Always Right Match Committee Thread Round 20, Vs Brisbane

[bornadog]

The following players, played last time we beat Brisbane, but didn't play yesterday:

Billy Gowers
Fletcher Roberts
Lachie Young
Toby McLean
Will Hayes
Matthew Suckling

These players, played yesterday, but not against Brisbane last time:

Bailey Dale
Patrick Lipinski
Rhylee West
Taylor Duryea
Timothy English
Tory Dickson

The mix is interesting.
Schache will be available as will Toby Mclean. I can't see any of the players that played in round 8 other than Toby playing this week. I presume Suckling is still injured.

I think we need to look at matchups and then pick our best team.

[Danjul]

so Cordy will be on Hipwood.

It's nice not to have a big hulking tall to match up on but I just don't have total faith in Zaine at the moment, and Hipwood
might cause problems. We could use another defender like one of the Young's.


I thought we looked good early on when Morris was down back and Cordy went forward. He adds some grit up forward and provides a contest, giving Naughton some space to work as well.

I think Zaine just needs some confidence and some stints up forward might be the answer.

Cordy spent a lot of time on Hipwood at Ballarat and didn’t do well.

I think he looked much better on the forward line. He was mobile and the backmen had trouble moving with him and that opened up space for the other forwards. It was a good move that was long overdue.

[jeemak]

Schache copped his concussion in a marking contest, not the ruck.

Don't let the truth get in the way of a good old fashioned horse flogging soup......

[bornadog]

Schache copped his concussion in a marking contest, not the ruck.

Yep watch it here

[Danjul]

Don't let the truth get in the way of a good old fashioned horse flogging soup......

I assume that you are suggesting that my description is dishonest. Please give details of where it is wrong.

1. It occurred in the back pocket.
2. Schache was ruckman at the time.
3. He was not attempting to mark.
4. He was attempting to spoil.

If he hadn’t been involved Wood would’ve taken the mark.

Why can’t some people accept a simple truth.

[bornadog]

I assume that you are suggesting that my description is dishonest. Please give details of where it is wrong.

1. It occurred in the back pocket.
2. Schache was ruckman at the time.
3. He was not attempting to mark.
4. He was attempting to spoil.

If he hadn’t been involved Wood would’ve taken the mark.

Why can’t some people accept a simple truth.

Because you are inferring he should not be in the ruck (your pet topic )and the incident wouldn't have happened. You don't know that, the same thing could have happened in the forward line. That is footy.

[Danjul]

Because you are inferring he should not be in the ruck (your pet topic )and the incident wouldn't have happened. You don't know that, the same thing could have happened in the forward line. That is footy.

1. You are correct. I don’t think Schache should be used in the ruck. We have better options, people who are less likely to be injured there.

2. He has never displayed standard ruck craft that I have noticed.

3. The team has had no significant benefit from his 1 (average) hitout per game this year.

4. The team loses when he is taken from his role as a leading forward who converts well.

5. If the ball was coming into the forward line Schache would not have been throwing himself recklessly into spoil the pack. He might still have been injured but the probability of that would have been much less.

And I am glad that you set out to dismiss me rather than the facts I stated, because they are correct. Schache was the ruckman at the time of his injury.

[bornadog]

And I am glad that you set out to dismiss me rather than the facts I stated, because they are correct. Schache was the ruckman at the time of his injury.

Whether Schache was in the ruck or not, it is actually irrelevant to him getting concussion. He was in the act of spoiling a ball, he wasn't actually going up for the ruck.

[bornadog]

Back to the topic.

Mclean, Suckling and Schache are all available this week.

[soupman]

1. You are correct. I don’t think Schache should be used in the ruck. We have better options, people who are less likely to be injured there.

2. He has never displayed standard ruck craft that I have noticed.

3. The team has had no significant benefit from his 1 (average) hitout per game this year.

4. The team loses when he is taken from his role as a leading forward who converts well.

5. If the ball was coming into the forward line Schache would not have been throwing himself recklessly into spoil the pack. He might still have been injured but the probability of that would have been much less.

Points 2 and 3 are correct, to an extent. He is neither a natural ruckman nor one who overly benefits us with his ruckwork, however hi work when the ball hits the ground has been decent and his movement around the contest has on occasion been good.

As for point 1, we have few better options. English is, Sweet is but solely for the ruck contest, Trengove is, while Cordy, and Naughton are roughly on par. The only reason Schache could be possibly at greater risk of injury than any of them is because he is softer. He has all of them covered for height aside from Sweet and English, and is only lighter than Trengove and Sweet. So he is bigger than almost all the alternatives, and of the non specialist rucks is only worse than Trengove.

As for point 4, he is hardly the presence that Naughton is, and is hardly producing for all 25 minutes per quarter so it isn't as if we are sacrificing 5 minutes of scintillating forward play each quarter which is completely throwing out our system. Besides, your solutio which I assume is Sweet means we lose when he rests forward as a forward who neither leads nor converts well, and if the plan is to put English there then which tall comes out of the side? Schache does. So we lose our forward who leads and converts well anyway.

5 isn't even a point. What do you mean "if the ball was coming into the forward line"? The opposition is bound to get plenty of inside 50s and our players, including our forwards, will at times be caught in a position to have to come back and support. Besides clearly an area of focus for Schache has been to be more aggressive in aerial contests and if he can't mark the ball to kill it. That us exactly what he did in that scenario, and i would expect him to do the same thing anywhere else on the ground should the opportunity arise.

And I am glad that you set out to dismiss me rather than the facts I stated, because they are correct. Schache was the ruckman at the time of his injury.

Completely irrelevant. He is not copping injuries from ruck contests. He has copped one unfortunate landing from a marking contest.

Anyway it's a stupid thing to argue over because there is no chance Beveridge picks two ruckmen in a side. He has already shown he would rather have Josh Dunkley as second ruck than do so. The only way Sweet gets a game is if we play English forward, and the only way that is happening is if Schache isn't getting a game.

[Danjul]

Points 2 and 3 are correct, to an extent. He is neither a natural ruckman nor one who overly benefits us with his ruckwork, however hi work when the ball hits the ground has been decent and his movement around the contest has on occasion been good.

As for point 1, we have few better options. English is, Sweet is but solely for the ruck contest, Trengove is, while Cordy, and Naughton are roughly on par. The only reason Schache could be possibly at greater risk of injury than any of them is because he is softer. He has all of them covered for height aside from Sweet and English, and is only lighter than Trengove and Sweet. So he is bigger than almost all the alternatives, and of the non specialist rucks is only worse than Trengove.

As for point 4, he is hardly the presence that Naughton is, and is hardly producing for all 25 minutes per quarter so it isn't as if we are sacrificing 5 minutes of scintillating forward play each quarter which is completely throwing out our system. Besides, your solutio which I assume is Sweet means we lose when he rests forward as a forward who neither leads nor converts well, and if the plan is to put English there then which tall comes out of the side? Schache does. So we lose our forward who leads and converts well anyway.

5 isn't even a point. What do you mean "if the ball was coming into the forward line"? The opposition is bound to get plenty of inside 50s and our players, including our forwards, will at times be caught in a position to have to come back and support. Besides clearly an area of focus for Schache has been to be more aggressive in aerial contests and if he can't mark the ball to kill it. That us exactly what he did in that scenario, and i would expect him to do the same thing anywhere else on the ground should the opportunity arise.



Completely irrelevant. He is not copping injuries from ruck contests. He has copped one unfortunate landing from a marking contest.

Anyway it's a stupid thing to argue over because there is no chance Beveridge picks two ruckmen in a side. He has already shown he would rather have Josh Dunkley as second ruck than do so. The only way Sweet gets a game is if we play English forward, and the only way that is happening is if Schache isn't getting a game.

my original comment was:

Look what happened to Schache as a result of putting a young forward (non ruckman) in that role. I saw the risks highlighted in a thread earlier in the year. Naughton is better in the air but it’s a risk all the same.

No mention of Sweet. It is a reference to risk.

Ruckmen have a particular skill set, which includes remaining vertical. I don’t want to see Schache in the ruck until he understands that.

He has proven to be a liability when played in the ruck. as you say he is missing from his main role for 20% of the game for no return. And against St Kilda he left the team a player short for half a game.

A better option would be Cordy, plenty of favourable comments here about his ruck work. Particularly after the game against North.

And Schache was not trying to mark the ball. He was attempting to spoil, and he prevented an almost certain mark by Wood who had it covered. He did not understand the circumstances he found himself in. He was just trying to be aggressive and finished up being reckless. No real ruckman does that. Their attack on the contest is positive.

[Danjul]

Whether Schache was in the ruck or not, it is actually irrelevant to him getting concussion. He was in the act of spoiling a ball, he wasn't actually going up for the ruck.

Nobody said it was a ruck contest. Ruckmen do a lot more than that. He got concussion because he didn’t know how a ruckman plays on the backline. And I hope someone teaches him that part of the game before he makes the same mistake again.

[Rocket Science]

Back to the topic.

Mclean, Suckling and Schache are all available this week.

Sorry Suckers but we can't afford your schtick against the Lions, at home, and very much up and about.

It's going to be a high-energy tilt. That and the form of others makes him surplus to requirements just at the minute.

McLean plays, we'll need his cleverness. Schache plays with a plan. They're going to be right into him I reckon.

[GVGjr]

Would Fletcher Roberts be in a stronger position to replace Morris than Lewis Young?

[Ozza]

Can we talk more about the ruck. I’m not sure we have gotten everyone’s view on the ruck.