Team selection bias: One extra tall or one extra runner??

[Bornadog]

Rucks aren't talls.

Gardner is a key back who can play ruck (now). Crossley has no other position.

If you are picking an extra ruck who has no other position then that's a totally different scenario...you could select Gardner for 3rd tall defender + ruck support (if you wanted too) and that would be 'fine' (I probably wouldn't want to do it but you could). You couldn't get Crossley to do that...he is ruck or nothing.

If he is playing in the same team as (for example) Tim English then there is a plan for one of them to spend the majority of their time in a position that isn't ruck...

I don't think this is splitting atoms at all.

This is the issue with Sweet. He is a good tap ruckman, but around the ground he is not much chop. I think Crossley would be the same. At least Tim can either rest on the bench, or swap with Darcy for short periods as he has shown he has other abilities.

[Go_Dogs]

As far as the philosophy here, 10+ years ago I would’ve said tall players don’t get any shorter, but now the running demands are so high that you just need the coverage of an extra runner. I get that it will change depending on opposition, player fitness and availability etc but all things being equal, run run run.

[NAUGHTY100]

Rucks aren't talls.

Gardner is a key back who can play ruck (now). Crossley has no other position.

If you are picking an extra ruck who has no other position then that's a totally different scenario...you could select Gardner for 3rd tall defender + ruck support (if you wanted too) and that would be 'fine' (I probably wouldn't want to do it but you could). You couldn't get Crossley to do that...he is ruck or nothing.

If he is playing in the same team as (for example) Tim English then there is a plan for one of them to spend the majority of their time in a position that isn't ruck...

I don't think this is splitting atoms at all.

Ok i get your point about Crossley not being a tall , i grant you that , as far as he only has 1 position ruck , but im curious to know your opinion on if rucks are never talls ? (ie runners). You knowing the WA scene well , how do you see a guy like Dean Cox , who was a ruckman but collected 25 or more disposoles 5 times in 2007 and 7 times in 2008 , do you consider Cox a runner a tall or just a ruckman that isn't a tall?. Im not trying to pick an argument with you just like your opinion .

[mjp]

Ok i get your point about Crossley not being a tall , i grant you that , as far as he only has 1 position ruck , but im curious to know your opinion on if rucks are never talls ? (ie runners). You knowing the WA scene well , how do you see a guy like Dean Cox , who was a ruckman but collected 25 or more disposoles 5 times in 2007 and 7 times in 2008 , do you consider Cox a runner a tall or just a ruckman that isn't a tall?. Im not trying to pick an argument with you just like your opinion .

Cox is a ruckman. He's a specific type of ruckman but still a ruckman. It's not like if it wasn't working with him in the ruck that you could swing him to CHB to have a go at settling down Charlie Curnow.

- Tall - Capable of taking a mark and defending the high ball. Can positionally 'cover' as a back or forward the KP roles.
- Runner - Capable of playing a role in outside running positions - Wing, HB, HF.

I would even argue that if Liber is your 'extra', that's not helpful as he's a specialist inside mid and not really a 'runner'.

[NAUGHTY100]

Cox is a ruckman. He's a specific type of ruckman but still a ruckman. It's not like if it wasn't working with him in the ruck that you could swing him to CHB to have a go at settling down Charlie Curnow.

- Tall - Capable of taking a mark and defending the high ball. Can positionally 'cover' as a back or forward the KP roles.
- Runner - Capable of playing a role in outside running positions - Wing, HB, HF.

I would even argue that if Liber is your 'extra', that's not helpful as he's a specialist inside mid and not really a 'runner'.

Thank you mjp , you've obviously coached at high levels and know your stuff , and i appreciate you taking the time to answer that question about Cox , because just as an average supported i had a guy like Cox pinned as a ruckman yes but also a running tall , so thanx for clearing that up for me .

[Mofra]

This is the issue with Sweet. He is a good tap ruckman, but around the ground he is not much chop. I think Crossley would be the same. At least Tim can either rest on the bench, or swap with Darcy for short periods as he has shown he has other abilities.

I seem to remember him having a little bit of forward craft in his debut game years ago. He is certainly a no 1 ruck now though.

[Mofra]

As far as the philosophy here, 10+ years ago I would’ve said tall players don’t get any shorter, but now the running demands are so high that you just need the coverage of an extra runner. I get that it will change depending on opposition, player fitness and availability etc but all things being equal, run run run.

Spot on - IIRC the interchange cap wasn't in effect 10 years ago? That's changed the landscape a lot.

Rule changes have a dramatic effect on team make up and the types of players teams select. If you can't run, you can't play.

[AshMac]

As with anything hypothetical - it depends.

Assuming the opposition, conditions and overall team balance is considered I’d prefer an extra runner.

not an extra runner because they are a running - but a good tall player vs a good running player I’d take the runner.

i think our transition has been terrible more often than not over the last 2 years and the ability to break into space and create opportunity downstream without relying on a bit pack mark in our forward line would open up our game plan hugely.

assuming we still have the 3 back, 2-3 forward and the ruck I’d take a player that can open up the ply rather than a player that can dominate a contested mark between the two

[doggies ftw]

As with anything hypothetical - it depends.

Assuming the opposition, conditions and overall team balance is considered I’d prefer an extra runner.

not an extra runner because they are a running - but a good tall player vs a good running player I’d take the runner.

i think our transition has been terrible more often than not over the last 2 years and the ability to break into space and create opportunity downstream without relying on a bit pack mark in our forward line would open up our game plan hugely.

assuming we still have the 3 back, 2-3 forward and the ruck I’d take a player that can open up the ply rather than a player that can dominate a contested mark between the two

I wouldn’t say our transition is terrible, it’s just the way we setup our game IMO, we’re a big fwd half stoppage team who likes to push up the defence super high to clog the front half and keep the ball in for repeat entries. Basically all our scores come from stoppage, fwd half & CB barely none from def half but It makes it hard to transition the footy when most of the ground is already in our front half at all times - it also opens us up for a few of those dodgy over the back goals each week but for the most part it works hence our pts for/against tally last year.

We’re just never going to transition the footy like teams who set up to slingshot off half back because we have a completely different style of setting up the ground. To be honest I don’t necessarily agree with it, I think the make up of our team with strong marking athletic forwards and brilliant half backs would be quite powerful as a ‘slingshot’ team, but it’s not really Bevs go unfortunately and hasn’t been since maybe 2015.

Maybe with our recent obsession of athletic, hard running HFFs & genuine wingers we might be more equipped to open up the ground a bit more for a slingshot type offence. In a perfect world you perfect both styles right? When we’re trying to protect a lead and slow the game down revert to our stoppage based forward half press, when we need to score quickly and heavily open the ground up and slingshot off half back.