bodied leaper in there as I'm sure the opposition ruckman can easily put a knee into the chest and end that tactic fairly quickly although it would be interesting to see it tried. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if there's the odd one-off surprise tactic this year of either not engaging in body contact around the ground to put off a big ruckman or potentially not even contesting it at all and having the nominated ruckman shark the tap or immediately tackle if the ruckman grabs it.

Nor can I TBH. I was just looking at options, if only to exclude some of them. Even Adam Cooney wouldn't get away with it more than once a match!

Your idea of not to contest at all is another option I suppose, but really that's an invitation for the opposing ruck to get continuous HOs to advantage. Even as a surprise tactic it's hard to see much value in it.

 

[DelRe]

Your idea of not to contest at all is another option I suppose, but really that's an invitation for the opposing ruck to get continuous HOs to advantage. Even as a surprise tactic it's hard to see much value in it.

Your options were better than mine! Agree can't see it being a serious option.

Is there anything stopping having someone sitting on their shoulders! (Or was that banned after that Carrara game all those years ago). Better still a rugby line out type option where Daniel is nominated and then tossed in the air!

 

[House_of_Dahl]

Your idea of not to contest at all is another option I suppose, but really that's an invitation for the opposing ruck to get continuous HOs to advantage. Even as a surprise tactic it's hard to see much value in it.

There was game I recall (2 seasons ago I think) think it was Richmond v Freo or WC (one of the WA teams with dominant rucks) where Richmond bearly won a tap but sharked theirs (hit out count was crazy - something like 70-12) but they won! Might get found out trying to do it regularly tho