Sweet Jesus: Should Jordan Sweet be our first ruck?

[Danjul]

Re: Sweet Jesus: Should Jordan Sweet be our first ruck?

Look, it's hard to engage seriously with the topic. The best evidence we have for why Sweet, who there's not much evdience of him being a better tap ruckman than English, should be our ruckman is really just vibes. But there are few posters who are really frustrated with English that are looking for any possible alternative when the evidence we have now is that there just isn't one.

I don't mean to shield English from criticism. The last two games I've watched (Port and GC) he has been objectively poor and beaten. But the game I didn't watch both coaching groups had him as our most influential player. How are we meant to accept losing that because of a few random statistics? Okay we won more with Sweet in the team in 2021 or whatever but the VFL team is 4-6 with him in it so maybe we can accept he just come to terms with the idea it's maybe not the driving force behind those wins? Maybe we have to at a certain point realise the team and the game changes every year and just trying to replicate a specific aspect of a specific period of time where we were doing quite well is not the instant ticket to success it's hyped up to be?

I wonder if part of this specific issue people have with English is that it's much easier to compare him to the opposition ruckman as opposed to say two mids or two forwards? It's the only real position left where you can point to a clear and constant contest between two players that doesn't' switch around. If such clear comparisons were available for more players on the list I wonder how much we'd criticise them? What would Bont's opponents stat sheets look like over the last month compared to him? I daresay it wouldn't be that great.

I think you are grossly misrepresenting the issue and what some people are saying.

It is not to replace English or limit him in any way. Or criticising him in any way.

English is fantastic and was always expected to be that way.

The only question is could Sweet or anyone else improve our recent performance by helping English. Would having the option to move English forward in any of the last 3 losses have given us a win, almost guaranteeing a finals berth? Some think yes.

It is not about English, it is about the team, its success and the club.

Recently English and Naughton hit heads, just in front of me. Naughton came off worse. If English had what was our backup for the rest of the game? Nothing.

[GVGjr]

Re: Sweet Jesus: Should Jordan Sweet be our first ruck?

Recently English and Naughton hit heads, just in front of me. Naughton came off worse. If English had what was our backup for the rest of the game? Nothing.

Isn't that the game where English was concussed and then missed 5 or 6 weeks? I thought Naughton kneed him in the head.
Stef Martin filled in on a few of those weeks.

[GVGjr]

Re: Sweet Jesus: Should Jordan Sweet be our first ruck?

All, unless people feel strongly that the thread remain open I intend to close it later today. Feel free to message me if you feel it should remain open. Happy to hear suggestions on that.

It's a topic that has been widely discussed on the forum for a while now and I thought isolating it to one thread giving people the option to ignore it might have been a benefit but I'm having 2nd thoughts now.

I'll give people a few hours to contact me if they're so inclined.

[Rocco Jones]

Re: Sweet Jesus: Should Jordan Sweet be our first ruck?

All, unless people feel strongly that the thread remain open I intend to close it later today. Feel free to message me if you feel it should remain open. Happy to hear suggestions on that.

It's a topic that has been widely discussed on the forum for a while now and I thought isolating it to one thread giving people the option to ignore it might have been a benefit but I'm having 2nd thoughts now.

I'll give people a few hours to contact me if they're so inclined.

Before this thread, 21 of the last 24 MC thread replies mentioned Sweet.

Since this thread, the last 13 have not mentioned Sweet.

For those that have seen The Wire, this is like Hamsterdam.

[Danjul]

Re: Sweet Jesus: Should Jordan Sweet be our first ruck?

Isn't that the game where English was concussed and then missed 5 or 6 weeks? I thought Naughton kneed him in the head.
Stef Martin filled in on a few of those weeks.

No, this happened in the last few weeks.

English ran off to follow the play but Naughton stood still for what seemed like a couple of minutes holding his head.

[Rocco Jones]

Re: Sweet Jesus: Should Jordan Sweet be our first ruck?

In all seriousness, this is going around in circles. No one's fault really. I did start the thread somewhat as a joke, but at all sides, including me. It's occupying the MC thread and at least here, you have a buy in option. Totally get GVG closing it though.

The way I see the ongoing discussion, in the most basic of all terms...

Those that want Sweet in= forget any stats that are contrary, we are performing below expectations and we can't judge Sweet until he plays AFL for a consistent duration. We won whilst he was in the side.

Those that don't want Sweet in= English is the best around the ground ruck in the AFL. Despite issues with his tapwork, he has the 5th highest hitouts to advantage. Despite Sweet being seen as a big upgrade in regards to his tapwork, he has lost the vast majority of hitout contests against AFL listed ruckmen. The counter argument to giving him a try is how much we'd lose with English out of the ruck + you can go with give them a go for any player.

Really it comes down to so much (perceived?) subjectivity that it's a massive cycle.

[hujsh]

Re: Sweet Jesus: Should Jordan Sweet be our first ruck?

I think you are grossly misrepresenting the issue and what some people are saying.

It is not to replace English or limit him in any way. Or criticising him in any way.

English is fantastic and was always expected to be that way.

The only question is could Sweet or anyone else improve our recent performance by helping English. Would having the option to move English forward in any of the last 3 losses have given us a win, almost guaranteeing a finals berth? Some think yes.

It is not about English, it is about the team, its success and the club.

Recently English and Naughton hit heads, just in front of me. Naughton came off worse. If English had what was our backup for the rest of the game? Nothing.

First of all misrepresenting implies something deliberate or malicious on my part. This is not the case. It's possible I misunderstand though.

That said I'm not sure your response really makes me feel like I do. Maybe to say you're frustrated with English is wrong but given you've mentioned a few times the number of center clearance goals maybe it's more accurate to say you're frustrated with Bevo and his choice to stick with English in the centre square even when he's having a down day?

Personally, while it would be great to have Sweet as a 2nd sub we can bring into the game in that situation, we don't have the luxury of carrying a second pure ruck in the team who can't compete elsewhere.

I'll admit I'm frustrated with English at times. Maybe, just maybe, it would have been worth rucking Lobb more last week since neither player was really doing much in their preferred position and that might have helped both get involved in the game in different ways.

I don't think we'll see that though as once gameday comes around our approach seems to be to 'back in' the players in their given roles (with the exception of who we sub out)'

That said I don't see what the point would be of moving English forward against Geelong when he was our BOG. It really seems like that game was lost by not kicking straight. Port and GC though? Yeah change things up if you can, but the only realistic change in game is moving Lobb.

[Sedat]

Re: Sweet Jesus: Should Jordan Sweet be our first ruck?

First of all misrepresenting implies something deliberate or malicious on my part. This is not the case. It's possible I misunderstand though.

That said I'm not sure your response really makes me feel like I do. Maybe to say you're frustrated with English is wrong but given you've mentioned a few times the number of center clearance goals maybe it's more accurate to say you're frustrated with Bevo and his choice to stick with English in the centre square even when he's having a down day?

Personally, while it would be great to have Sweet as a 2nd sub we can bring into the game in that situation, we don't have the luxury of carrying a second pure ruck in the team who can't compete elsewhere.

I'll admit I'm frustrated with English at times. Maybe, just maybe, it would have been worth rucking Lobb more last week since neither player was really doing much in their preferred position and that might have helped both get involved in the game in different ways.

I don't think we'll see that though as once gameday comes around our approach seems to be to 'back in' the players in their given roles (with the exception of who we sub out)'

That said I don't see what the point would be of moving English forward against Geelong when he was our BOG. It really seems like that game was lost by not kicking straight. Port and GC though? Yeah change things up if you can, but the only realistic change in game is moving Lobb.

Full disclosure - I'm about to move in wild hypothesis mode that has no relevance whatsoever on this thread topic and no bearing whatsoever on our current structure and future success.

But what if we asked the wrong question in the off-season last year by getting a perfectly adequate (good to very good if I'm being super generous) established 2nd ruck/forward instead of acknowledging we already have an absolutely elite 2nd ruck/forward who is superior in every way to the perfectly adequate 2nd ruck/forward we used valuable draft pick/salary currency on. And instead we asked a different question and used our valuable draft pick/salary currency on an established, well-credentialed elite 1st ruck who could share a far more impactful balance of the ruck/forward duties in tandem with English? That's not to say anything about using our brand new perfectly adequate 2nd ruck/forward as a 7 possession a game wingman in the last few weeks.

I can't think of whether or not there was such an established, well-credentialed elite 1st ruck available in the trade period last year.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: Sweet Jesus: Should Jordan Sweet be our first ruck?

Full disclosure - I'm about to move in wild hypothesis mode that has no relevance whatsoever on this thread topic and no bearing whatsoever on our current structure and future success.

But what if we asked the wrong question in the off-season last year by getting a perfectly adequate (good to very good if I'm being super generous) established 2nd ruck/forward instead of acknowledging we already have an absolutely elite 2nd ruck/forward who is superior in every way to the perfectly adequate 2nd ruck/forward we used valuable draft pick/salary currency on. And instead we asked a different question and used our valuable draft pick/salary currency on an established, well-credentialed elite 1st ruck who could share a far more impactful balance of the ruck/forward duties in tandem with English? That's not to say anything about using our brand new perfectly adequate 2nd ruck/forward as a 7 possession a game wingman in the last few weeks.

I can't think of whether or not there was such an established, well-credentialed elite 1st ruck available in the trade period last year.

This is the view I share.

English as a first ruck? Pass.

English as a second ruck/forward? There is no better.

Sadly we didn't even entertain your idea and instead went with Lobb. In hindsight, Cox would have been a better bet than Lobb 2 years ago, and would have cost a lot less.

[Danjul]

Re: Sweet Jesus: Should Jordan Sweet be our first ruck?

First of all misrepresenting implies something deliberate or malicious on my part. This is not the case. It's possible I misunderstand though.

That said I'm not sure your response really makes me feel like I do. Maybe to say you're frustrated with English is wrong but given you've mentioned a few times the number of center clearance goals maybe it's more accurate to say you're frustrated with Bevo and his choice to stick with English in the centre square even when he's having a down day?

Personally, while it would be great to have Sweet as a 2nd sub we can bring into the game in that situation, we don't have the luxury of carrying a second pure ruck in the team who can't compete elsewhere.

I'll admit I'm frustrated with English at times. Maybe, just maybe, it would have been worth rucking Lobb more last week since neither player was really doing much in their preferred position and that might have helped both get involved in the game in different ways.

I don't think we'll see that though as once gameday comes around our approach seems to be to 'back in' the players in their given roles (with the exception of who we sub out)'

That said I don't see what the point would be of moving English forward against Geelong when he was our BOG. It really seems like that game was lost by not kicking straight. Port and GC though? Yeah change things up if you can, but the only realistic change in game is moving Lobb.

Didn?t mean malicious, meant incorrect. Sorry for any offence.

[Rocco Jones]

Re: Sweet Jesus: Should Jordan Sweet be our first ruck?

Full disclosure - I'm about to move in wild hypothesis mode that has no relevance whatsoever on this thread topic and no bearing whatsoever on our current structure and future success.

But what if we asked the wrong question in the off-season last year by getting a perfectly adequate (good to very good if I'm being super generous) established 2nd ruck/forward instead of acknowledging we already have an absolutely elite 2nd ruck/forward who is superior in every way to the perfectly adequate 2nd ruck/forward we used valuable draft pick/salary currency on. And instead we asked a different question and used our valuable draft pick/salary currency on an established, well-credentialed elite 1st ruck who could share a far more impactful balance of the ruck/forward duties in tandem with English? That's not to say anything about using our brand new perfectly adequate 2nd ruck/forward as a 7 possession a game wingman in the last few weeks.

I can't think of whether or not there was such an established, well-credentialed elite 1st ruck available in the trade period last year.

I agree with this.

Players who suit mainly playing KPF, ruck relief role are so rare too, so we really went out of our way to get Lobb. I say out of our way, the Lobb get was (or should have been) as targeted a get as they come.

Lobb, Finlayson and Thilthrope are the only players who come to mind who seem to benefit from the predominately forward/rest the main ruck type role. Cox was mentioned. I see him more suited to sharing the ruck role in an even spilt. Cameron pretty suited to it as well, so a good combo.

[hujsh]

Re: Sweet Jesus: Should Jordan Sweet be our first ruck?

Didn?t mean malicious, meant incorrect. Sorry for any offence.

All good just getting on the same page. A constant fight with text based communication

[hujsh]

Re: Sweet Jesus: Should Jordan Sweet be our first ruck?

Full disclosure - I'm about to move in wild hypothesis mode that has no relevance whatsoever on this thread topic and no bearing whatsoever on our current structure and future success.

But what if we asked the wrong question in the off-season last year by getting a perfectly adequate (good to very good if I'm being super generous) established 2nd ruck/forward instead of acknowledging we already have an absolutely elite 2nd ruck/forward who is superior in every way to the perfectly adequate 2nd ruck/forward we used valuable draft pick/salary currency on. And instead we asked a different question and used our valuable draft pick/salary currency on an established, well-credentialed elite 1st ruck who could share a far more impactful balance of the ruck/forward duties in tandem with English? That's not to say anything about using our brand new perfectly adequate 2nd ruck/forward as a 7 possession a game wingman in the last few weeks.

I can't think of whether or not there was such an established, well-credentialed elite 1st ruck available in the trade period last year.

You might be right. But we can't go back in time and change that. The question now is what, if anything, do we do with the list we have.

[Rocco Jones]

Re: Sweet Jesus: Should Jordan Sweet be our first ruck?

I must say before looking into it I was probably more into Sweet getting a go but the further I have looked into, I really don't rate Sweet anything more than an okay back up ruck. That's not to say we shouldn't target a ruck and I think we have stuffed up list management wise but IMO Sweet is a break glass in case of emergency option.

I think the belief he is a good tap ruckmen is largely a myth. He loses the majority of hitout contests when up against AFL listed rucks in the VFL. If you are a keener VFL watcher than I, please correct me if I am wrong. English as R1 is definitely not my hill to die on.

[Rocco Jones]

Re: Sweet Jesus: Should Jordan Sweet be our first ruck?

FWIW I think relative to the extreme toxicity that is the internet, these discussions are very civil.