Who plays Stanley's role now?

[White Winmar]

Now that Rhys is gone, who will take his place? Despite the criticisms of him, he played an essential role in the modern game plan, that of the forward who can go into the ruck. While we're really well stocked for ruckmen, none of the current crop looks capable of changing a game as a forward. I know Rhys didn't do this enough, but at least he looked threatening on a few occasions.

So where to now? Hickey looks the most capable, but he is likely to be our number one, when fit. Billy Longer looks to be a ruckman only. I know he's young and developing, but his inability to take an overhead mark, coupled with the fact he has the mobility of a hobbled snail, rules him out. One goal in twenty five-odd games speaks volumes. That one goal came from a free kick.

That leaves Holmes, very much a project player and Lewis Pierce. Maybe they have plans to use White or Lee in the role, but I sincerely hope not. Lee is already injury prone and I believe would be ineffective, while Spencer needs more time to develop. So going on all of that, it looks as though Pierce may be the man. He can certainly take a grab and is good below his knees for a big man. He's mobile with good skills, but is he physically nature enough?

After considering all of this, do we just go with two ruckmen, namely Hickey and Longer, or do we take a punt on Pierce? Thoughts?

[FQF]

Those in the know believe that Pierce will be up to the task in the long run. In the meantime we'll probably be testing various combinations of:

- Hickey #1 ruck, Longer fwd/ruck
- Longer #1 ruck, Hickey fwd/ruck
- Hickey/Longer #1 ruck, Bruce/White fwd/ruck
- Cameos from Holmes and Pierce

With the third option, you'd expert the #1 ruck to do the ruckwork about 80% of the time, whereas with the first two options the split could be more like 60/40.

[borderbarry]

I expect to see Holmesy having a run in the seniors before too long. Looking forward to it.

[plugger66]

None of current ruckmen who have played seniors couldnt get close to Stanley role and that is why its a huge decision to trade him. We will have to pinch hit in the ruck or hope Pierce makes it. Holmes doesn't look a forward type either but looks closer than Longer.

[White Winmar]

I agree, P66. That's why I was surprised they let Rhys go, even if the compensation seemed good. I thought they would hang onto him for one more year. He does offer something unique, which is what I suppose Geelong has seen in him.

[spert]

Stanley's role should have a lot more impact in a game than it has had, and I think Pelchen and AR probably think the current group of rucks will develop and go past Rhys.

[plugger66]

Stanley's role should have a lot more impact in a game than it has had, and I think Pelchen and AR probably think the current group of rucks will develop and go past Rhys.

Yes but Stanley was only a ruckman for 30% of the game so which ruckman can be a forward for 70% of the game?

[Con Gorozidis]

I'm concerned about the lack of pugs at the club now.

[Bunk_Moreland]

Stanley's role should have a lot more impact in a game than it has had, and I think Pelchen and AR probably think the current group of rucks will develop and go past Rhys.

Yes but Stanley was only a ruckman for 30% of the game so which ruckman can be a forward for 70% of the game?

Stanley might have been a forward for 70% of the game but was effective about 25% of that time.

If we can get Hickey to go forward and we would still get at least the same output as Stanley.

Will also have Membrey as a small forward as well.

Bruce and Wight can also come in forward, and there also some other bloke.....

[FQF]

Obviously he will leave a hole short term because he was the only player we actually developed into that role. But the list management must have thought that he was not the answer to our needs relative to his worth on the trade market. Similar to Dal Santo and McEvoy (void in the short term but not the answer).

Whoever does fill that hole does not need to be Stanley 2.0. It just needs to work in the team dynamic. Before Stanley we didn't have a very effective ruck(30%)/forward(70%) and we went alright.

I'm not too concerned about his loss, although there's always a tinge of sadness.

[plugger66]

Stanley's role should have a lot more impact in a game than it has had, and I think Pelchen and AR probably think the current group of rucks will develop and go past Rhys.

Yes but Stanley was only a ruckman for 30% of the game so which ruckman can be a forward for 70% of the game?

Stanley might have been a forward for 70% of the game but was effective about 25% of that time.

If we can get Hickey to go forward and we would still get at least the same output as Stanley.

Will also have Membrey as a small forward as well.

Bruce and Wight can also come in forward, and there also some other bloke.....

I agree we have many forwards but I don't agree Hickey could do Stanleys job. He is a slow lumbering ruckman who would be a liability if he was up forward for more than about 20% of the game. I cant see how we can play 2 ruckman but when Stanley played we had a second ruckman.

[FQF]

Stanley's role should have a lot more impact in a game than it has had, and I think Pelchen and AR probably think the current group of rucks will develop and go past Rhys.

Yes but Stanley was only a ruckman for 30% of the game so which ruckman can be a forward for 70% of the game?

Stanley might have been a forward for 70% of the game but was effective about 25% of that time.

If we can get Hickey to go forward and we would still get at least the same output as Stanley.

Will also have Membrey as a small forward as well.

Bruce and Wight can also come in forward, and there also some other bloke.....

I agree we have many forwards but I don't agree Hickey could do Stanleys job. He is a slow lumbering ruckman who would be a liability if he was up forward for more than about 20% of the game. I cant see how we can play 2 ruckman but when Stanley played we had a second ruckman.

Hickey averages 2 tackles a game, Stanley averages 1.76 tackles a game.

Is Hickey really a slow lumbering ruckman compared to Stanley? I am not at all convinced that he would be any more of a liability up forward than Stanley. Although Stanley could run fast in straight lines, on the footy field he was slow. Hickey is not fast, but he wouldn't be that much worse.

Goes without saying that they are very different players and Hickey will never be a good lead up forward (will Stanley?) but if Hickey can rest forward and crash some packs, take 1-2 marks a game and kick 1 goal a game then I would think he has having just as much impact.

It's guesswork, but I don't think it is as clear cut as you as predicting.

[plugger66]

Stanley's role should have a lot more impact in a game than it has had, and I think Pelchen and AR probably think the current group of rucks will develop and go past Rhys.

Yes but Stanley was only a ruckman for 30% of the game so which ruckman can be a forward for 70% of the game?

Stanley might have been a forward for 70% of the game but was effective about 25% of that time.

If we can get Hickey to go forward and we would still get at least the same output as Stanley.

Will also have Membrey as a small forward as well.

Bruce and Wight can also come in forward, and there also some other bloke.....

I agree we have many forwards but I don't agree Hickey could do Stanleys job. He is a slow lumbering ruckman who would be a liability if he was up forward for more than about 20% of the game. I cant see how we can play 2 ruckman but when Stanley played we had a second ruckman.

Hickey averages 2 tackles a game, Stanley averages 1.76 tackles a game.

Is Hickey really a slow lumbering ruckman compared to Stanley? I am not at all convinced that he would be any more of a liability up forward than Stanley. Although Stanley could run fast in straight lines, on the footy field he was slow. Hickey is not fast, but he wouldn't be that much worse.

Goes without saying that they are very different players and Hickey will never be a good lead up forward (will Stanley?) but if Hickey can rest forward and crash some packs, take 1-2 marks a game and kick 1 goal a game then I would think he has having just as much impact.

It's guesswork, but I don't think it is as clear cut as you as predicting.

The thing is though Hickey cant rest forward. He needs to be a forward who rucks. I agree Stanley wasn't fast on a footy field but he looks to me to be a better forward than Hickey. I just cant see Hickey being a 70% a game forward where as I saw Stanley doing that role even if he wasn't great but he was improving.

[Johnny Member]

Short answer:

It doesn't matter.

We are destined for bottom 2 again in 2015, and only slightly better off in 2016 - Rhys or not. So it doesn't matter who plays that role if you ask me.


It's who plays that role, and other roles in 2017 and beyond that matters.

[plugger66]

Short answer:

It doesn't matter.

We are destined for bottom 2 again in 2015, and only slightly better off in 2016 - Rhys or not. So it doesn't matter who plays that role if you ask me.


It's who plays that role, and other roles in 2017 and beyond that matters.

Yes and who said I was talking about only the next 2 years. It also does matter next year. Just because we will probably finish last doesn't mean we don't care about how the forward line is set up. And if we are talking Hickey for now we certainly aren't taking Hickey in a couple of years because he isn't going to be a finals forward.

[Spinner]

Whoever played Rhys' role when he was dropped to Sandringham during the year...

[plugger66]

Whoever played Rhys' role when he was dropped to Sandringham during the year...

Tom Lee? Really?

[dragit]

Stanley's role should have a lot more impact in a game than it has had, and I think Pelchen and AR probably think the current group of rucks will develop and go past Rhys.

Yes but Stanley was only a ruckman for 30% of the game so which ruckman can be a forward for 70% of the game?

Stanley might have been a forward for 70% of the game but was effective about 25% of that time.

If we can get Hickey to go forward and we would still get at least the same output as Stanley.

Will also have Membrey as a small forward as well.

Bruce and Wight can also come in forward, and there also some other bloke.....

What's incredible is that he was in the top 20 in the comp for marks & contested marks in only 25% of the game time.

He will average 30 marks per game if he can be effective for an entire match. Decent figures.

[Johnny Member]

It's a bit misleading though that stat.

There's 19 teams, most of whom only really have 1-2 guys who are expected to take contested marks.

So being top 20, can realistically mean you're in the bottom half of the comp for dudes playing yours or similar roles.

[Dis Believer]

Short term they will probably try Bruce & Pierce. Long term either Pierce or White....

[gringo]

Pierce has the best around the ground game from what I've seen but not at senior level and Hickey has looked good at times.

[plugger66]

Pierce has the best around the game from what I've seen but not at senior level and Hickey has looked good at times.

Do you honestly think either could play 70% forward though. I reckon they just use a pinch hitter.

[samuraisaint]

Hickey was injured for most of the year so wouldn't judge him too harshly. Confused by the love-in for Stanley though guys. Take away a practice match against Essendon, a night game against the Swans and last seasons game against Freo and the tall fella had shown sweet b#gger all in five seasons.
Longer got a lot of development time in matches this year due to circumstances and can see him play the traditional ruck role, with Hickey rucking around the ground and resting forward. Like a lot of our players he will need to work on his kicking but he has time.
Holmes could be okay too, but that is a long shot.

[Statsman]

I don't think any of our ruckman (Hickey, Longer, Holmes) can play forward for any extended period and equally I don't think any of our key forwards (Riewoldt, Bruce, Lee, White) can play as a relief ruckman. Let's say we play with 3 key forward and one ruckman. That ruckman, whether it is Hickey or Longer, is only going to ruck for 80% of the game at best. We need somebody in the squad capable of rucking for that other 20%. If we don't have a proper relief ruckman we have to fall back to using a makeshift ruckman as we once did with Blakey. Of the forwards I'd say Bruce is probably closest to being capable of playing that role. You don't want to risk Riewoldt in that role and I don't think Lee or White have the tank for it.

Another approach woud be to play 2 ruckman and give them 50% game time each in the ruck with 30% spent "resting" up forward and 20% recovering on the bench. However I cant see Hickey and particularly Longer being effective up forward for 30% of the game. You could stretch them for longer on the bench, but that messes with our rotations and ground time for the midfielders.

It does call into question the strategy of investing so heavily (i.e. a first round pick) in two pure ruckman who on face value can't play in the same side together. The strategy has to be to play them off against each other, stick with the one that develops best and trade off the other. Either that, or we are paying a premium for a backup ruckman in the VFL.

[dragit]

It's a bit misleading though that stat.

There's 19 teams, most of whom only really have 1-2 guys who are expected to take contested marks.

So being top 20, can realistically mean you're in the bottom half of the comp for dudes playing yours or similar roles.

Guys behind Rhys on the contested marks per game this year include Cloke, Walker, Riewoldt x 2, Westoff, roughhead, Taylor... Etc etc.

So realistically what you have said is ridiculous given that they are some of the best contested marks in the comp and Rhys was playing in the worst side in the comp.