Zac Smith vs Rhys Stanley

[Cursed Cat]

I've seen a few posts on the board in the past couple of weeks suggesting Mark Blicavs role in the team would be best spent as a 2nd ruckman, and a few posts suggesting that we are still too tall as a group in general.

With that in mind; if the club is to select only one of Zac Smith or Rhys Stanley (with Blicavs relieving), who gets the nod, and why?

I acknowledge there have also been plenty of posters who don't see a role for Blicavs in the team; I'd prefer not to focus on that in this particular thread and instead would like to gauge who our board members think is the better fit for the team of Smith and Stanley.

Player Statistics Comparison
Zac Smith Name Rhys Stanley

88 Career Games 87
206cm Height 200cm
105kg Weight 100kg

Stats for Season 2016
23 Games 21
5.0 Kicks Per Game 6.5
6.6 Handballs Per Game 5.3
11.6 Disposals Per Game 11.8
2.0 Marks Per Game 3.7
0.5 Goals Per Game 0.8
2.6 Tackles Per Game 2.0
17.8 Hitouts Per Game 13.5
1.7 Inside 50s Per Game 2.3
0.3 Goal Assists Per Game 0.6
1.1 Frees For Per Game 0.8
1.0 Frees Against Per Game 1.9
7.7 Contested Possessions Per Game 5.6
4.3 Uncontested Possessions Per Game 6.3
7.9 Effective Disposals Per Game 8.2
68.1% Disposal Efficiency % Per Game 69.5%
2.0 Clangers Per Game 3.1
0.8 Contested Marks Per Game 1.2
0.6 Marks Inside 50 Per Game 1.3
3.0 Clearances Per Game 1.3
0.4 Rebound 50s Per Game 0.5
3.3 One Percenters Per Game 2.3
71.4 Time On Ground % Per Game 77.8

statistically there isn't a lot in it; Stanley the better contested mark and kicked more goals in 2016, while Smith wins more hit-outs and is good for a few clearances each game ..

 

[Daniel McL]

They'll play both making us too tall but if I had to choose one I'd just go Stanley at the moment.

 

[Bobby_]

Both pretty average ruckman but I'd probably go with Smith due to his length advantage against opposing rucks.
I wish he could pull down more than 2 marks a game because we could then have a target to aim for down the boundary line in tight matches.

Both players produced the worst performances in last years finals of any ruckman I have witnessed for a decade. Absolutely rotten and you can only hope the faith placed in them by the club will be paid back this new season.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Smiths first third to half of the year was the best form from either of them, although his last third was also the worst.
Stanley I love as a second ruck where he can use his speed to spread and provide linkup outside contests/kick ahead of the ball whereas Smith IMO is a more natural ruck who uses the hitout wins far more effectively than Stanley.
In saying all that I wouldn't mind either of them being a solo ruck but I do prefer Smith no.1 and Stanley no.2.

 

[Willo_]

I find this hard to answer as personally I believe they will both be rotating through the ruck.
Can't see either being dropped, and they each at times last year looked to be our best option or taking the number 1 mantle

 

[catempire]

<why can't we have both meme.jpg>

But if we are picking only one (which I don't believe we should or would do) Smith is the better #1 ruckman.

 

[Cursed Cat]

<why can't we have both meme.jpg>

But if we are picking only one (which I don't believe we should or would do) Smith is the better #1 ruckman.

I ultimately agree that the status quo will probably be the way the club will go CE; but then again I don't necessarily disagree with those who argue that we're too top heavy, either ... last year's set-up with a ruckman resting forward worked sporadically, but as the year wore on I thought it became increasingly apparent that Hawkins (and the rest of the forwards) might have benefited from a more traditional forward set up with a genuine 2nd tall forward.

It looks as though the club is considering this with Taylor training with the forward group, but then we're left rotating the rucks off the bench and all of Lonergan, Henderson, Taylor, Blicavs, Hawkins and either Smith/Stanley on the ground at any one time.
I'm not sure that a change to the set-up might work better for the team, and if the club isn't prepared to bite the bullet and drop someone, then we might find things playing out similarly to how they did last year. It's a head-scratcher...

 

[BORIS332]

I've seen a few posts on the board in the past couple of weeks suggesting Mark Blicavs role in the team would be best spent as a 2nd ruckman, and a few posts suggesting that we are still too tall as a group in general.

With that in mind; if the club is to select only one of Zac Smith or Rhys Stanley (with Blicavs relieving), who gets the nod, and why?

I acknowledge there have also been plenty of posters who don't see a role for Blicavs in the team; I'd prefer not to focus on that in this particular thread and instead would like to gauge who our board members think is the better fit for the team of Smith and Stanley.

Player Statistics Comparison
Zac Smith Name Rhys Stanley

88 Career Games 87
206cm Height 200cm
105kg Weight 100kg

Stats for Season 2016
23 Games 21
5.0 Kicks Per Game 6.5
6.6 Handballs Per Game 5.3
11.6 Disposals Per Game 11.8
2.0 Marks Per Game 3.7
0.5 Goals Per Game 0.8
2.6 Tackles Per Game 2.0
17.8 Hitouts Per Game 13.5
1.7 Inside 50s Per Game 2.3
0.3 Goal Assists Per Game 0.6
1.1 Frees For Per Game 0.8
1.0 Frees Against Per Game 1.9
7.7 Contested Possessions Per Game 5.6
4.3 Uncontested Possessions Per Game 6.3
7.9 Effective Disposals Per Game 8.2
68.1% Disposal Efficiency % Per Game 69.5%
2.0 Clangers Per Game 3.1
0.8 Contested Marks Per Game 1.2
0.6 Marks Inside 50 Per Game 1.3
3.0 Clearances Per Game 1.3
0.4 Rebound 50s Per Game 0.5
3.3 One Percenters Per Game 2.3
71.4 Time On Ground % Per Game 77.8

statistically there isn't a lot in it; Stanley the better contested mark and kicked more goals in 2016, while Smith wins more hit-outs and is good for a few clearances each game ..

To answer your question: Zac Smith gets the nod.

To answer the conundrum: Blicavs plays on a wing to utilise his best asset; his running. Both Smith and Stanley share the ruck.

I don't understand the chat around being 'too tall.' None of our talls are slow, bar our bookends Hawkins and Lonergan. We give away nothing by being 'too tall.'

 

[ryzza]

Stanley forward/2nd ruck, Smith 1st ruck and Blicavs isn't a starter for mine.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

Stanley forward/2nd ruck, Smith 1st ruck and Blicavs isn't a starter for mine.

I think this is the ideal setup. Won't happen, of course.

 

[Willo_]

Blicavs plays on a wing to utilise his best asset; his running.

My biggest worry here is that the ability to run doesn't automatically translate to being able to play the role.

We've seen before just how exposed he can be on a wing when Hill tore him to pieces

 

[CatsDoItBetter]

Being too tall in itself isn't the problem as I see it. It's about the player, their role and position on the ground.
Smith and Stanley have sporadically shown to be good players with hints of being much better. Either could leap forward and take off as a player.
I actually like the setup of Smith being number 1 with Stanley playing forward and swapping in the ruck. We need better linkup players House or Black could play that role so too Menzel.

I'm not sure about Taylor forward when if ever has a key position player transitioned successfully at his age?

There is certainly an issue with too much height down back. Tuohy, Thurlow, Stewart, Ruggles, Guthrie and Bews should be given games. How do you make room for Hendo, Lonergan, Kolo and Mackie? I don't think all 4 of those players can play in the same side.
We've heard little about Mackie over the pre season he'd be someone I would've tried in a different position this year.

Blicavs needs to find a different role with the 3rd man up rule changing. I'm not sure what that is but he has said and it's clear he struggles without a defined role.

 

[Vdubs]

I find this hard to answer as personally I believe they will both be rotating through the ruck.
Can't see either being dropped, and they each at times last year looked to be our best option or taking the number 1 mantle

Agree. Although I find it very easy to answer, almost a no-brainer imho.
If both are fit, they will share responsibilities, and rest at FP.
Smith the giant would get #1, JUST.
The slightly shorter Stanley #2.
BOTH are assets if fit.
Blicavs for CHB or tagging.
Taylor CHF.
We have been lamenting for years the lack of players like this, and now after a getting - to - know- you first season, they will be huge for us, Both showed glimpses of their ultimate value.

 

[Vdubs]

I ultimately agree that the status quo will probably be the way the club will go CE; but then again I don't necessarily disagree with those who argue that we're too top heavy, either ... last year's set-up with a ruckman resting forward worked sporadically, but as the year wore on I thought it became increasingly apparent that Hawkins (and the rest of the forwards) might have benefited from a more traditional forward set up with a genuine 2nd tall forward.

It looks as though the club is considering this with Taylor training with the forward group, but then we're left rotating the rucks off the bench and all of Lonergan, Henderson, Taylor, Blicavs, Hawkins and either Smith/Stanley on the ground at any one time.
I'm not sure that a change to the set-up might work better for the team, and if the club isn't prepared to bite the bullet and drop someone, then we might find things playing out similarly to how they did last year. It's a head-scratcher...

And we finished #2 H&A.

 

[Vdubs]

Being too tall in itself isn't the problem as I see it. It's about the player, their role and position on the ground.
Smith and Stanley have sporadically shown to be good players with hints of being much better. Either could leap forward and take off as a player.
I actually like the setup of Smith being number 1 with Stanley playing forward and swapping in the ruck. We need better linkup players House or Black could play that role so too Menzel.

I'm not sure about Taylor forward when if ever has a key position player transitioned successfully at his age?

There is certainly an issue with too much height down back. Tuohy, Thurlow, Stewart, Ruggles, Guthrie and Bews should be given games. How do you make room for Hendo, Lonergan, Kolo and Mackie? I don't think all 4 of those players can play in the same side.
We've heard little about Mackie over the pre season he'd be someone I would've tried in a different position this year.

Blicavs needs to find a different role with the 3rd man up rule changing. I'm not sure what that is but he has said and it's clear he struggles without a defined role.

Mackie should play the Gia role this year, off the bench, coming forward and goalkicking.

 

[Willo_]

Agree. Although I find it very easy to answer, almost a no-brainer imho.
If both are fit, they will share responsibilities, and rest at FP.
Smith the giant would get #1, JUST.
The slightly shorter Stanley #2.
BOTH are assets if fit.
Blicavs for CHB or tagging.
Taylor CHF.
We have been lamenting for years the lack of players like this, and now after a getting - to - know- you first season, they will be huge for us, Both showed glimpses of their ultimate value.

I have been wondering if the change to the 3rd man up will help Smith, in theory it should help the tap ruckman and blokes with longer reaches

 

[cynical]

Blicavs in the VFL

good luck to him but he is our 3rd best ruck and nothing else

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

I think we can play them both providing they each present consistently when "resting" on the ground - most likely forward.
I think the amount of talls will be a challenge this season as I get the sense we want to be quicker out of D50 . If we play both with Taylor forward then one of the three needs to be on the bench.
However Ballroom is the elephant in the room if we go with that set up - can we afford to play him as well as Lonergan , Hendo and Kolo- and still have quicker ball movement?

 

[Mr Blicavs]

I still see plenty of improvement to come in both of these guys. Fit and healthy, they'd both be in Geelongs best 22 every week.

 

[Bobby_]

Mackie should play the Gia role this year, off the bench, coming forward and goalkicking.

He should play in the VFL and earn his spot in the team because based on the last month of last year, Kolodjashnij & Guthrie have gone past him, while Tuohy is clearly a step above too.

 

[Willo_]

I still see plenty of improvement to come in both of these guys. Fit and healthy, they'd both be in Geelongs best 22 every week.

They absolutely should be that's for sure.

 

[foodles05]

Got to say I disagree Willo. I think that if we have a decent second forward then Smith in the ruck 75% with the Blitz 25 is a much better strategy. It could be Stanley as first but unless one of them is a performing forward then there is not point in them being in the team. To me it is obvious because if you are a second ruckman and only rucking 25% it comes down to what else you do! Blitz does more in my mind and I don't think that a 50/50 split works. I think we have realised that ruckman need to play there main roll for a long period of time in a game to get into the game and be as effective as they can be.

 

[Ray Donovan]

I've seen a few posts on the board in the past couple of weeks suggesting Mark Blicavs role in the team would be best spent as a 2nd ruckman, and a few posts suggesting that we are still too tall as a group in general.

With that in mind; if the club is to select only one of Zac Smith or Rhys Stanley (with Blicavs relieving), who gets the nod, and why?

I acknowledge there have also been plenty of posters who don't see a role for Blicavs in the team; I'd prefer not to focus on that in this particular thread and instead would like to gauge who our board members think is the better fit for the team of Smith and Stanley.

Player Statistics Comparison
Zac Smith Name Rhys Stanley

88 Career Games 87
206cm Height 200cm
105kg Weight 100kg

Stats for Season 2016
23 Games 21
5.0 Kicks Per Game 6.5
6.6 Handballs Per Game 5.3
11.6 Disposals Per Game 11.8
2.0 Marks Per Game 3.7
0.5 Goals Per Game 0.8
2.6 Tackles Per Game 2.0
17.8 Hitouts Per Game 13.5
1.7 Inside 50s Per Game 2.3
0.3 Goal Assists Per Game 0.6
1.1 Frees For Per Game 0.8
1.0 Frees Against Per Game 1.9
7.7 Contested Possessions Per Game 5.6
4.3 Uncontested Possessions Per Game 6.3
7.9 Effective Disposals Per Game 8.2
68.1% Disposal Efficiency % Per Game 69.5%
2.0 Clangers Per Game 3.1
0.8 Contested Marks Per Game 1.2
0.6 Marks Inside 50 Per Game 1.3
3.0 Clearances Per Game 1.3
0.4 Rebound 50s Per Game 0.5
3.3 One Percenters Per Game 2.3
71.4 Time On Ground % Per Game 77.8

statistically there isn't a lot in it; Stanley the better contested mark and kicked more goals in 2016, while Smith wins more hit-outs and is good for a few clearances each game ..

Smith just by a whisker as a ruckman who in my eyes just offers a bit more in general play around the ground than Stanley.

And when neither is going to be particularly strong in hit out department and looking to more break even create a contest smith just gives a little extra something around the ground.

I would argue Stanley's ruckwork and speed will probably suit the rule changes with no third man up he is a bigger stronger type compared to Smith who is more agile. Long arms and positioning.

Its extremely close I am one advocate of blicavs as 2nd ruck. Just because his running ability is so unique and it puts so much aerobic pressure and teams who have ruckmen whom play 70-80% on ball.

Geelong are very set on playing Taylor, Lonergan, Henderson, Kolodashnij in the one side. Blicavs as backup ruck suits this model and he is also very versatile so can continue to help the team in crunch time in other ways. Compared to Stanley or Smith one will always be relegated to bench or certain positions.

It will allow the trial of black and possibly rata because we all know the love fetish of the Scotts and key position tall targets. With the likelihood of Taylor playing forward.

It should create more mobile defensive setups lonergan and kolodashnij as key defenders and Henderson will have to play the Taylor sweeper role and play on smaller targets.

Do I think this will be employed by Chris Scott unlikely as he sees blicavs as a utility that can play mid half back win and a good defensive stopper. So we will roll with Stanley and Smith for 10 rounds I assume. But this needs to be tested as blicavs role with our recent additions has really diminished his effectiveness and he is one paced so really slows our midfield down.

 

[Ray Donovan]

I think we can play them both providing they each present consistently when "resting" on the ground - most likely forward.
I think the amount of talls will be a challenge this season as I get the sense we want to be quicker out of D50 . If we play both with Taylor forward then one of the three needs to be on the bench.
However Ballroom is the elephant in the room if we go with that set up - can we afford to play him as well as Lonergan , Hendo and Kolo- and still have quicker ball movement?

They need to work out if either are viable long term options and or work out who is the No.1 ruckman. Because both tend to look better in the ruck than forward and unfortunately with our lack of options at CHF Taylor, Hawkins and smith or Stanley will so rarely be cohesive. As smart as Taylor is he is a swingman and lost his leg speed and spent most of career at half back so a huge learning curve and smith and Stanley just are not dangerous looking key forwards. We see the pace of good defences western bulldogs Sydney and gws very attacking and zone defences play into the hands of slower loping forward lines. Which is exactly what we are going to have. We have no taller hit up target in the kersten mould.

So in my eyes choose the long term option then start trying to develop a forward ruck vardy was perfect obviously gone someone in the Josh Jenkins role would be perfect.

This year Stanley and smith will slug it out but long term after this season we need to start actually fixing list deficiencies not just patching over them like Taylor forward or Henderson forward.

 

[DanA]

Best guess:
1st ruck: Stanley
2nd ruck: Blicavs
CHF: Taylor
FF: Hawkins

But it's too soon to tell. I'm firmly in the do not play all three camp though re: Ruckmen. Likewise against four KPD's in our defensive setup.