Round #2 Match Committee

[soupman]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

Yet as a team we scored more goals with Will averaging close to 1 goal a game.

So are you suggesting we drop Hall and go back to our midget forwardline? Adding Minson doesn't automatically make us average more goals.

There is an old adage that the speedsters may slow but the talls don't get shorter.

The issue here is that by the time the sppedsters have slown and the talls haven't shrunk the talls are too buggered from chasing the smalls and the game is over anyway. Besides the opposition are too busy playing possession footy in their back half.

[Mantis]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

I see them as playing more game time and resting forward to allow the midfield rotations to have priority.

You still need to have some effect on the game and I can't see wither Will or Huddo being effective up forward against decent opposition.

Yet as a team we scored more goals with Will averaging close to 1 goal a game.

I would think that would have more to do with the support cast on offer.

This may be valid, but a good defensive minded forward is of limited value if the ball does not get in to the forward 50.

It simply needs better ball use so that we hit targets and then the defensive part is less important.

I understand that the game has moved on with forward pressure now being the catch cry.
The introduction of the sub is designed to slow the game down and the runners will suffer.

There is an old adage that the speedsters may slow but the talls don't get shorter.

Instead of copying everyone else, we need to use our resources most effectively and that includes 2 real ruckmen.

We actually have 5 in various stages of development.

It's going to be interseting how it plays out, but at present I don't see the value in playing Huddo & Will in the same team - you obviously do and that's fine. I guess we can will just wait and see what the MC come up with as the model that was on offer on Sunday isn't going to work, but we do have some options (many of which have been discussed here) so hopefully the MC make the correct call.

[mjp]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

In fact if we are to go with the fantasy of one ruckman it should be Minson who actually takes more marks than Hudson, despite the negativity about Will's hands.

Are you seriously suggesting Minson plays ahead of Hudson and using a stat saying that Minson takes .1 of a mark less per game than Hudson to support the argument?

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

Are you seriously suggesting Minson plays ahead of Hudson and using a stat saying that Minson takes .1 of a mark less per game than Hudson to support the argument?

Yes I am serious if we are only to play one ruckman.

My observation is that Hudson fatigues more than Minson and I do recall Minson doing quite well on the occasions he has carried the ruck.

I rate Hudson as a better clearance player himself, but Minson is equally proficient around the ground.

I just don't see Hudson as being able to carry the workload for as long as Minson.

Since he has been at the Dogs Huddo has been less effective late in the season and this will not be improved by running him into the ground as the sole ruckman.

I have stated my preference is to see both playing.

Incidentally the stats were an afterthought. Across their careers it is very close, but if we go back to 2009 Will took an extra mark per game compared to Hudson. He also contributed 35 goals in the 2 years pre Barry Hall while sharing the ruck duties with Hudson and racking very similar numbers in all other areas.

2010 was a write off for Will with illness and injury and Hudson had probably the best year of his career. But it is only 2010 that would have Hudson clearly ahead. There is much more upside to Will than Huddo on 2010 form.

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

You still need to have some effect on the game and I can't see wither Will or Huddo being effective up forward against decent opposition.

As I have quoted elsewhere Will as a forward was not that bad, and if the price of having a second ruck is to settle for the level of contribution he previously provided,I see that as a reasonable balance.

I would think that would have more to do with the support cast on offer.

Yes I concede that the support cast was much poorer in 2010 when Barry arrived and we saw the demise of Aker and Johnson

It's going to be interesting how it plays out, but at present I don't see the value in playing Huddo & Will in the same team - you obviously do and that's fine. I guess we can will just wait and see what the MC come up with as the model that was on offer on Sunday isn't going to work, but we do have some options (many of which have been discussed here) so hopefully the MC make the correct call.

I guess we can agree to disagree, at least until we seem some evidence supporting either viewpoint.

The evidence from round 1 certainly does not support the 1 ruckman view.

Incidentally, if you look at the round 1 results from all games, the trend seemed to be that the team with the better of the rucks finished the stronger.
Carlton over Richmond
Geelong over St Kilda
Sandilands over Brisbane
Adelaide over Hawthorn (McKernan was impressive)
Essendon over us
Dean Cox over North Melbourne
I did not see any of the Sydney Melb game so unsure on that one.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

Hacks to be used when nobody else is available
1. Djerrkura, Nathan
2. Moles, Brodie
3. Sherman, Justin
4. Addison, Dylan

I just got back from the AFL rain-shadow that is NSW, and this comment was one of the first I was confronted with. Given Addison's reverence on WOOF, I was surprised that no one objected (besides a few replies of bemusement to the post in general).

And while I probably wouldn't go as far as calling Addison a hack, I agree, Mr. Cuming that Addison should only play when our best 22 isn't available.

Out: Wood, Jones
In: Minson, Veszpremi

[LostDoggy]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

Also can we suggest that Huddo's poor game was as a direct result of the increased time on the ground because from memory his normal game time last year was around 65-70%?

Much to think about for our MC.[/QUOTE]

I think this point is the interesting one becasue the 2nd Ruck question is not just about the performance of the player we select there, it is really about team balance. The positive impacts of selecting a specialist ruck are not just about what they bring themselves but how they help the team and effect the opposition.

If we play a second specialist ruck, we allow Hudson to reduce his game time which may improve his ability to compete at a high intensity at stoppages. The ongoing presence of a specialist ruck should allow us to perform better at stoppages in general increasing our supply of atacking ball and reducing our load in defensive running. Generally you would expect that a midfielder defending will cover more ground then the attacking player. With improved clearance performance the we will therefore increase the fatigue in the opposition through an increase in their own defensive running.

The selection of the second ruck also means that the opposition do not get a break from big bruising guys bashing into them at every stoppage (more Minson then Roughead in mind here). Players don't just tire from running around, frequent heavy impacts and having to wrestle for the ball are likely to greatly increase the fatigue of opposition players. Again having big aggresive specialist Rucks at stpppages reduces the heavy lifting required from our other players.

So while the seond ruck does not add run based on his own input if used effectively he improves the run left in our other players and reduces it in the opposition. It is this aspect that I feel many commentators miss when looking at the second ruck queston.

Of course if we you dont rate either Minson or Roughead as rucks then the above is null and void. But if you look at our performance over the last few years I think you will find that games where we played two specialist Rucks will show a distinct improvement in clearances.

[EasternWest]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

I just got back from the AFL rain-shadow that is NSW, and this comment was one of the first I was confronted with. Given Addison's reverence on WOOF, I was surprised that no one objected (besides a few replies of bemusement to the post in general).

And while I probably wouldn't go as far as calling Addison a hack, I agree, Mr. Cuming that Addison should only play when our best 22 isn't available.

Out: Wood, Jones
In: Minson, Veszpremi

I'm not sure "Addison reverence" is correct. I think most people take offense when a player is dismissed as a hack, when they're clearly not.

As to whether he's a best 22 player, maybe maybe not, so I don't think you're incorrect. But hack he is not.

As for no reactions to JC's post, well, he's an entertaining lunatic who occasionally speaks sense. I think he's to be encouraged.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

I just got back from the AFL rain-shadow that is NSW, and this comment was one of the first I was confronted with. Given Addison's reverence on WOOF, I was surprised that no one objected (besides a few replies of bemusement to the post in general).

And while I probably wouldn't go as far as calling Addison a hack, I agree, Mr. Cuming that Addison should only play when our best 22 isn't available.

Out: Wood, Jones
In: Minson, Veszpremi

James Cumming isn't a real poster. He's just another character of Rocco Jones like Igor was.

No-one really thinks the stuff James posts.


It's a joke, Joyce.

[the banker]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

I think we have to manage Hudson. He is very old school in style but is a fantatsic competitor and much the gel of the team. As Roughead may need to get into the season a bit we need Will in the team, but we should be developing Jones. Jones may have to keep developing at Willi for the first part of the season until Roughie fires up....Will gets his chance, Grant to CHF (not keen on him getting a lot of attention and having to pack mark) Vespa in to a pocket. Lake in the shaggy role appeals.

Lake Markovic Picken
Morris Williams Murphy
Sherman Boyd Ward
Gia Grant Hill
Vespa Hall Higgins

Hudson Cooney Griffen (Stack sub?)


Murphy/Hill interchange

Cross Minson Libba

[Rocco Jones]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

Who does Barlow replace?

Barlow is that he is so 'versatile' (a fine line between that and equally crap everyone) he can practically replace anyone without really needing to change the structure.

FWIW I would replace him with either DJ or Jones. I would probably keep Jones due to his upside.

With this in mind how do you see our forward-lne structuring up then?

And do you want Addison to lock down on the oppositions best rebounder like he did in the finals or just play as a battering ram/ tackler to hold the ball in?

I have my belief on modern day 'forward lines'. If you're not very dangerous in a scoring sense you must be a defensive forward. The role depends on Picken for mine. If the opposition's best rebounder is more dangerous than their best outsider than I would have Picken on them with Addison as the battering ram you mentioned. If the outsider is most dangerous than I would have DFA on the rebounder if that makes sense.

James Cumming isn't a real poster. He's just another character of Rocco Jones like Igor was.
.

I wish
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just on the 2nd ruck issue. With the new sub rule, players have to pick up about 5% TOG to make up the slack and it seems like ruckmen are going to take more than their even share due to their ability to offer impact whilst being fatigued.

Mantis mentioned Hudson having 80% TOG, pretty much all of that in the ruck. If Minson is to play he will need to spend at least half the game in the forward like, that's about 2/3'S of his total time on ground.

So let's look at it. Others have mentioned Will is a better forward than our other options are as rucks. I don't believe that to be true but even if it is, the 2nd ruck role involves twice as much TOG outside the ruck than it does actually in the ruck.

Do I think Minson is a much better ruckman than Barlow? Sure. Hell, I also think he is clearly a superior footballer but the modern game and the sub rule have bastardised the role to the extend that jack of all trades, clearly masters of none are a better option than Minson when he is paired up with another out and out ruckman.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

Are you seriously suggesting Minson plays ahead of Hudson and using a stat saying that Minson takes .1 of a mark less per game than Hudson to support the argument?

I might go in to bat for Bulldog Joe a bit here. Apologies in advance if I mis-interpret anyone...
If this year does end up going pear shaped and we move into development mode, then yes I would play Minson as first ruck with a view to retiring Hudson.

But as we are in Round 2, then obviously Hudson plays as he is our best ruckman atm. I am of the opinion though that as the year goes on, the gap between Hudson and Minson will close.

I agree with most that Minson and Hudson are similar players in that they are both specialist ruckman and ideally, Roughead plays as Number 2. But with Roughead's injury troubles, I would easily choose Minson over the likes of Barlow, Williams, Markovic and Skinner as Number 2. Put it this way, if another team was playing any of these guys as a ruckman, would you be rubbing your hands with glee and pointing to a probable game winning advantage? I know I would.

Moving forward to say next year, I would not keep both Minson and Hudson on the list. One has to go for team balance.

If Cordy develops like we hope, a Roughead / Cordy combination is a potential beauty. In this case, I would trade Minson and keep Hudson for one more year.
If Cordy still looks years away or potentially unable to be what we hope (a Clarke/Ryder type), then I would retire Hudson and keep Minson.

[Rocco Jones]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

Wow, funny the way this thread has gone.

After such a shocking performance, who would have imagined one of our most valuable players who actually was one of our best on Sunday would even be mentioned when it comes to the outs.

I totally believe that a lot of the issues Minson has with finding a role in the team are due to Hudson's limitations as they are both pure, out and out 1st ruck types. Thing is, Hudson is an elite pure ruckman and Will is average to poor/average.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

Wow, funny the way this thread has gone.

After such a shocking performance, who would have imagined one of our most valuable players who actually was one of our best on Sunday would even be mentioned when it comes to the outs.

I totally believe that a lot of the issues Minson has with finding a role in the team are due to Hudson's limitations as they are both pure, out and out 1st ruck types. Thing is, Hudson is an elite pure ruckman and Will is average to poor/average.

Just curious, which part of what I wrote do you disagree with? Or is it all of it?

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

Wow, funny the way this thread has gone.

After such a shocking performance, who would have imagined one of our most valuable players who actually was one of our best on Sunday would even be mentioned when it comes to the outs.

I totally believe that a lot of the issues Minson has with finding a role in the team are due to Hudson's limitations as they are both pure, out and out 1st ruck types. Thing is, Hudson is an elite pure ruckman and Will is average to poor/average.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Hudson should be an out.

He is a better player when he has good support in the ruck role, allowing him adequate respite and some assistance in wearing down his opponents.

You believe we can make do with one ruckman. I believe we can't and the only team that can is Freo with Sandilands and even he did not get through the season in 2010.

In round 1 the teams with the best rucks finished games better.

If you look at Carlton, Hampson who was hopeless most of the game provided some critical plays in the last quarter.

You don't rate Will, but his form was pretty good in tandem with Hudson in 08 and 09 while 2010 was a write off due to illness and injury.

With the sub rule midfielders will tire but Ruckman will not get shorter.