Who' makes the call?

[scraggers]

There has been alot of comments around, re: one ruckman.

In the media rocket blamed the selection panel, imo its his call.

even my 14 yo son said before the game why one ruckman, so whos to blame, not saying it would have made any diffrence.

 

[Dogma84]

Eade, along with the rest of the coaching panel, aswell as James Fantasia make up the match committee

 

[dogga91]

From the moment the teams came out, i was beyond dumbfounded by the team rodney and the panel had put together. I don't mean to put the loss to this decision as i do believe it was most definitely the players fault, how ever i just cant begin to find any reasons why as to justify the decision the panel made about taking in one ruckmen. Against a team like north melbourne with their current injuries i could understand it, but when your coming up against one of the best ruck lines in the competition..surely no one could honestly find a good reason to take in one ruckmen who happens to be a veteran and cannot go back when dragged to the forward line. For the record, i am a huge fan of huddo.

Was everyone as confused as i was? or could some one offer a different perspective?

 

[memberforever]

From the moment the teams came out, i was beyond dumbfounded by the team rodney and the panel had put together. I don't mean to put the loss to this decision as i do believe it was most definitely the players fault, how ever i just cant begin to find any reasons why as to justify the decision the panel made about taking in one ruckmen. Against a team like north melbourne with their current injuries i could understand it, but when your coming up against one of the best ruck lines in the competition..surely no one could honestly find a good reason to take in one ruckmen who happens to be a veteran and cannot go back when dragged to the forward line. For the record, i am a huge fan of huddo.

Was everyone as confused as i was? or could some one offer a different perspective?

The idea was with the 3 on the bench, it was better to have running players rather than have a lumbering ruckman taking up a spot on the bench.

Rocket has admitted it didn't work, so lets move on to next week.

 

[dogga91]

I get that mate, but when lake is out and you throw williams into the ruck for a quick spurt, marko is left back their as your best and only kpp. I really hope they make some clever moves in the coming weeks to make up for it, because quite frankly im beyond furious and dont think a simple ackowledgment of error will just make up for it.

Get it together Rocket!

 

[SPower]

Like the rest of us I am P.O'd
If I made a comparable mistake , I would be sacked !!

 

[trev106]

I was surprised too see just one ruckman. I would have thought Roughead would have been able to play CHF in place of Jones and play ruck as well.

 

[dogga91]

i cant see any sense of logic in going for jones over roughy. Absolutely mind boggling. I thought rocket was meant to be just about the best coach tactically.

Also why did vez not play? and sherman only a quarter? why trade for players if you wont play them.

I want answers.. i just cant get over last weekend. The few bulldog supporters who were able to find general admin seats amongst those intolerable bomber supporters had to cough up some serious money. Now the players not showing up is one thing, but when the coach doesn't put together the best 18 suited for that specific match, im really pissed off!

Now im not implying any drastic actions must be taken, but i heard many media personal criticise our lineup and the coaches should be embarrassed for making such simple mistakes.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

I guess it is one of those things that people have suggested is worth trying.

The positive from it is that it has proven NOT to work and should NEVER be tried again.

 

[Dogs54]

I guess it is one of those things that people have suggested is worth trying.

The positive from it is that it has proven NOT to work and should NEVER be tried again.

I thought that was why we had pratcice matches so that these could be tried and tested before the real season commenced. I don't think we need more coaches just smarter ones.

 

[hoianbulldog]

The idea was with the 3 on the bench, it was better to have running players rather than have a lumbering ruckman taking up a spot on the bench.

Rocket has admitted it didn't work, so lets move on to next week.

I wonder what these running players were thinking before the game.

a) Sweet, we will get more of a rest because there are 3 of us on the bench.

b) We are going to be chasing arse all day because they are going to get first use of the ball.

The mind works in funny ways.

 

[_Mike_]

Roughy is far more versatile than Jones, he's done the job before (Roughy switching to ruck) and I think the club should be taking every opportunity to develop him in that role - Ruck/CFH. Much like McKernan did with North (switching between ruck and key positions)

 

[Pigdog]

Roughy is far more versatile than Jones, he's done the job before (Roughy switching to ruck) and I think the club should be taking every opportunity to develop him in that role - Ruck/CFH. Much like McKernan did with North (switching between ruck and key positions)

Roughy's performances over the pre-season haven't been great on the back of off season surgery. Hopefully he finds some form over the next month or so and pushes his case for selection.

 

[Anja_Nees]

You can see the logic in it and we've done it before with (some) success. I would have thought it would only make sense in a game where conditions render ruckman less effective (ie wet and windy). We probably thought that Hille would be underdone and Ryder is really only a part timer. Essendon went in tall and we thought we'd run them off their feet.

Nonetheless, had Huddo injured himself at the first bounce we would have been utterly stuffed and as it works out their midfielders ran over the top of ours regardless. It's not a decision that cost us the game but Minson's a much better ruckman than Williams and with Huddo floundering he would have offered a better option in the ruck on the day anyway.

It's a mistake and they've no doubt learned from it. Better it happen in a game we were pantsed in anyway. If they do it again and the same thing happens you'd be furious.

 

[always right]

cant see any sense of logic in going for jones over roughy. Absolutely mind boggling. I thought rocket was meant to be just about the best coach tactically.

Roughy hardly had the pre-season form to claim a spot in round one...and he's not a key forward, he's a resting ruckman.

Also why did vez not play? and sherman only a quarter? why trade for players if you wont play them.

I believe the MC believed our forwardline was already pretty one-paced and to play yet another of these types didn't make sense from a defensive point of view. Don't necesarily agree but there you go.

Sherman was the substitute because he had missed a fair bit of training over recent weeks. They thought he would be good value for a shorter period of the game. Clearly Eade was concerned about Essendon's pace which was reflected in his decision re Vez and Sherman...and obviously the one ruckmen.

 

[Bulldog Banana]

I dont think its so clear cut about what type of player is made the sub.

Sydney played Seaby as their sub and he did nothing when he came on and Melbourne came from the clouds to pinch the draw.

Opposite to us.....

Maybe it should be a "horses for courses" type decision.

 

[Unnamed1]

No matter the rule.. the game hasn't changed. 2 ruckman for the whole game is going to be needed 19/20. Midfielder/versatile players with a bit of height (to cover KPP injuries) are the most valuable subs.

Also, we shouldn't be placed too much reliance on Hudson in the near future. He's getting on in age, and, the game could come and pass him by relatively quickly. I sense that by the end of the year he could even be third in our ruck pecking order..

 

[Mr. Walker]

I dont think its so clear cut about what type of player is made the sub.

Sydney played Seaby as their sub and he did nothing when he came on and Melbourne came from the clouds to pinch the draw.

Opposite to us.....

Maybe it should be a "horses for courses" type decision.

Not trying to speak for everyone else but i don't think anyone is claining we should go with one ruckman in the team and one ruckman as the sub. I think what every one is saying is

1. Never, never never again go in with only one ruckman

2. the second ruckman should hopefully be able to make a contribution up forward when resting rather than take a spot on the bench that could be used for resting a mid.

3. Never never never go against point 1.

imo the sub should always be a mid.

 

[Exactive]

This is the problem with so much depth. In a loss like this, the reaction for people will always be: "why wasn't so-and-so played?"
But I do admit that playing only one ruck wasn't ideal for us...

 

[Pigdog]

This is the problem with so much depth. In a loss like this, the reaction for people will always be: "why wasn't so-and-so played?"
But I do admit that playing only one ruck wasn't ideal for us...

So much or so little?

 

[Bulldog Banana]

Following on from earlier comments, maybe we need the more flexible option as a second ruckman, a good number have pointed to Essendon moving Hille forward and his ability to grab a mark and convert chances to goals.

Jordan Roughead & hopefully Ayce Cordy will give us that flexibility.

Cant see Minson being that type of player, he has been tried in the forward line before and doesnt consistently hold his marks.

Agree that we should never go in with one ruckman again, it is too much of a burden for one player to carry for the whole game.

 

[dogwatch]

Just to make it clear why one ruckman can come badly unstuck:

1. Injury to sole ruckman - no-one left to take over
2. Physical burden may exhaust one ruckman
3. Mental burden of carrying the ruck all day
4. Too predictable - opposition only has to work out how to get on top of one ruck and can then exploit this advantage. They may even try to injure the ruck (see point 1)
5. If sole ruck has an off day we are stuffed (everyone has off days once in a while)
6. Diversity of style from two rucks - one may be a better tap ruckman, another may be better around the ground (Huddo's strength is actually neither - it's his pack work).
7. Having 2 rucks doesn't create a drain on the KP players filling in -they have their own job to do.

There's probably others but in any case it clearly outweighs any benefits of having only one ruck (i.e. allows us to pick our 14th best flanker/midfielder in the selected side).

Please pick two rucks this week, Rodney!

 

[Mr. Walker]

This is the problem with so much depth. In a loss like this, the reaction for people will always be: "why wasn't so-and-so played?"
But I do admit that playing only one ruck wasn't ideal for us...

Some of us may be guilty of overestimating our current depth.