Ruck Training

[Gershwin]

Has anyone that goes to training noticed who is receiving Ruck training?

Longer, Hickey, Holmes and Pierce of course but what about Bruce or Carlisle and any others?

[Bluthy]

Has anyone that goes to training noticed who is receiving Ruck training?

Longer, Hickey, Holmes and Pierce of course but what about Bruce or Carlisle and any others?

I'm not a fan of Bruce in the ruck. He's pretty ineffective and robs us forward prescence. What about Gilbert - he could play part time as a roving ruck.

[WinnersOnly]

This year will alow clubs just to play 2 rucks. No need for killing other positional players. Lets hope Peirce & Holmes can really pressure Hickey & Longer. Pierce in particular needs to start showing he is up to it after 4 years on the list.

[ripplug66]

This year will alow clubs just to play 2 rucks. No need for killing other positional players. Lets hope Peirce & Holmes can really pressure Hickey & Longer. Pierce in particular needs to start showing he is up to it after 4 years on the list.

Why do you think they will play 2 rucks. Cant see rucks sitting on the bench for half a game when the clubs will want to rotate mids.

[BigMart]

Two rucks are no longer viable... Especially this year with a cap.

One ruckman and another who can play two positions.

It's either Longer and Hickey (rest forward)
Or
Longer and Bruce (forward) with Membrey

I hope the latter
With Roo playing up the ground unless Brucey is out of the forward line.

Front half

Newnes - Armitage - Riewoldt
Billings - Bruce - Membrey
Lonie - McCartin - Sinclair

[ripplug66]

Two rucks are no longer viable... Especially this year with a cap.

One ruckman and another who can play two positions.

It's either Longer and Hickey (rest forward)
Or
Longer and Bruce (forward) with Membrey

I hope the latter
With Roo playing up the ground unless Brucey is out of the forward line.

Front half

Newnes - Armitage - Riewoldt
Billings - Bruce - Membrey
Lonie - McCartin - Sinclair

Totally agree but I still think Rooy will play most of the game as a forward and McCartin will probably be in and out of the side like last season.

[evertonfc]

Nice to hear Lewis Pearce has been training strongly, at least according to Richo.

Still think we're fairly set in this department, especially if we can increase the mobility of Hickey and the positioning of Longer.

[Clayton Davis]

Two rucks are no longer viable... Especially this year with a cap.

One ruckman and another who can play two positions.

It's either Longer and Hickey (rest forward)
Or
Longer and Bruce (forward) with Membrey

I hope the latter
With Roo playing up the ground unless Brucey is out of the forward line.

Front half

Newnes - Armitage - Riewoldt
Billings - Bruce - Membrey
Lonie - McCartin - Sinclair

Totally agree.............

Sheeeiiittt!!!

[Bluthy]

Nice to hear Lewis Pearce has been training strongly, at least according to Richo.

Still think we're fairly set in this department, especially if we can increase the mobility of Hickey and the positioning of Longer.

Yeah we are slowly developing our options aren't we. For me the gold plate standard of a premiership side includes two ruck man, at least one of which can play as a dangerous forward. With the intensity of grand final day, all players slow down and get tired but they big guys don't get any smaller. And you don't want to give the other team a break in the middle when you main ruck needs a rest.

I see' us continuing the experiment of Hickey playing along side Longer quite a bit. Its a way of getting AFL games into both of them. Might have to balance that with when Paddy is in the ones. Hickey sounds like he's had a smooth preseason and it will take him time to really learn all the complex forward patterns and plays. Longer definitely needs to do more around the ground but it takes a while for the big guys to get the tank to do the exhausting work in ruck contests and then have something left around the ground. I think Richo really loves his aggression and talk on the field. You need those outgoing players.

Its ridiculous how tough some people are on our young rucks and how panicked they are about getting the structure right already. We won't be int the grannie at the end of the year so this is another developmental/experimental year. These big guys with huge frames and long limbs take a while to get all their coordination, fitness and muscle all coming together.

[ripplug66]

Nice to hear Lewis Pearce has been training strongly, at least according to Richo.

Still think we're fairly set in this department, especially if we can increase the mobility of Hickey and the positioning of Longer.

Yeah we are slowly developing our options aren't we. For me the gold plate standard of a premiership side includes two ruck man, at least one of which can play as a dangerous forward. With the intensity of grand final day, all players slow down and get tired but they big guys don't get any smaller. And you don't want to give the other team a break in the middle when you main ruck needs a rest.

I see' us continuing the experiment of Hickey playing along side Longer quite a bit. Its a way of getting AFL games into both of them. Might have to balance that with when Paddy is in the ones. Hickey sounds like he's had a smooth preseason and it will take him time to really learn all the complex forward patterns and plays. Longer definitely needs to do more around the ground but it takes a while for the big guys to get the tank to do the exhausting work in ruck contests and then have something left around the ground. I think Richo really loves his aggression and talk on the field. You need those outgoing players.

Its ridiculous how tough some people are on our young rucks and how panicked they are about getting the structure right already. We won't be int the grannie at the end of the year so this is another developmental/experimental year. These big guys with huge frames and long limbs take a while to get all their coordination, fitness and muscle all coming together.

And I thought Hawthorn took a ruckman off later in the game on GF day. And there is nothing wrong with getting the structure right already. Its fine to play 2 ruckmen but one must be capable of playing at least 60% as a forward. Twice last season we dropped Hickey because he really couldn't do it. I hope it works because he would be much better in the ruck than Bruce but you cant just play him if he cant play that position.

[Bluthy]

And I thought Hawthorn took a ruckman off later in the game on GF day. And there is nothing wrong with getting the structure right already. Its fine to play 2 ruckmen but one must be capable of playing at least 60% as a forward. Twice last season we dropped Hickey because he really couldn't do it. I hope it works because he would be much better in the ruck than Bruce but you cant just play him if he cant play that position.

You really have no patience at all do you. Players and teams don't just come out fully formed. It takes trials and errors, and retrying things and players developing (and some not) over years before it all comes together. Hawthorn have shown you constantly need to evolve your squad and tactics for maximum effect. Hickey has shown in a couple of games he has real talent including where he played really well as dangerous forward in a couple of games. He's still young for a ruck, was carefully nursed last year because of his injuries and lack of fitness, would still be learning how to play in a key marking forward role, probably needs to string an uninjured season together to really get his confidence going.

But you are already writing Hickey off this year before he's even played a preseason game. We don't even know if Longer will still be considered the no. 1 ruck. A fully fit Hickey would challenge that. It's interesting times. Look up patience in the dictionary. You need a bunch more of it. This panic about wanting to trade one of Longer or Hickey out is insane. Injuries can well strike and you need ruck depth and variety and competition. We are going along very nicely. Jut chill out.

[ripplug66]

And I thought Hawthorn took a ruckman off later in the game on GF day. And there is nothing wrong with getting the structure right already. Its fine to play 2 ruckmen but one must be capable of playing at least 60% as a forward. Twice last season we dropped Hickey because he really couldn't do it. I hope it works because he would be much better in the ruck than Bruce but you cant just play him if he cant play that position.

You really have no patience at all do you. Players and teams don't just come out fully formed. It takes trials and errors, and retrying things and players developing (and some not) over years before it all comes together. Hawthorn have shown you constantly need to evolve your squad and tactics for maximum effect. Hickey has shown in a couple of games he has real talent including where he played really well as dangerous forward in a couple of games. He's still young for a ruck, was carefully nursed last year because of his injuries and lack of fitness, would still be learning how to play in a key marking forward role, probably needs to string an uninjured season together to really get his confidence going.

But you are already writing Hickey off this year before he's even played a preseason game. We don't even know if Longer will still be considered the no. 1 ruck. A fully fit Hickey would challenge that. It's interesting times. Look up patience in the dictionary. You need a bunch more of it. This panic about wanting to trade one of Longer or Hickey out is insane. Injuries can well strike and you need ruck depth and variety and competition. We are going along very nicely. Jut chill out.

I never said they just come out and are fully formed, I said there is nothing wrong with getting the structure now. That doesn't mean they cant fiddle with it but you don't just play players anywhere because it doesn't matter until some mystical year. And I'm not writing off Hickey at all. I just mentioned facts from last season. You really use emotive words to try and prove some sort of point. You also seem to tell a few untruths to prove a point. And I wouldn't right off Hickey because I actually rate him better than Longer but I suppose I only mentioned that 40 times last season. And again the emotive words, panic about trading out. I like have discussions with you but can you please try to make it real. And yes I would have traded a ruckman out for the right offer. Shoot me. It certainly wasn't panic though and when it never happened I don't think I even mentioned anything. And I couldn't be more chilled but thanks for reminding me.

[wally]

I thought after 2014 with the injuries to Longer & Hickey that we needed the 2 to have 1 fit ruckman available each week.
In 2015 we seemed to have a good run injury wise with 2 available most weeks.
I don't know what the end structure will be best but seems to me that maybe we need 2 to get through the season and keep the other structures consistant.

[Bluthy]

I never said they just come out and are fully formed, I said there is nothing wrong with getting the structure now. That doesn't mean they cant fiddle with it but you don't just play players anywhere because it doesn't matter until some mystical year. And I'm not writing off Hickey at all. I just mentioned facts from last season. You really use emotive words to try and prove some sort of point. You also seem to tell a few untruths to prove a point. And I wouldn't right off Hickey because I actually rate him better than Longer but I suppose I only mentioned that 40 times last season. And again the emotive words, panic about trading out. I like have discussions with you but can you please try to make it real. And yes I would have traded a ruckman out for the right offer. Shoot me. It certainly wasn't panic though and when it never happened I don't think I even mentioned anything. And I couldn't be more chilled but thanks for reminding me.

Well when the ruck is discussed that I've seen, you can almost be guaranteed to chime in with "Can't have both Longer and Hickey in the same team". Are you saying they won't play Hickey and Longer together this year as the experiment failed last year? I'll put my cahoona's on the line again and say they will play both of them together a bit this year. Not all the time. It will depend on the oppo - we may want to go particularly tall or short - and perhaps whether Paddy and Goddard play in the ones and we start to be too tall and slow.

Our recent tall forward developments have almost all failed - Stanley, White, Markworth, Lee. When Roo hangs up the boots we've only got Bruce - who's had only one great season forward - and Paddy who should succeed but no guarantee how good he'll be and possibly Lee if he still on the list. It makes sense to keep trying to develop Hickey in that tall forward/ruck role, along with Pierce as another possibility later down the track. That may mean Roo plays up the ground a bit. Or maybe Paddy plays a bit in the two's again. It will be another bit of a choppy changey year but that's cool. That's where we are at in terms of needing to keep experimenting and getting games into players to develop. Hickey could even play purely as a forward in the VFL for a few games to learn that position and get his confidence up.

[ripplug66]

I never said they just come out and are fully formed, I said there is nothing wrong with getting the structure now. That doesn't mean they cant fiddle with it but you don't just play players anywhere because it doesn't matter until some mystical year. And I'm not writing off Hickey at all. I just mentioned facts from last season. You really use emotive words to try and prove some sort of point. You also seem to tell a few untruths to prove a point. And I wouldn't right off Hickey because I actually rate him better than Longer but I suppose I only mentioned that 40 times last season. And again the emotive words, panic about trading out. I like have discussions with you but can you please try to make it real. And yes I would have traded a ruckman out for the right offer. Shoot me. It certainly wasn't panic though and when it never happened I don't think I even mentioned anything. And I couldn't be more chilled but thanks for reminding me.

Well when the ruck is discussed that I've seen, you can almost be guaranteed to chime in with "Can't have both Longer and Hickey in the same team". Are you saying they won't play Hickey and Longer together this year as the experiment failed last year? I'll put my cahoona's on the line again and say they will play both of them together a bit this year. Not all the time. It will depend on the oppo - we may want to go particularly tall or short - and perhaps whether Paddy and Goddard play in the ones and we start to be too tall and slow.

Our recent tall forward developments have almost all failed - Stanley, White, Markworth, Lee. When Roo hangs up the boots we've only got Bruce - who's had only one great season forward - and Paddy who should succeed but no guarantee how good he'll be and possibly Lee if he still on the list. It makes sense to keep trying to develop Hickey in that tall forward/ruck role, along with Pierce as another possibility later down the track. That may mean Roo plays up the ground a bit. Or maybe Paddy plays a bit in the two's again. It will be another bit of a choppy changey year but that's cool. That's where we are at in terms of needing to keep experimenting and getting games into players to develop. Hickey could even play purely as a forward in the VFL for a few games to learn that position and get his confidence up.

No I'm not saying they wont play them at all. I am saying that Hickey needs to improve as a forward or it will fail like last year. IMO they wont play a ruckman on the bench for extended periods so for it to work Hicky must play better as a forward. Of course they will be tried together. Am I happy it hasn't worked so far. Not at all. If I think something wont work I say it. Doesn't happen to often as I seem to be critized by the likes of you when I say the club knows best. I would love to be proven wrong if it means the club improves.

[borderbarry]

I just hope that Pearce and Holmes do well enough to force their way into the team for a few games.

[Bluthy]

No I'm not saying they wont play them at all. I am saying that Hickey needs to improve as a forward or it will fail like last year. IMO they wont play a ruckman on the bench for extended periods so for it to work Hicky must play better as a forward. Of course they will be tried together. Am I happy it hasn't worked so far. Not at all. If I think something wont work I say it. Doesn't happen to often as I seem to be critized by the likes of you when I say the club knows best. I would love to be proven wrong if it means the club improves.

What? What teams plays a ruckmen on the bench for an extended period?- so you are talking about each ruck playing 50% of the game on the bench (or maybe Longer playing 30% of the game on the bench?) when you talk about "two ruckmen"?! That would never happen. Big guys tend to rest forward as they have in footy for ever. You would never have a player off for extended periods unless injured.

The problem here is terminology. When I say they are playing two ruckmen - that is Longer and Hickey. Hickey is a ruckman. Doesn't matter if he's on the forward line for 60% of the game. You are selecting two ruckmen so you get specialty in the ruck at all times.

You seemed to be contradicting yourself so I went back and reread the thread. What confused me was you agreeing with BigMart about cannot select two ruckmen but then I see BM then says in the next sentence that you can play Longer and Hickey with Hickey playing fwd. That's confuses the issue. That IS selecting two ruckmen. Where they play when not rucking is irrelevant. Stop confusing the issue with poor terminology. If Bruce does some rucking for 30% of the game, he isn't a ruck when selected. So you are just selecting one ruckmen and foregoing specialty in the ruck for that period but the trade off is a spot to play another player. "Playing two ruckmen" means selecting Longer and Hickey. Sloppy terminology leads to wiggle room when I am trying to pin you down again. Stop wiggling.

[ripplug66]

No I'm not saying they wont play them at all. I am saying that Hickey needs to improve as a forward or it will fail like last year. IMO they wont play a ruckman on the bench for extended periods so for it to work Hicky must play better as a forward. Of course they will be tried together. Am I happy it hasn't worked so far. Not at all. If I think something wont work I say it. Doesn't happen to often as I seem to be critized by the likes of you when I say the club knows best. I would love to be proven wrong if it means the club improves.

What? What teams plays a ruckmen on the bench for an extended period?- so you are talking about each ruck playing 50% of the game on the bench (or maybe Longer playing 30% of the game on the bench?) when you talk about "two ruckmen"?! That would never happen. Big guys tend to rest forward as they have in footy for ever. You would never have a player off for extended periods unless injured.

The problem here is terminology. When I say they are playing two ruckmen - that is Longer and Hickey. Hickey is a ruckman. Doesn't matter if he's on the forward line for 60% of the game. You are selecting two ruckmen so you get specialty in the ruck at all times.

You seemed to be contradicting yourself so I went back and reread the thread. What confused me was you agreeing with BigMart about cannot select two ruckmen but then I see BM then says in the next sentence that you can play Longer and Hickey with Hickey playing fwd. That's confuses the issue. That IS selecting two ruckmen. Where they play when not rucking is irrelevant. Stop confusing the issue with poor terminology. If Bruce does some rucking for 30% of the game, he isn't a ruck when selected. So you are just selecting one ruckmen and foregoing specialty in the ruck for that period but the trade off is a spot to play another player. "Playing two ruckmen" means selecting Longer and Hickey. Sloppy terminology leads to wiggle room when I am trying to pin you down again. Stop wiggling.

Again you didn't read a post properly. I agreed with BM because of his second option of not playing 2 ruckman so there you go. That was his preferred option so please read posts better. As for no one playing 2 ruckman with one on the bench for extended periods well it did happen and they didn't rest forward forever as you claim. In the 2009 GF we did it for a start. If hickey plays as a forward for an extended period he is a forward. How you could claim anything else would be silly. Where they play is totally relevant especially if where they play isn't ruck and its for over half a game. I'm not wiggling. You just don't understand footy or remember many things. My terminology is fine. its your understanding of a position that is a little off. Imagine saying to Hickey your a ruckman today but only for 30%. Just fill space for the rest of the game. 60% in a position means you are that position player for the day. :ets pretend Carlisle plays 10 games in a row at FB then we decide to pick Delaney at FB and so Carlisle plays 60% of a games at FF and then 40% at FB because Delaney is no good. Does that make Carlisle a FB because that's where he normally plays? No it makes him a FF when he there and a FB when he is there. Hickey is a forward for 60% and a ruckman when he actually rucks.

[Bluthy]

Lots of waffle there. Players fall into categories. It's accepted that we have four ruckmen on our extended list including Hickey. Carlisle is considered a defender. If he kept playing forward a lot he might at some point cross into the "Forward" category. Before that he might even have the label "Swingman" attached to him.

I repeat, Hickey would currently be categorised as a "Ruckman". Do you disagree with this?

[BigMart]

Hickey is a light framed ruckman who struggles with durability as a result. He has not got the strength in body contests or aggression to compete with 100kg+ ruckmen.

He is not agile enough to play as a tall forward, so he can't compete if the ball is on the deck, more importantly can't apply enough pressure to the ball rebounding out. Too slow.

He has stick fingers and good awareness, can find the pill ok.

[ripplug66]

Lots of waffle there. Players fall into categories. It's accepted that we have four ruckmen on our extended list including Hickey. Carlisle is considered a defender. If he kept playing forward a lot he might at some point cross into the "Forward" category. Before that he might even have the label "Swingman" attached to him.

I repeat, Hickey would currently be categorised as a "Ruckman". Do you disagree with this?

Before the start of last year Hickey would have been classed as a ruckman and before the start of this year he would have been classed as a ruckman but and please read the rest if he is picked as a forward he is a forward for the game and helps in the ruck. He doesn't get some special treatment because he is a ruckman playing as a forward. He is treated as a forward and is dropped if his forward work isn't good enough as he was twice last season. I'm guessing he wasn't dropped because of his ruck work. If he kicks a bag of goals in a game the media aren't going to say ruckman Hickey kicks a bag, they will say forward hickey kicks a bag.

And BM I reckon you are hoping he continues to not be good enough. You really do like saying I told you so. I hope he makes it as a forward and I am completely wrong about his abilty to play as a forward.

[saintsRrising]

Hickey would currently be categorised as a "Ruckman". Do you disagree with this?

Currently yes.

However the Saint's Coaching Panel have categorised him as a "Ruck-Forward" in terms of our next potential finals team and are endeavouring to manfucture him into one.

Not sure he will ever become good enough to be a forward who relieves in the ruck (ie where you would pick him on being a good enough forward in his own right). But yes can see him being good enough to be a genuine ruck-forward (and indeed ruck!!).

The days of playing two players in the one team that can only play ruck are long gone and will not return without drastic rule changes.

Longer does not look capable of being anything but a ruckman. This makes the playing of Hickey more difficult for when Hickey rucks, what do you do with Longer?? Personally at presenyt I prefer Hickey to Longer as I value his overall game more, but our coaching panel looks to favour Longer as the No1 ruck.

[BigMart]

You reckon wrong... I just say it as I see it...

If I'm wrong, so be it... We have a good ruckman

Am I wrong at present?

I think you agree (and it's nothing against Tom) that we didn't need to spend a FRDP securing one position ruckman via trade when we had already spent a FRDP on a #1 ruckman... McEvoy???
Then correctly traded McEvoy as we had just secured Hickey ... But then recruited another high pick trade ruckman (longer) the next trade period.

So in essence we had a high resource not being utilised because he was not required? Not great list management.

I think on a list (with specialty positions, ie Ruck)
You need
An A grade talent
A player who is able to perform that role while the #1 is resting
A back up in case of injury (b or c grade depending on what you can afford/get)
A developing roughie (low DP or Rookie)
Perhaps even a mature Rookie who can pinch hit in that position and a couple of others in case of dire injury trouble

[BigMart]

We could have used that resource elsewhere on our list.... And had possibly picked up a talented mid?

[ripplug66]

You reckon wrong... I just say it as I see it...

If I'm wrong, so be it... We have a good ruckman

Am I wrong at present?

I think you agree (and it's nothing against Tom) that we didn't need to spend a FRDP securing one position ruckman via trade when we had already spent a FRDP on a #1 ruckman... McEvoy???
Then correctly traded McEvoy as we had just secured Hickey ... But then recruited another high pick trade ruckman (longer) the next trade period.

So in essence we had a high resource not being utilised because he was not required? Not great list management.

I think on a list (with specialty positions, ie Ruck)
You need
An A grade talent
A player who is able to perform that role while the #1 is resting
A back up in case of injury (b or c grade depending on what you can afford/get)
A developing roughie (low DP or Rookie)
Perhaps even a mature Rookie who can pinch hit in that position and a couple of others in case of dire injury trouble

Firstly I gather you mean me. I know you wont quote for some real strange reason but how about a name. Is it that hard or are you arrogant and expect everyone to read your post and then work how you are talking to. It is polite to at least use a name. And I reckon I'm right. Too much history to suggest otherwise. Anyway I would rather Hickey as our ruckman. You can rather Longer. That is your right. The club would rather Longer or think Hickey is our only chance of making a forward out of a ruckman. Even you would agree he is more hope than Longer as a forward. The rest I agree with you and said exactly the same at the time.