-
Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
I keep reading we are planning to trade for Stef Martin.
I don't get it.
Setting aside his pretty ordinary year (he was injured) and his age (it's not like dynamic athleticism is his go AND he was pretty lightly raced in his first few years at Melbourne), if we recruit a player who can pretty much ONLY play in the ruck then he WILL NOT PLAY.
If Martin plays, he would need to do 70% in the ruck - because if he is not rucking he needs to be on the pine. That's simple facts. If he was going to make it as a ruckman forward, he would have done it before now. He hasn't, so he wont. Playing him forward would be like playing Easton Wood forward - an interesting experiment and talking point but one where you are pretty much guaranteed a negative result.
OK - fine. So English plays 60% forward, 30% ruck, 10% pine. Interesting. His best attribute would seem to be taking defensive marks in a kbp role (sorry - kick-behind-play). We have just taken that away from him. He is officially in Naughton's way, it also means Bruce prob cant get a game and - nor can Schache or Young.
I'll be honest - I don't get it. If we recruit a ruckman who is a 'ruck only' player, they are going to play in the VFL (or whatever T2 competition exists post COVID). I would kind of understand someone like Mason Cox because he can ruck (yeah, yeah, snicker snicker - being not as good in the ruck as Brodie Grundy doesn't mean you are terrible at it) and he can also play forward. McEvoy interested me because he can obviously play back and has taken marks forward in the past. McInerney from Brisbane would have interested me (forward) likewise Blicavs, Sinclair from Sydney, Ladhams from Port...but the likes of Draper, Goldstein, etc - well...they are ruckman and ruckman only.
If you want a ruck-only ruckman, well - to me you are saying the days of playing English are over...I just can't see it.
Please explain to me how Martin (or Goldstein, or Draper etc) fits in the same side as English in 2021.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mjp
I keep reading we are planning to trade for Stef Martin.
I don't get it.
Setting aside his pretty ordinary year (he was injured) and his age (it's not like dynamic athleticism is his go AND he was pretty lightly raced in his first few years at Melbourne), if we recruit a player who can pretty much ONLY play in the ruck then he WILL NOT PLAY.
If Martin plays, he would need to do 70% in the ruck - because if he is not rucking he needs to be on the pine. That's simple facts. If he was going to make it as a ruckman forward, he would have done it before now. He hasn't, so he wont. Playing him forward would be like playing Easton Wood forward - an interesting experiment and talking point but one where you are pretty much guaranteed a negative result.
OK - fine. So English plays 60% forward, 30% ruck, 10% pine. Interesting. His best attribute would seem to be taking defensive marks in a kbp role (sorry - kick-behind-play). We have just taken that away from him. He is officially in Naughton's way, it also means Bruce prob cant get a game and - nor can Schache or Young.
I'll be honest - I don't get it. If we recruit a ruckman who is a 'ruck only' player, they are going to play in the VFL (or whatever T2 competition exists post COVID). I would kind of understand someone like Mason Cox because he can ruck (yeah, yeah, snicker snicker - being not as good in the ruck as Brodie Grundy doesn't mean you are terrible at it) and he can also play forward. McEvoy interested me because he can obviously play back and has taken marks forward in the past. McInerney from Brisbane would have interested me (forward) likewise Blicavs, Sinclair from Sydney, Ladhams from Port...but the likes of Draper, Goldstein, etc - well...they are ruckman and ruckman only.
If you want a ruck-only ruckman, well - to me you are saying the days of playing English are over...I just can't see it.
Please explain to me how Martin (or Goldstein, or Draper etc) fits in the same side as English in 2021.
One of Bruce or Naughton has to play back and it works. We're essentially telling English he is a key forward in 2021.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mjp
I keep reading we are planning to trade for Stef Martin.
I don't get it.
Setting aside his pretty ordinary year (he was injured) and his age (it's not like dynamic athleticism is his go AND he was pretty lightly raced in his first few years at Melbourne), if we recruit a player who can pretty much ONLY play in the ruck then he WILL NOT PLAY.
If Martin plays, he would need to do 70% in the ruck - because if he is not rucking he needs to be on the pine. That's simple facts. If he was going to make it as a ruckman forward, he would have done it before now. He hasn't, so he wont. Playing him forward would be like playing Easton Wood forward - an interesting experiment and talking point but one where you are pretty much guaranteed a negative result.
OK - fine. So English plays 60% forward, 30% ruck, 10% pine. Interesting. His best attribute would seem to be taking defensive marks in a kbp role (sorry - kick-behind-play). We have just taken that away from him. He is officially in Naughton's way, it also means Bruce prob cant get a game and - nor can Schache or Young.
I'll be honest - I don't get it. If we recruit a ruckman who is a 'ruck only' player, they are going to play in the VFL (or whatever T2 competition exists post COVID). I would kind of understand someone like Mason Cox because he can ruck (yeah, yeah, snicker snicker - being not as good in the ruck as Brodie Grundy doesn't mean you are terrible at it) and he can also play forward. McEvoy interested me because he can obviously play back and has taken marks forward in the past. McInerney from Brisbane would have interested me (forward) likewise Blicavs, Sinclair from Sydney, Ladhams from Port...but the likes of Draper, Goldstein, etc - well...they are ruckman and ruckman only.
If you want a ruck-only ruckman, well - to me you are saying the days of playing English are over...I just can't see it.
Please explain to me how Martin (or Goldstein, or Draper etc) fits in the same side as English in 2021.
Agree that it never made sense to go for a full time ruck unless we are planning on playing English forward full time. It’s probably the reason we had to use the tactics we did this year so it’s odd that we appear to have changed those thoughts. A forward ruck in the Cox/Ryder mould would make more sense.
The other aspect of this is that Martin has generally played his best footy as the sole ruck. I went back and watched a few games today where he went forward and he was incredibly ineffective. If he is a back up then I can handle it but I’m not sure how we fit him and English in without wasting a spot in the 22 or getting our balance horribly wrong.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
I worry we have been blinded a bit by being able to get him on the cheap. Is he better than Trengrove?
I was keen on Casboult, who offers more as a forward/around the ground, and would have been similarly cheap.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
If the ruckman is Goldy, that is a significant upgrade on English. Tim can play predominantly forward and frankly Bruce can play for Footscray unless he beats the door down in pre-season.
Martin is ok as a #1 ruck on paper but he honestly looks cooked.
If we go into 2021 with English as our #1 ruck, we are destined to be disappointed at the business end of the season once again.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
1eyedog
One of Bruce or Naughton has to play back and it works. We're essentially telling English he is a key forward in 2021.
That just seems dumb. We've just bled for 3-years with him playing as #1 ruck and NOW we move him forward? When he has done all his training, learning etc as a ruckman?
If we wanted him to play predominantly forward that process should have started when he first got to the club.
Talk about being the "Lords of the after-thought". I sincerely hope I am wrong about this but if we have Martin I just see him and Sweet (and Young, and Schache) all playing 2's and the senior side looking exactly like it did in 2020.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
The first big question is can English contribute enough playing just 30% game time in the ruck? I think he can.
He is great with ball in hand, moves around the ground well, can take marks up forward as good as any other second ruck (low bar i know) and has shown an ability to drift forward to do so as well (I know that is while playing as a ruck on a ruckman but it does show he is able to contribute something there). His most effective games have been when he has also been an aerial presence drifting back as you say, which is certainly going to be impacted by him not playing ruck as much, but maybe that's offset by what other benefits he brings and the overall change to the side playing two rucks offers.
We have quite often lacked a target who can work up the ground as a viable bail out option and help us constructively move the ball forward. Naughton can do this, but we seem to like playing him deeper, despite that also being where we prefer Bruce. If we are going to persist with keeping Naughton playing deep then I think having a mobile tall target we can hit up like English helps give us more structure going forward, a bit like how St.Kilda are able to use Marshall. Can English do that well? I don't know, but I think it's worth finding out. Also even if he is slow and ineffective as the third tall forward he is probably still going to contribute more than whoever else would take his spot in the side. It isn't like we are dropping Tory Dickson in his prime to play English as a second ruck.
So I do think that English is worth trying in a role where he only gets 30% rucktime.
Now onto Martin being the actual target, I'm not sold on him being an AFL player anymore but picking a pure ruck is not an issue I have. Ideally he contributes on field, teaches English off field, and buys English/Sweet/any young ruckman we pick up a year to mature. I am hugely skeptical on the viability of English as a number one ruck going forward, so maybe the benefit of Martin being a 34 year old who's career is virtually over is that it gives us a chance to try this kind of setup for a season before committing to it as our long term strategy as we would've had we brought in Goldstein/Draper etc. My preference would still have been to back ourselves in and grab one of those guys, but at least this is recognition that what we are currently doing isn't working and is a half hearted attempt to fix it.
Also the alternative is we go into the season with the same flawed ruck setup of 2020, and that's just depressing. At least if we pick up Martin I can spend the pre-season pretending we are gonna be better.
Now whether or not the double ruck idea sticks or goes the way of the much hyped "three pillars attack of Bruce, Naughton and Schache", or Martin spends the entire year injured/playing as a second ruck for no apparent reason/emailing Dodoro to see if his brother can try out their spongy floors remains to be seen, but surely forcing a potentially washed up ruckman into our lineup so English can pretend to be a forward has to be a good thing....right?
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sedat
If the ruckman is Goldy, that is a significant upgrade on English. Tim can play predominantly forward and frankly Bruce can play for Footscray unless he beats the door down in pre-season.
Martin is ok as a #1 ruck on paper but he honestly looks cooked.
If we go into 2021 with English as our #1 ruck, we are destined to be disappointed at the business end of the season once again.
yes spot on. Its commendable we are looking for an established ruck, but I agree with the OP, I feel Martin is cooked. Last year Trengove held his own against Martin and broke even in hitouts at Ballarat. I wish it was a different ruckman we were after, like a Goldy.
All I can see Martin do is be an on/off field coach to help English. On the other hand, who else is available?
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
I'm actually very supportive of bringing in a ruckman for a year or two allowing us pick English on form. Just having Martin around English and Sweet each week can only help with their development and they both need that.
I would have preferred someone like Coleman-Jones who is someone we 'could' potentially plan in tandem with English but that would make our forward line a bit slower than I think we want
The fact that we are looking to bring Hannan in probably rules out using English and Martin in tandem anyway
Perhaps there is another deal bubbling away in the background that will help fit the pieces a bit better
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GVGjr
I'm actually very supportive of bringing in a ruckman for a year or two allowing us pick English on form. Just having Martin around English and Sweet each week can only help with their development and they both need that.
I'm just going to leave this here: https://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/t...f/steven-king/
Please explain why we need a mentor player when we have a former high level AFL ruckman on the coaching staff...
Here's the team we rolled out vs the Saints. How exactly would Martin do anything except replace Trengove in the emergencies?
B: Easton Wood, Alex Keath, Caleb Daniel
HB: Bailey Williams, Ryan Gardner, Hayden Crozier
C: Bailey Smith, Jack Macrae, Jason Johannisen
HF: Ed Richards, Josh Bruce, Mitch Wallis
F: Tom Liberatore, Aaron Naughton, Lachie Hunter
Foll: Tim English, Marcus Bontempelli, Josh Dunkley
Int: Zaine Cordy, Taylor Duryea, Pat Lipinski, Roarke Smith
Emer: Jackson Trengove, Laitham Vandermeer, Billy Gowers, Bailey Dale
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mjp
That just seems dumb. We've just bled for 3-years with him playing as #1 ruck and NOW we move him forward? When he has done all his training, learning etc as a ruckman?
If we wanted him to play predominantly forward that process should have started when he first got to the club.
Talk about being the "Lords of the after-thought". I sincerely hope I am wrong about this but if we have Martin I just see him and Sweet (and Young, and Schache) all playing 2's and the senior side looking exactly like it did in 2020.
I do agree and think Bevo got it wrong playing him as the lone ruckman for so long. It seems we're now committed to him operating as an understudy for a year. This should of happened much earlier. I'm not sure what the answer is but bringing Martin in is very reactive and reeks of Bevo being overruled on a failed methodology.
English won't unlearn what he's learnt and hopefully his craft is enhanced by having a real ruckman at the club for a year. The English situation has been a dropped bowl of jelly but is there even a right answer to this now?
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mjp
Simply speaking King can't compete with them on the training track and I would say English in particular would benefit by competing with a ruckman of Martin's experience in most of the training sessions
As for the team, we have been unbalanced for a couple of seasons now and Martin or not, that won't change
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mjp
I'm just going to leave this here:
https://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/t...f/steven-king/
Please explain why we need a mentor player when we have a former high level AFL ruckman on the coaching staff...
Here's the team we rolled out vs the Saints. How exactly would Martin do anything except replace Trengove in the emergencies?
B: Easton Wood, Alex Keath, Caleb Daniel
HB: Bailey Williams, Ryan Gardner, Hayden Crozier
C: Bailey Smith, Jack Macrae, Jason Johannisen
HF:
Tim English, Josh Bruce, Mitch Wallis
F: Tom Liberatore, Aaron Naughton, Lachie Hunter
Foll:
Stef Martin, Marcus Bontempelli, Josh Dunkley
Int: Zaine Cordy, Taylor Duryea, Pat Lipinski,
Ed Richards
Emer: Jackson Trengove, Laitham Vandermeer, Billy Gowers, Bailey Dale
Martin to ruck, English as high forward/second ruck, Richards to the bench and Roarke Smith dropped.
And we would have won, given Martin would have at least neutralised a few ruck contests that Ryder completely destroyed English in, and English could have provided some extra height around the ground and forward to stop the zillion contested and intercept marks the Saints took.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GVGjr
As for the team, we have been unbalanced for a couple of seasons now and Martin or not, that won't change
There are already 5x players in that side who literally CANNOT get a kick.
- Richards
- Wood
- Bruce
- Gardner
- Cordy
A harsh person would add Naughton (low possession forward), Crozier (based on 2nd half of season), JJ (tagged out whenever the opposition want), Wallis (low possession forward), Lipinski (again, 2nd half of year) and Smith (R version) to the list of 5...
And now we are adding another? I disagree mate - I think we actually can make things worse. If we go into a game with a spare ruck then that means even more flicking guys around between back, mid and forward to get them a breather and with so many low possession players in the group...
We have English. We need a player who can flip-flop between ruck and forward and make a fist of things. That is why I said we should target Jackson and throw the kitchen sink at him...I would actually have a crack at getting Sinclair out of Sydney - he CAN play as a forward and would also play the role of competing at training as you suggest (not that they ever work too hard in-season in any case). As for why JT couldn't have/hasn't been playing that role in the last couple of seasons, well, I don't really understand why he hasn't or more to the point why you would think he hasn't??
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mjp
There are already 5x players in that side who literally CANNOT get a kick.
- Richards
- Wood
- Bruce
- Gardner
- Cordy
A harsh person would add Naughton (low possession forward), Crozier (based on 2nd half of season), JJ (tagged out whenever the opposition want), Wallis (low possession forward), Lipinski (again, 2nd half of year) and Smith (R version) to the list of 5...
And now we are adding another? I disagree mate - I think we actually can make things worse. If we go into a game with a spare ruck then that means even more flicking guys around between back, mid and forward to get them a breather and with so many low possession players in the group...
We have English. We need a player who can flip-flop between ruck and forward and make a fist of things. That is why I said we should target Jackson and throw the kitchen sink at him...I would actually have a crack at getting Sinclair out of Sydney - he CAN play as a forward and would also play the role of competing at training as you suggest (not that they ever work too hard in-season in any case). As for why JT couldn't have/hasn't been playing that role in the last couple of seasons, well, I don't really understand why he hasn't or more to the point why you would think he hasn't??
I don't disagree with any of this and our team balance is completely out of whack with way too many low impact players, but going in with English as our sole ruck, with some chop outs from Dunks (lol), Jong, Macrae etc is just going to yield the same results.
Trengove should have played more, no doubt about it and there's no guarantees that if Martin comes in, Bevo even picks him.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
comrade
Trengove should have played more, no doubt about it and there's no guarantees that if Martin comes in, Bevo even picks him.
That's my problem with this whole scenario...I can't see how a "Ruck Only" player gets a game!
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mjp
There are already 5x players in that side who literally CANNOT get a kick.
- Richards
- Wood
- Bruce
- Gardner
- Cordy
A harsh person would add Naughton (low possession forward), Crozier (based on 2nd half of season), JJ (tagged out whenever the opposition want), Wallis (low possession forward), Lipinski (again, 2nd half of year) and Smith (R version) to the list of 5...
And now we are adding another? I disagree mate - I think we actually can make things worse. If we go into a game with a spare ruck then that means even more flicking guys around between back, mid and forward to get them a breather and with so many low possession players in the group...
We have English. We need a player who can flip-flop between ruck and forward and make a fist of things. That is why I said we should target Jackson and throw the kitchen sink at him...I would actually have a crack at getting Sinclair out of Sydney - he CAN play as a forward and would also play the role of competing at training as you suggest (not that they ever work too hard in-season in any case). As for why JT couldn't have/hasn't been playing that role in the last couple of seasons, well, I don't really understand why he hasn't or more to the point why you would think he hasn't??
From my perspective I think the underlying challenge that you have detailed can't be fixed by anyone unless the coach is prepared to change the focus and this year unless we unload Dunkley, Schache and maybe Richards we won't have the chips to be a major player
Does a 2nd year ruckman who is still learning how to be a forward and ruckman really change things that much for us in 2021? I have my doubts and that isn't in anyway knocking Jackson. Would we really venture into 2021 with 3 tall forwards or just Naughton and Jackson as key forwards?
I get Martin won't fix our challenges but there has to be some good reasons why he is in the mix to come to us and more importantly we didn't get him over to us as an unrestricted FA.
There is a fair bit to play out and I think tomorrow some of the missing pieces might become evident
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mjp
That's my problem with this whole scenario...I can't see how a "Ruck Only" player gets a game!
I think ruck only is an outdated plan. You would only use it if your ruck was soooooo good that you just had to pick them. The problem isn't so much English can't ruck, its finding a viable player who can give him a chop out for 20 to 30% of the time. Dunks is not the answer
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mjp
That's my problem with this whole scenario...I can't see how a "Ruck Only" player gets a game!
JT is still worth a spot on our list, 2019 proved that but something has changed and our reluctance to use him and allow English to battle through form slumps and mismatches solo just highlights that he wasn't in our plans.
I'd normally agree with the premise of your 'ruck only' logic because it really doesn't suit our MC philosophies but do you really think we would make a hard call on Bruce or move Naughton to the back line to bring in a Casboult or Sinclair type? I don't think we would
The ideal scenario for our set-up would be Blicavs midfielder ruckman or a JT type defender ruckman and they are harder to find
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
1eyedog
I do agree and think Bevo got it wrong playing him as the lone ruckman for so long. It seems we're now committed to him operating as an understudy for a year. This should of happened much earlier. I'm not sure what the answer is but bringing Martin in is very reactive and reeks of Bevo being overruled on a failed methodology
English won't unlearn what he's learnt and hopefully his craft is enhanced by having a real ruckman at the club for a year. The English situation has been a dropped bowl of jelly but is there even a right answer to this now?
Don't forget the plan was to play Tom Boyd and English last year, but Tom pulled out (Feb 2019) and we didn't really replace him at the end of 2019, as we were chasing two KPPs.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bornadog
Don't forget the plan was to play Tom Boyd and English last year, but Tom pulled out (Feb 2019) and we didn't really replace him at the end of 2019, as we were chasing two KPPs.
We must have known that Boyd's back concerns where an inhibiting factor and there was a massive question mark on his ability to play and Boyd even sought his own medical advice. We can keep using that excuse but it just highlights how we don't manage risk and we haven't really addressed the need for a key forward who can also be a productive ruck man for a few years now
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GVGjr
We must have known that Boyd's back concerns where an inhibiting factor and there was a massive question mark on his ability to play and Boyd even sought his own medical advice. We can keep using that excuse but it just highlights how we don't manage risk and we haven't really addressed the need for a key forward who can also be a productive ruck man for a few years now
He didn't retire because of his back, it was more a mental illness and and he lost his passion for footy.
We have tried to bring in key forwards in Schache and Bruce. Maybe not as successful as we would have wanted.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bornadog
He didn't retire because of his back, it was more a mental illness and and he lost his passion for footy.
We have tried to bring in key forwards in Schache and Bruce. Maybe not as successful as we would have wanted.
What it highlights is that there was a massive doubt on his ability to get fit and play. That is why he sought his own medical opinions and options in an effort to get on top of a debilitating injury. Even with that in mind we ignored that challenge and we didn't plan for the scenario that he might not come good. To me it's not a plausible excuse or reason.
As for Schache and Bruce, neither were noted as back-up ruckman and anywhere near Boyds ability in that area and I doubt we can address it for next season.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
His back is cooked, it wouldn’t and won’t stand up to AFL training and playing needs.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mjp
That just seems dumb. We've just bled for 3-years with him playing as #1 ruck and NOW we move him forward? When he has done all his training, learning etc as a ruckman?
If we wanted him to play predominantly forward that process should have started when he first got to the club.
Talk about being the "Lords of the after-thought". I sincerely hope I am wrong about this but if we have Martin I just see him and Sweet (and Young, and Schache) all playing 2's and the senior side looking exactly like it did in 2020.
Think that afterthought happened mid way through this year, as there was a stretch were English did play predominantly forward, and King was asked about this on SEN at the time and mentioned they wanted to see if he had any forward craft.
I’m guessing they didn’t hate what they saw - probably liked it more than his form in the ruck at the time.
One of our best quarters of the year was the 3rd quarter vs Melbourne. Josh Bruce first ruck (not sustainable, though he was good) and Tim forward (kicked a goal, looked lively, and most importantly, is a sustainable option)
If Martin can find a second wind, I reckon he plays and we either try 2-3 talls forward or drop one of Gardner (with shuffling) or Bruce.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Best available? who else to get if not him?
A lot of it depends on the price we get him for.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Trying to put myself in the the clubs shoes to attempt to understand the thought process with this. I wonder if they just want the option there for certain games?
The narrative that we get slaughtered around the ball on a weekly basis due to our ruck just isn’t correct but there is games where we needed to limit the damage. When you look at the top 4 from this year none of them have particularly dominant rucks but they have enough that they don’t get monstered. I don’t agree that it will work but maybe Martin is going to be used sparingly and against teams where we have concerns about English being physically able to compete for an extended period.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Is there anyone expecting Martin to play an entire season?
I don't think that's the plan at all. The guy was a rock up until 2020 before injury struck, and that may be how his career finishes. I see two scenarios playing out at various times next year:
a. English spends time forward as he did 2018 & 2019 pre-season when the coaching staff were "pretty excited" by what English offers forward (their words). TBH English looked a more effective forward than Josh Bruce this year.
b. Stef Martin plays 5-10 games, with English playing mostly forward during those games as a way of keeping him fresh or even rested himself.
Martin also takes a coaching/mentoring role for English and Sweet without it impacting on the soft-cap which as I understand it will tighten significantly next year. Having someone to actually train and play with Sweet and English while mentoring them will hasten their development far more than King will.
Point C - who else is there? Not sold on Mason Cox, Hickey is off to the Swans, Vardy is fragile and the Eagles would earmark him as their 'depth' option anyway. Goldy looks set to stay at North and the under-the-radar kid I really rate (Xerri) would be one of North's few 'untouchables'.
We're market takers in this scenario as as a cheap option Martin might just be the best available.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mofra
Point C - who else is there? Not sold on Mason Cox, Hickey is off to the Swans, Vardy is fragile and the Eagles would earmark him as their 'depth' option anyway. Goldy looks set to stay at North and the under-the-radar kid I really rate (Xerri) would be one of North's few 'untouchables'.
We're market takers in this scenario as as a cheap option Martin might just be the best available.
Without putting words in MJPs mouth, I think the preference is to be more adventurous/aggressive and chisel a required player out from another club like Essendon has done with Dunkley (such as Jackson from Melbourne).
Easier said than done.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
comrade
Without putting words in MJPs mouth, I think the preference is to be more adventurous/aggressive and chisel a required player out from another club like Essendon has done with Dunkley (such as Jackson from Melbourne).
Easier said than done.
In that case, it comes down to a cost vs benefit analysis. Would the cost of that 'chiselling' be worth it?
The other question still stands - who else is there? Jackson is not a mature ruck, ditto Bailey Williams at WCE, and both clubs would fight tooth and nail to keep thim.
Draper has just signed a long deal at Essendon.
The aforementioned Xerri I like but is the same age as English and Sweet. If Soldo hadn't hurt his knee I would have been all for a real crack at Nank, but it's not to be. Port put up the hand to the Swans' questions about Ladhams.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mofra
In that case, it comes down to a cost vs benefit analysis. Would the cost of that 'chiselling' be worth it?
The other question still stands - who else is there? Jackson is not a mature ruck, ditto Bailey Williams at WCE, and both clubs would fight tooth and nail to keep thim.
Draper has just signed a long deal at Essendon.
The aforementioned Xerri I like but is the same age as English and Sweet. If Soldo hadn't hurt his knee I would have been all for a real crack at Nank, but it's not to be. Port put up the hand to the Swans' questions about Ladhams.
Clubs have wised up to the value of the ruck position over the last few seasons and we're playing catch up. We're not going to just be able to whip up interest from a contracted ruck at another club overnight and expect to get a deal done.
Dunkley was months in the making, if we haven't done the required ground work to chisel out a player, there's no chance we'll find one during this trade period.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
comrade
Clubs have wised up to the value of the ruck position over the last few seasons and we're playing catch up. We're not going to just be able to whip up interest from a contracted ruck at another club overnight and expect to get a deal done.
Yep. All of the teams that have drastically improved/are good and fun to watch typically have a dual ruck set up (Port, Saints, West Coast, even Richmond for most of the season). This isn't about playing two lumbering guys, and it should see Tim get placed in a position to play completely to his strengths.
FWIW if we get a second ruck in then the only personnel change I'd hope to see is Bruce in the seconds. No need for Naughton to go back.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
When with Melbourne Martin spent some time playing back and forward. As an aside he played his first match with Old Haileybury. He was 19 and had never played a football game before.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Just signed up sweet for an extension too
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
I'm happy with the decisions but it's funny that we didn't play Sweet at all this season, yet we were desperate for ruck support and we've signed him up yet we didn't need Gowers but we played him and have now delisted him.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
comrade
Clubs have wised up to the value of the ruck position over the last few seasons and we're playing catch up. We're not going to just be able to whip up interest from a contracted ruck at another club overnight and expect to get a deal done.
It's almost like we had a long-term plan for the ruck position which was unexpectedly terminated.
Boyd and English was our long-term ruck tag team, with Sweet rookied, which had the potential to be the envy of the competition. Last year was the first time we could have justifiably brought in a first-rate ruck and offered ruck minutes, but why would you go to a club with one of the most promising ruckmen in the comp?
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jazzadogs
It's almost like we had a long-term plan for the ruck position which was unexpectedly terminated.
Boyd and English was our long-term ruck tag team, with Sweet rookied, which had the potential to be the envy of the competition. Last year was the first time we could have justifiably brought in a first-rate ruck and offered ruck minutes, but why would you go to a club with one of the most promising ruckmen in the comp?
Yeah, can’t argue with that. I mentioned elsewhere I recently re-watched highlights of every involvement Boyd had in the 2016 GF and his ruck work was actually very impressive.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Why do they have to play in the same side? It was still worth it to get a backup that means Josh Bruce isn't our #1 ruck if English gets injured
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boydogs
Why do they have to play in the same side? It was still worth it to get a backup that means Josh Bruce isn't our #1 ruck if English gets injured
Why not just use JT?
The narrative seems to be that they will play together tho.
-
Re: Can someone (please) explain to me the reason we would trade for Stef Martin (or another ruck only player).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mjp
Why not just use JT?
The narrative seems to be that they will play together tho.
We could have and should used that option. Suggest the Bevo Doghouse was in full swing