Thanks Thanks:  69
Likes Likes:  506
Page 27 of 90 FirstFirst ... 17181920212223242526272829303132333435363777 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 405 of 1343

Thread: Well Ruck Me.

  1. #391
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    27,890
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Well Ruck Me.

    Quote Originally Posted by GVGjr View Post
    In what way? On expectations for season ahead or how the player will finish the season by playing some senior games?
    His aggression at the ball and his ball skills below his knees.

    DR and have been very excited!
    Have you been reading those Roddy Doyle books again, Dougal!?


    I have, yeah Ted, you big gobshite

  2. #392
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Doglands
    Posts
    39,486
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Well Ruck Me.

    I read an and article on the weekend debating the new rules of six , six and six and how it is perceived that there will be a bigger advantage to dominant ruckman as teams won’t be able to flood back like they have been at the centre square ball ups.
    Has there also been a change allowing ruckman to grab the ball in the air without it being given a ‘prior’ adjudication?
    Obviously, we didn’t rate that well in the article by effectively putting a lot of faith into a player with just 9 senior games experience in Tim English and of course support from the somewhat under sized Jackson Trengove and perhaps Josh Schache. The article acknowledged the injury concerns with Tom Boyd.

    I know we have debated Bevo’s use of ruckman countless times, but I would like to focus on why as a club we think we can go into a season with just one genuine ruckman who is inexperienced and a couple of backups especially if the news about Boyd’s injured back that has been an issue for about 4 months will limit his 2019 season?
    Should we have done more to try and keep Roughead while there were doubts on Boyd's injury?
    Western Bulldogs Football Club "Where it's cool to drool"

  3. #393
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    32,301
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Well Ruck Me.

    Quote Originally Posted by GVGjr View Post
    I read an and article on the weekend debating the new rules of six , six and six and how it is perceived that there will be a bigger advantage to dominant ruckman as teams won’t be able to flood back like they have been at the centre square ball ups.
    Has there also been a change allowing ruckman to grab the ball in the air without it being given a ‘prior’ adjudication?
    Obviously, we didn’t rate that well in the article by effectively putting a lot of faith into a player with just 9 senior games experience in Tim English and of course support from the somewhat under sized Jackson Trengove and perhaps Josh Schache. The article acknowledged the injury concerns with Tom Boyd.

    I know we have debated Bevo’s use of ruckman countless times, but I would like to focus on why as a club we think we can go into a season with just one genuine ruckman who is inexperienced and a couple of backups especially if the news about Boyd’s injured back that has been an issue for about 4 months will limit his 2019 season?
    Should we have done more to try and keep Roughead while there were doubts on Boyd's injury?
    And there wasn't a shortage of rucks changing clubs either. We cut Roughy (Collingwood) & Campbell (North), and others changing clubs included Lycett, Hickey, Pruess, Lobb, Mumford (returned), Clarke (returned). It seems we were happy to lose two rucks and not chase the sizeable number of rucks up for grabs (yes, some were destined to go to some specific clubs). Clearly the club still things rucks are overrated, they knew Tom's back is bad and grabbed a kid whose currently half way through his first afl preseason. So if something happens to English and/or Trengove, then Sweet is playing a fair bit of footy with Dunkley/Jong/Bonts helping out. We seem light on, but it's by design. If Bevo won't play them, I guess why recruit them?
    Rocket Science: the epitaph for the Beveridge era - whenever it ends - reading 'Here lies a team that could beat anyone on its day, but seldom did when it mattered most'. 15/7/2023

  4. #394
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    5,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Well Ruck Me.

    The new rules favour a ruck who can use his body grab the ball and clear it.
    Is there an advantage for the athletic type who can jump or reach over his opponent and spike the ball clear of the centre and let our ground ball user go to work. Maybe our style will change I remember Minno was good at clearing the centre with a big thump.
    Don't piss off old people
    The older we get the less "LIFE IN PRISON" is a deterrent...

  5. #395
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,373
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Well Ruck Me.

    Quote Originally Posted by GVGjr View Post
    I read an and article on the weekend debating the new rules of six , six and six and how it is perceived that there will be a bigger advantage to dominant ruckman as teams won’t be able to flood back like they have been at the centre square ball ups.
    Has there also been a change allowing ruckman to grab the ball in the air without it being given a ‘prior’ adjudication?
    Obviously, we didn’t rate that well in the article by effectively putting a lot of faith into a player with just 9 senior games experience in Tim English and of course support from the somewhat under sized Jackson Trengove and perhaps Josh Schache. The article acknowledged the injury concerns with Tom Boyd.

    I know we have debated Bevo’s use of ruckman countless times, but I would like to focus on why as a club we think we can go into a season with just one genuine ruckman who is inexperienced and a couple of backups especially if the news about Boyd’s injured back that has been an issue for about 4 months will limit his 2019 season?
    Should we have done more to try and keep Roughead while there were doubts on Boyd's injury?
    I watched the GWS prelim a week ago and something I hadn’t noticed was the way Roughead kept jumping over Mumford and, where necessary, was matching him for strength.

    I had a really big sinking feeling. Was Rough just another of our 2016 group who was well down, but (with a bit of injury luck in his case) could really surprise? I would love to see him do well, but it will bloody hard to take watching him do it for Collingwood whilst we likely struggle to compete in this area for another 12 months.

    I think we should have definitely done more to keep him and had we known that we could have got Khamis with a Cat B spot we would have kept Rough and taken Hayes with a rookie spot.

  6. #396
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Algester, Qld
    Posts
    8,181
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Well Ruck Me.

    Quote Originally Posted by bulldogtragic View Post
    And there wasn't a shortage of rucks changing clubs either. We cut Roughy (Collingwood) & Campbell (North), and others changing clubs included Lycett, Hickey, Pruess, Lobb, Mumford (returned), Clarke (returned). It seems we were happy to lose two rucks and not chase the sizeable number of rucks up for grabs (yes, some were destined to go to some specific clubs). Clearly the club still things rucks are overrated, they knew Tom's back is bad and grabbed a kid whose currently half way through his first afl preseason. So if something happens to English and/or Trengove, then Sweet is playing a fair bit of footy with Dunkley/Jong/Bonts helping out. We seem light on, but it's by design. If Bevo won't play them, I guess why recruit them?
    Our ruck depth (lack thereof) is the main reason why I'm a little sanguine about our prospect this year. We are already likely down Boyd for sometime, and that leaves an inexperienced English to carry the load,with an undersized Trengove and inexperienced Schache as support. With untried Sweet in reserve.
    It leaves us very exposed, both ruck wise, but also the knock on effect if say English gets injured and we have to improvise and shuffle players around the field.

    If Schache, for example has to play significant ruck minutes, then we are down a key forward, and also Schache ain't no killer in the ruck. So we effectively weaken two lines.
    I hope English and Trengove play 22 rounds of footy each, but I don't think that is a statistical likelihood, especially with our recent track record in keeping a healthy list.

  7. #397
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wherever the dogs are playing
    Posts
    60,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Well Ruck Me.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Adelaide Connection View Post
    I watched the GWS prelim a week ago and something I hadn’t noticed was the way Roughead kept jumping over Mumford and, where necessary, was matching him for strength.

    I had a really big sinking feeling. Was Rough just another of our 2016 group who was well down, but (with a bit of injury luck in his case) could really surprise? I would love to see him do well, but it will bloody hard to take watching him do it for Collingwood whilst we likely struggle to compete in this area for another 12 months.

    I think we should have definitely done more to keep him and had we known that we could have got Khamis with a Cat B spot we would have kept Rough and taken Hayes with a rookie spot.
    I for one was not happy to see Roughead go, especially since we have a dearth of experienced ruckman. One thing I can say, there were a majority of posters on this board happy to see Roughead leave. With Campbell also leaving, that has left the cupboard a little bare.

    As for the rules, well, 6.6.6 will prove nothing and won't change a thing - waste of time rule.

    Grabbing the ball out of the ruck around the ground will take us back to the old days when Darcy was the master at it. It will have a big impact on the game, and the ruckman that can perfect it will give his team first use of the ball.
    FFC: Established 1883

    Premierships: AFL 1954, 2016 VFA - 1898,99,1900, 1908, 1913, 1919-20, 1923-24, VFL: 2014, 2016 . Champions of Victoria 1924. AFLW - 2018.

  8. #398
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    8,896
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Well Ruck Me.

    Max Gawn will kick 15 goals from forward 50 stoppages alone thanks to these new rules.
    - I'm a visionary - Only here to confirm my biases -

  9. #399
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Doglands
    Posts
    39,486
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Well Ruck Me.

    Quote Originally Posted by bulldogtragic View Post
    And there wasn't a shortage of rucks changing clubs either. We cut Roughy (Collingwood) & Campbell (North), and others changing clubs included Lycett, Hickey, Pruess, Lobb, Mumford (returned), Clarke (returned). It seems we were happy to lose two rucks and not chase the sizeable number of rucks up for grabs (yes, some were destined to go to some specific clubs). Clearly the club still things rucks are overrated, they knew Tom's back is bad and grabbed a kid whose currently half way through his first afl preseason. So if something happens to English and/or Trengove, then Sweet is playing a fair bit of footy with Dunkley/Jong/Bonts helping out. We seem light on, but it's by design. If Bevo won't play them, I guess why recruit them?
    I would have thought the list management decisions should be somewhat different from what the coach wants if as a club they think he has got it wrong.

    We need to be evaluating the way the game is heading and recruit players that fit those requirements.
    Given the concerns with Boyds back we probably should have positioned ourselves for a trade or looked at the way Essendon grabbed Clarke.

    If we struggle due to injuries with ruckman does Bevo or the recruitment team get a pass because of bad luck or should they be held to not addressing the lack of depth.

    Even if Boyd is fit enough I think we just have it covered and lack some depth. Without him though it will require some luck.
    Western Bulldogs Football Club "Where it's cool to drool"

  10. #400
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    32,301
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Well Ruck Me.

    Quote Originally Posted by GVGjr View Post
    I would have thought the list management decisions should be somewhat different from what the coach wants if as a club they think he has got it wrong.

    We need to be evaluating the way the game is heading and recruit players that fit those requirements.
    Given the concerns with Boyds back we probably should have positioned ourselves for a trade or looked at the way Essendon grabbed Clarke.

    If we struggle due to injuries with ruckman does Bevo or the recruitment team get a pass because of bad luck or should they be held to not addressing the lack of depth.

    Even if Boyd is fit enough I think we just have it covered and lack some depth. Without him though it will require some luck.
    We agree on this issue 100%. Cutting two rucks, replacing one spot with an untried state leaguer seemed at the time unders for balance. Knowing Boyd's back was looking bad underscored the situation/decision. If it backfires and costs us games (or Bnts/Dunk's/Jong get badly injured) this year then if expect Bains to jump in and identify the cause specifically (Bevo/Power) and straighten things out. This thread is many years old and the needle hasn't moved, obviously by design. I recall an interview where Dalrymple mentioned he, JMac & Bevo would discuss the need for rucks going forward if/when boundary throw ins were eliminated. But that looks no closer to eventuating, so it surely cant explain why Roughy/Campbell went out and Sweet came in and knowing Boyd was not looking good. I'm still not sold Bevo has this view on rucks (or lack of key forwards) right. Time will tell eventually, but there's a lot of risk when we get all our bad luck (aka injuries). God forbid English requests a trade and then what?

    As to the direct Bevo/Power thing, I'm not sure how that plays. I've got no idea how it works, but if Power was to hypothetically say to Bevo he's grabbing a Pruess/Hickey sort (then getting free agency compo from WCE in the Hickey one) and Bevo says 'great, they're playing at Footscray so another VFL premiership will be nice'... What does he do? Presumably he cut Roughy & Campbell because retaining them meant them playing VFL too because they wouldn't be selected no matter how dominant they performed. This predates Sam Power though. Maybe, or maybe not, it's an ingrained thing now.
    Rocket Science: the epitaph for the Beveridge era - whenever it ends - reading 'Here lies a team that could beat anyone on its day, but seldom did when it mattered most'. 15/7/2023

  11. #401
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    West of somewhere.
    Posts
    6,147
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Well Ruck Me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Days View Post
    Max Gawn will kick 15 goals from forward 50 stoppages alone thanks to these new rules.
    Want to bet?
    What should I tell her? She's going to ask.

  12. #402
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    West of somewhere.
    Posts
    6,147
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Well Ruck Me.

    Quote Originally Posted by GVGjr View Post
    I read an and article on the weekend debating the new rules of six , six and six and how it is perceived that there will be a bigger advantage to dominant ruckman as teams won’t be able to flood back like they have been at the centre square ball ups.
    Has there also been a change allowing ruckman to grab the ball in the air without it being given a ‘prior’ adjudication?
    Pretty sure the 'prior opportunity' rule doesn't apply at CBD's. If you take it out of the air at a CBD and are tackled, that's holding the ball. Around the ground the rule has changed though.

    So strange. It wasn't long ago everyone was insisting that 6-6-6 wouldn't make any difference at all...now apparently it is going to be a HUGE advantage to any team rolling out Max Gawn? I just don't see it. It will create SOME space down back but that space is better for creating 1-v-1 contests - not 'down the throat' passes...the ball just doesn't exit CBD's like that. And a 1-v-1 contest is still a contest and we should be pretty bullish about that given the quality of our defenders in that sort of scenario...
    What should I tell her? She's going to ask.

  13. #403
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    8,896
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Well Ruck Me.

    Quote Originally Posted by mjp View Post
    Want to bet?
    Well - yeah?

    There's no threat of punishment by doing it now so why wouldn't he try to do it and do it often? It's about as clean a look from a forward pocket boundary throw in as you'd get on average.
    - I'm a visionary - Only here to confirm my biases -

  14. #404
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Doglands
    Posts
    39,486
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Well Ruck Me.

    Quote Originally Posted by mjp View Post
    Pretty sure the 'prior opportunity' rule doesn't apply at CBD's. If you take it out of the air at a CBD and are tackled, that's holding the ball. Around the ground the rule has changed though.

    So strange. It wasn't long ago everyone was insisting that 6-6-6 wouldn't make any difference at all...now apparently it is going to be a HUGE advantage to any team rolling out Max Gawn? I just don't see it. It will create SOME space down back but that space is better for creating 1-v-1 contests - not 'down the throat' passes...the ball just doesn't exit CBD's like that. And a 1-v-1 contest is still a contest and we should be pretty bullish about that given the quality of our defenders in that sort of scenario...
    Thanks for the explanation. I'll be interested to see how the six, six, six rule plays out and if we have read it right with our approach to the ruck position. I wonder if it will also expose the defenders to the more one in one contests as yiu have indicated?
    Western Bulldogs Football Club "Where it's cool to drool"

  15. #405
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Doglands
    Posts
    39,486
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Well Ruck Me.

    Quote Originally Posted by bulldogtragic View Post
    We agree on this issue 100%. Cutting two rucks, replacing one spot with an untried state leaguer seemed at the time unders for balance. Knowing Boyd's back was looking bad underscored the situation/decision. If it backfires and costs us games (or Bnts/Dunk's/Jong get badly injured) this year then if expect Bains to jump in and identify the cause specifically (Bevo/Power) and straighten things out. This thread is many years old and the needle hasn't moved, obviously by design. I recall an interview where Dalrymple mentioned he, JMac & Bevo would discuss the need for rucks going forward if/when boundary throw ins were eliminated. But that looks no closer to eventuating, so it surely cant explain why Roughy/Campbell went out and Sweet came in and knowing Boyd was not looking good. I'm still not sold Bevo has this view on rucks (or lack of key forwards) right. Time will tell eventually, but there's a lot of risk when we get all our bad luck (aka injuries). God forbid English requests a trade and then what?

    As to the direct Bevo/Power thing, I'm not sure how that plays. I've got no idea how it works, but if Power was to hypothetically say to Bevo he's grabbing a Pruess/Hickey sort (then getting free agency compo from WCE in the Hickey one) and Bevo says 'great, they're playing at Footscray so another VFL premiership will be nice'... What does he do? Presumably he cut Roughy & Campbell because retaining them meant them playing VFL too because they wouldn't be selected no matter how dominant they performed. This predates Sam Power though. Maybe, or maybe not, it's an ingrained thing now.
    This is not a crack at Bevo but perhaps coaches have too much say in recruitment. Sure all coaches need to be involved in the discussion but maybe they shouldn't have that much of a say. I think most coaches get their way with trades but probably not at the draft table.
    Western Bulldogs Football Club "Where it's cool to drool"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •