Playing the tall timber

[Saint wagga]

It was mentioned in the AFL 'in the mix' column that we could perhaps play the two young ruckmen, Longer and Hickey this week in the same team for the first time...I couldn't see this happening whilst Stanley was in the team, so i'm wondering if the coaches will save it for when Roo gets, needs a rest and Stanley would be the permanent forward...thoughts? I'd be pretty easy with any of the above scenarios given the need for experimentation/getting games into players...personally think that the more games Longer and Hickey get this season the better, don't really mind if the structure is a bit out...my philosophy on the youngsters who we think have the talent...games games games

[Milne]

We need run off the bench, not talls.

Longer has developed well. Time to go back to the magoos and build on his new found confidence.

[plugger66]

It was mentioned in the AFL 'in the mix' column that we could perhaps play the two young ruckmen, Longer and Hickey this week in the same team for the first time...I couldn't see this happening whilst Stanley was in the team, so i'm wondering if the coaches will save it for when Roo gets, needs a rest and Stanley would be the permanent forward...thoughts? I'd be pretty easy with any of the above scenarios given the need for experimentation/getting games into players...personally think that the more games Longer and Hickey get this season the better, don't really mind if the structure is a bit out...my philosophy on the youngsters who we think have the talent...games games games

Cant see how it works. neither ruckmen take enough marks around the ground which is far easier than up forward to be any benefit to the side at the moment. They need to learn to mark as forwards. Dont see why Rooy would need a rest anyway. he has the whole off season for that.

[Saint wagga]

It was mentioned in the AFL 'in the mix' column that we could perhaps play the two young ruckmen, Longer and Hickey this week in the same team for the first time...I couldn't see this happening whilst Stanley was in the team, so i'm wondering if the coaches will save it for when Roo gets, needs a rest and Stanley would be the permanent forward...thoughts? I'd be pretty easy with any of the above scenarios given the need for experimentation/getting games into players...personally think that the more games Longer and Hickey get this season the better, don't really mind if the structure is a bit out...my philosophy on the youngsters who we think have the talent...games games games

Cant see how it works. neither ruckmen take enough marks around the ground which is far easier than up forward to be any benefit to the side at the moment. They need to learn to mark as forwards. Dont see why Rooy would need a rest anyway. he has the whole off season for that.

Can't see why it would hurt too much to learn to mark as a resting forward at the highest level given our ladder position. Its not like they can't take a grab...and Hickey has already shown signs of improved forward marking (GWS game).

Rooey often talks in the media of managing his knee and last year he didn't travel to Perth to play West COast mid season to 'manage' his knee...Due to the degenerative nature of the condition, i can't imagine it's any better than last year and so figured he may be given a rest when it best suits his knee...as mentioned in my original thread, i'm not too fussed either way, but food for thought as to the big ruckmen.

[plugger66]

It was mentioned in the AFL 'in the mix' column that we could perhaps play the two young ruckmen, Longer and Hickey this week in the same team for the first time...I couldn't see this happening whilst Stanley was in the team, so i'm wondering if the coaches will save it for when Roo gets, needs a rest and Stanley would be the permanent forward...thoughts? I'd be pretty easy with any of the above scenarios given the need for experimentation/getting games into players...personally think that the more games Longer and Hickey get this season the better, don't really mind if the structure is a bit out...my philosophy on the youngsters who we think have the talent...games games games

Cant see how it works. neither ruckmen take enough marks around the ground which is far easier than up forward to be any benefit to the side at the moment. They need to learn to mark as forwards. Dont see why Rooy would need a rest anyway. he has the whole off season for that.

Can't see why it would hurt too much to learn to mark as a resting forward at the highest level given our ladder position. Its not like they can't take a grab...and Hickey has already shown signs of improved forward marking (GWS game).

Rooey often talks in the media of managing his knee and last year he didn't travel to Perth to play West COast mid season to 'manage' his knee...Due to the degenerative nature of the condition, i can't imagine it's any better than last year and so figured he may be given a rest when it best suits his knee...as mentioned in my original thread, i'm not too fussed either way, but food for thought as to the big ruckmen.

No doubt they should learn to mark on the forward line but they should do it at sandy. I have no idea what happens with both are fit because long term unless things change I cant possibly see how they play together. if they think Hickey is fit enough to play this week then i expect Longer to be dropped.

[dragit]

I think Hickey would still be our first choice ruckmen for now, so I reckon Longer should go and practice playing as a forward for Sandy if Hickey is ready to return. Neither of them get enough of the ball or kick goals (yet), playing both would make us very slow and tall.

[falka]

I think 2 ruck men can work still at afl level, just need to be proactive in structure and not reactive and just copying other clubs.

Let me just make it clear that I don't think Hickey and Longer in their current state of development will be the way to go for shirt term success, but who knows how good they will be.

Why not try something different (I'm sick of copying some other bloody model) based on our potential strengths

Why not cut ground in half and play each ruck on ground the whole game but they only have to cover half the area? This saves rotations and keeps a strong ruck presence on ground the whole game (not Tom Lee)

At bounce ruck 1 starts in centre square and other full forward. Then ruck 1 runs straight into ruck and plays the kick behind type and the other plays as a true follower, constantly pushing forward and stretching defenses.

I reckon if we do it now we will get flogged and run off our feet but if our rucks develop, why not come up with something new and stop just copying other clubs, if that is our strength.

[Saint wagga]

I think 2 ruck men can work still at afl level, just need to be proactive in structure and not reactive and just copying other clubs.

Let me just make it clear that I don't think Hickey and Longer in their current state of development will be the way to go for shirt term success, but who knows how good they will be.

Why not try something different (I'm sick of copying some other bloody model) based on our potential strengths

Why not cut ground in half and play each ruck on ground the whole game but they only have to cover half the area? This saves rotations and keeps a strong ruck presence on ground the whole game (not Tom Lee)

At bounce ruck 1 starts in centre square and other full forward. Then ruck 1 runs straight into ruck and plays the kick behind type and the other plays as a true follower, constantly pushing forward and stretching defenses.

I reckon if we do it now we will get flogged and run off our feet but if our rucks develop, why not come up with something new and stop just copying other clubs, if that is our strength.

Like it!

[FQF]

I think 2 ruck men can work still at afl level, just need to be proactive in structure and not reactive and just copying other clubs.

Let me just make it clear that I don't think Hickey and Longer in their current state of development will be the way to go for shirt term success, but who knows how good they will be.

Why not try something different (I'm sick of copying some other bloody model) based on our potential strengths

Why not cut ground in half and play each ruck on ground the whole game but they only have to cover half the area? This saves rotations and keeps a strong ruck presence on ground the whole game (not Tom Lee)

At bounce ruck 1 starts in centre square and other full forward. Then ruck 1 runs straight into ruck and plays the kick behind type and the other plays as a true follower, constantly pushing forward and stretching defenses.

I reckon if we do it now we will get flogged and run off our feet but if our rucks develop, why not come up with something new and stop just copying other clubs, if that is our strength.

I agree in principle that we need to play to our strengths, and rucks looks like it will be a future strength for us. These sorts of ideas though require exceptionally attune footy minds thinking up all the finer details. Beyond that, it would require an enormous amount of practice and tailored development.

But true, most successful teams in the last decade have in some way revolutionised tactics, and then by the time all the other teams catch up, the leaders have already moved on.

[plugger66]

I think 2 ruck men can work still at afl level, just need to be proactive in structure and not reactive and just copying other clubs.

Let me just make it clear that I don't think Hickey and Longer in their current state of development will be the way to go for shirt term success, but who knows how good they will be.

Why not try something different (I'm sick of copying some other bloody model) based on our potential strengths

Why not cut ground in half and play each ruck on ground the whole game but they only have to cover half the area? This saves rotations and keeps a strong ruck presence on ground the whole game (not Tom Lee)

At bounce ruck 1 starts in centre square and other full forward. Then ruck 1 runs straight into ruck and plays the kick behind type and the other plays as a true follower, constantly pushing forward and stretching defenses.

I reckon if we do it now we will get flogged and run off our feet but if our rucks develop, why not come up with something new and stop just copying other clubs, if that is our strength.

Arent we one short in the forward line? Hard enough as it is for Rooy and Co. And im unsure a tall non marking ruckman should ever be your spare if you want to play a 7 man backline.

[dragit]

Like it!

I like it too, though I think we are more likely to see this kind of set-up using good key position types that pinch hit in the ruck… rather than 2 traditional ruckmen. Think Carlisle, Tippett & Roughead… our version is Rhys at the moment.

[oldie60]

I know we are a young side miles away from the elite but given that the season is pretty much done would it really hurt trying something different to see which players can challenge themselves in different roles. We have nothing to lose and the youngsters can only benefit from this. Eg: give the younger players run with roles with opposition gun players who will take them to the contests thus learning at the same time.

[Sainternist]

Didn't our team consist of Hickey, Longer and Stanley when we won those three games earlier in the season? Geez, it already seems like a lifetime ago.

Nothing to lose at this point, so I say play all three in the same side. We need to know where they are all at come end of season.

[plugger66]

Didn't our team consist of Hickey, Longer and Stanley when we won those three games earlier in the season? Geez, it already seems like a lifetime ago.

Nothing to lose at this point, so I say play all three in the same side. We need to know where they are all at come end of season.

No. Longer and Hickey have never played together. How would the forward line work if they all played?

[Sainternist]

Didn't our team consist of Hickey, Longer and Stanley when we won those three games earlier in the season? Geez, it already seems like a lifetime ago.

Nothing to lose at this point, so I say play all three in the same side. We need to know where they are all at come end of season.

No. Longer and Hickey have never played together. How would the forward line work if they all played?

Fair point. Admittedly, not a great hypothetical. It's almost as though every ruckman needs to have a prerequisite of being able to play up forward. We now have a ruck conundrum.

[bergholt]

Didn't our team consist of Hickey, Longer and Stanley when we won those three games earlier in the season? Geez, it already seems like a lifetime ago.

Nothing to lose at this point, so I say play all three in the same side. We need to know where they are all at come end of season.

I can't see how it could possibly work, and yet I can't see why we shouldn't give it a try. It's not as if we're so competitive at the moment.

[Sainternist]

Didn't our team consist of Hickey, Longer and Stanley when we won those three games earlier in the season? Geez, it already seems like a lifetime ago.

Nothing to lose at this point, so I say play all three in the same side. We need to know where they are all at come end of season.

I can't see how it could possibly work, and yet I can't see why we shouldn't give it a try. It's not as if we're so competitive at the moment.

Well, we have at least been reasonably competitive the last two games. I think it would be a better idea to go with the most cohesive team. We need to have some idea of team chemistry in planning for 2015.

[plugger66]

Didn't our team consist of Hickey, Longer and Stanley when we won those three games earlier in the season? Geez, it already seems like a lifetime ago.

Nothing to lose at this point, so I say play all three in the same side. We need to know where they are all at come end of season.

I can't see how it could possibly work, and yet I can't see why we shouldn't give it a try. It's not as if we're so competitive at the moment.

Well, we have at least been reasonably competitive the last two games. I think it would be a better idea to go with the most cohesive team. We need to have some idea of team chemistry in planning for 2015.

Totally agree. if we say well we cant win anyway so anything is worth a try then whats the point of playing young guys if they arent learning to play where they will eventually play. Also it makes AR llok like an idiot to some people and there are already some who for some strange reason reckon he is struggling as a coach. If they really do want Longer or Hickey to eventually play over 50% forward then lets see ho they go at Sandy in that role.

[Rosco]

I know we are a young side miles away from the elite but given that the season is pretty much done would it really hurt trying something different to see which players can challenge themselves in different roles. We have nothing to lose and the youngsters can only benefit from this. Eg: give the younger players run with roles with opposition gun players who will take them to the contests thus learning at the same time.

different roles. sounds like what melbourne used to call tanking.

[Zed]

Hickey kicked 4? in the intraclub I seem to recall. Completely different standard I know but of the 2 ruckmen is probably the more likely to succeed as a part time forward IMHO. Would like to see him tried at FF as a resting ruckman for Sandy first.

[Rosco]

Hicks kicked 3 against GWS, none in his other 4 games

[falka]

I think 2 ruck men can work still at afl level, just need to be proactive in structure and not reactive and just copying other clubs.

Let me just make it clear that I don't think Hickey and Longer in their current state of development will be the way to go for shirt term success, but who knows how good they will be.

Why not try something different (I'm sick of copying some other bloody model) based on our potential strengths

Why not cut ground in half and play each ruck on ground the whole game but they only have to cover half the area? This saves rotations and keeps a strong ruck presence on ground the whole game (not Tom Lee)

At bounce ruck 1 starts in centre square and other full forward. Then ruck 1 runs straight into ruck and plays the kick behind type and the other plays as a true follower, constantly pushing forward and stretching defenses.

I reckon if we do it now we will get flogged and run off our feet but if our rucks develop, why not come up with something new and stop just copying other clubs, if that is our strength.

Arent we one short in the forward line? Hard enough as it is for Rooy and Co. And im unsure a tall non marking ruckman should ever be your spare if you want to play a 7 man backline.

Once again from a 'what everyone is doing' point of view we could be one short on a forward, or mid wherever.
I suppose the point is playing your strengths.

Our foot skills are a real weakness, so technically we are a few players short as when a turnover occurs midfield it's party time for opposition. But that's another issue

Certainly the 2nd ruck could line up on wing as high hf if we wanted to, it's academic.
I'm talking a new paradigm.

[plugger66]

I think 2 ruck men can work still at afl level, just need to be proactive in structure and not reactive and just copying other clubs.

Let me just make it clear that I don't think Hickey and Longer in their current state of development will be the way to go for shirt term success, but who knows how good they will be.

Why not try something different (I'm sick of copying some other bloody model) based on our potential strengths

Why not cut ground in half and play each ruck on ground the whole game but they only have to cover half the area? This saves rotations and keeps a strong ruck presence on ground the whole game (not Tom Lee)

At bounce ruck 1 starts in centre square and other full forward. Then ruck 1 runs straight into ruck and plays the kick behind type and the other plays as a true follower, constantly pushing forward and stretching defenses.

I reckon if we do it now we will get flogged and run off our feet but if our rucks develop, why not come up with something new and stop just copying other clubs, if that is our strength.

Arent we one short in the forward line? Hard enough as it is for Rooy and Co. And im unsure a tall non marking ruckman should ever be your spare if you want to play a 7 man backline.

Once again from a 'what everyone is doing' point of view we could be one short on a forward, or mid wherever.
I suppose the point is playing your strengths.

Our foot skills are a real weakness, so technically we are a few players short as when a turnover occurs midfield it's party time for opposition. But that's another issue

Certainly the 2nd ruck could line up on wing as high hf if we wanted to, it's academic.
I'm talking a new paradigm.

My question is if you want to do that then why use a ruckman who hasnt shown much ability to take marks. Dont see the benefit apart from getting more games into both ruckman. Eventually one of them have to play mainly as a forward. They would be better doing that at Sandy.

[falka]

I think 2 ruck men can work still at afl level, just need to be proactive in structure and not reactive and just copying other clubs.

Let me just make it clear that I don't think Hickey and Longer in their current state of development will be the way to go for shirt term success, but who knows how good they will be.

Why not try something different (I'm sick of copying some other bloody model) based on our potential strengths

Why not cut ground in half and play each ruck on ground the whole game but they only have to cover half the area? This saves rotations and keeps a strong ruck presence on ground the whole game (not Tom Lee)

At bounce ruck 1 starts in centre square and other full forward. Then ruck 1 runs straight into ruck and plays the kick behind type and the other plays as a true follower, constantly pushing forward and stretching defenses.

I reckon if we do it now we will get flogged and run off our feet but if our rucks develop, why not come up with something new and stop just copying other clubs, if that is our strength.

Arent we one short in the forward line? Hard enough as it is for Rooy and Co. And im unsure a tall non marking ruckman should ever be your spare if you want to play a 7 man backline.

Once again from a 'what everyone is doing' point of view we could be one short on a forward, or mid wherever.
I suppose the point is playing your strengths.

Our foot skills are a real weakness, so technically we are a few players short as when a turnover occurs midfield it's party time for opposition. But that's another issue

Certainly the 2nd ruck could line up on wing as high hf if we wanted to, it's academic.
I'm talking a new paradigm.

My question is if you want to do that then why use a ruckman who hasnt shown much ability to take marks. Dont see the benefit apart from getting more games into both ruckman. Eventually one of them have to play mainly as a forward. They would be better doing that at Sandy.

You are right with respect to Longer - he hasn't shown the marking ability, compared with Hickey.
I think we need to do it from a games into perspective and then if it develops into a system of benefit then use it as a strength. But it was just a thought of how we could benefit from our current list.

Personally I didn't want to get Longer at all as we had Hickey and there are cheaper back ups out there. Once we went Longer, well what do we do? Just build trade currency?

I suppose I just wanted to highlight in this discussion that we can be a leader and not a follower.
Develop a plan that plays to our strengths and not just what the flavour of the month is.

[saintspremiers]

Didn't our team consist of Hickey, Longer and Stanley when we won those three games earlier in the season? Geez, it already seems like a lifetime ago.

Nothing to lose at this point, so I say play all three in the same side. We need to know where they are all at come end of season.

I can't see how it could possibly work, and yet I can't see why we shouldn't give it a try. It's not as if we're so competitive at the moment.

Well, we have at least been reasonably competitive the last two games. I think it would be a better idea to go with the most cohesive team. We need to have some idea of team chemistry in planning for 2015.

Wet have played crap and crapper the last 2 weeks at home. That's a lot why we looked half acceptable.

This week should be another good loss