Hickey forward

[maverick]

Showed a lot today on a good defender against a good team as well.
His work below his knees was good, might not have stuck too many bog marks, but did not get out marked or out positioned either, which is very important, they could not rebound off him which is always a worry for players of that size.

Having a chat to a Bombers supporter on the way out, he said Longer beat both Ess rucks today single handed, not quite right but interesting all the same….

Maybe we can make this work.

[kosifantutti]

It worked better than I thought it would. Hickey is very agile for his size but also has good hands. Was starting to clunk a few towards the end.

[saint-stu]

There was some discussion on SEN today about the sub rule. Most are expecting it to be gone next year and an interchange cap of 80. The consensus was that clubs will again start using two genuine ruckman, which I think will be great for us with our current stocks.

[maverick]

Interesting on the two rucks thing, I am a supporter of it, both Longer and Hickey are coming on.
Hickey is much more mobile (and stronger) than he looks.

[Armoooo]

Scrap the sub rule and we will be in a very good position with two quality young rucks, still far from convinced with either up front though.

[thefatdork]

I also think it worked and gave Bruce some freedom from being the only tall target up forward. I think that was a big problem for us last week against the Blues - especially when McCartin was subbed off.
Liked what Hickey did and for a big bloke he is also good at ground level.
TFD

[plugger66]

There was some discussion on SEN today about the sub rule. Most are expecting it to be gone next year and an interchange cap of 80. The consensus was that clubs will again start using two genuine ruckman, which I think will be great for us with our current stocks.

I reckon that works against 2 ruckmen. 80 interchanges will mean talls stay on the ground and only smalls get rests.

[Bernard Shakey]

There was some discussion on SEN today about the sub rule. Most are expecting it to be gone next year and an interchange cap of 80. The consensus was that clubs will again start using two genuine ruckman, which I think will be great for us with our current stocks.

I reckon that works against 2 ruckmen. 80 interchanges will mean talls stay on the ground and only smalls get rests.

Yeah, and that's the way it should be! Rucks rest forward or back depending on the state of the game.

[plugger66]

There was some discussion on SEN today about the sub rule. Most are expecting it to be gone next year and an interchange cap of 80. The consensus was that clubs will again start using two genuine ruckman, which I think will be great for us with our current stocks.

I reckon that works against 2 ruckmen. 80 interchanges will mean talls stay on the ground and only smalls get rests.

Yeah, and that's the way it should be! Rucks rest forward or back depending on the state of the game.

Not if they cant play forward. No ruckman will rest back unless the game changes. Doubt many if any sides will play 2 ruckmen unless they can play as a KPP.

[maverick]

There was some discussion on SEN today about the sub rule. Most are expecting it to be gone next year and an interchange cap of 80. The consensus was that clubs will again start using two genuine ruckman, which I think will be great for us with our current stocks.

I reckon that works against 2 ruckmen. 80 interchanges will mean talls stay on the ground and only smalls get rests.

Yeah, and that's the way it should be! Rucks rest forward or back depending on the state of the game.

Not if they cant play forward. No ruckman will rest back unless the game changes. Doubt many if any sides will play 2 ruckmen unless they can play as a KPP.

So can Hickey play forward?
Did you go today?
Interested.

[samuraisaint]

Hickey COULD be the missing part of the puzzle, and maybe this is what AR is planning. We need a third tall forward option. RL tried to make Fisher it, and Watters tried to make Stanley the third option, but neither of them worked there. Bruce is working out, and we have Paddy the future FF, now we need an Everitt style 200cm ruck-cumforward to stretch the opposition. Come on down number 1.

[SuperDuper]

There was some discussion on SEN today about the sub rule. Most are expecting it to be gone next year and an interchange cap of 80. The consensus was that clubs will again start using two genuine ruckman, which I think will be great for us with our current stocks.

I reckon that works against 2 ruckmen. 80 interchanges will mean talls stay on the ground and only smalls get rests.

I disagree Pluggs

Rucks dont make quick changes like mids... you can play one for the first 20 mins of each quarter and then switch as they tire.. only costs you 4 interchanges per match...
It also adds a degree of flexibility

and any team attempting to use a "pinch hitter" in the ruck is then taking a risk.. often times rucks cancel each other out, but when a ruck starts to dominate because he is opposed to a non-ruckman, then they can get on top and win clearances/centre breaks for you...

[plugger66]

There was some discussion on SEN today about the sub rule. Most are expecting it to be gone next year and an interchange cap of 80. The consensus was that clubs will again start using two genuine ruckman, which I think will be great for us with our current stocks.

I reckon that works against 2 ruckmen. 80 interchanges will mean talls stay on the ground and only smalls get rests.

I disagree Pluggs

Rucks dont make quick changes like mids... you can play one for the first 20 mins of each quarter and then switch as they tire.. only costs you 4 interchanges per match...
It also adds a degree of flexibility

and any team attempting to use a "pinch hitter" in the ruck is then taking a risk.. often times rucks cancel each other out, but when a ruck starts to dominate because he is opposed to a non-ruckman, then they can get on top and win clearances/centre breaks for you...

Yep but while one is sitting on the bench it means only 3 others can be rotated. Clubs need about 12 mids in a side so they need to have 4 that can be rotated especially if they only have 80 interchanges.

[bigcarl]

There was some discussion on SEN today about the sub rule. Most are expecting it to be gone next year and an interchange cap of 80. The consensus was that clubs will again start using two genuine ruckman, which I think will be great for us with our current stocks.

Interesting, sounds like a return to a slower type of game which will favour two rucks

[SuperDuper]

There was some discussion on SEN today about the sub rule. Most are expecting it to be gone next year and an interchange cap of 80. The consensus was that clubs will again start using two genuine ruckman, which I think will be great for us with our current stocks.

I reckon that works against 2 ruckmen. 80 interchanges will mean talls stay on the ground and only smalls get rests.

I disagree Pluggs

Rucks dont make quick changes like mids... you can play one for the first 20 mins of each quarter and then switch as they tire.. only costs you 4 interchanges per match...
It also adds a degree of flexibility

and any team attempting to use a "pinch hitter" in the ruck is then taking a risk.. often times rucks cancel each other out, but when a ruck starts to dominate because he is opposed to a non-ruckman, then they can get on top and win clearances/centre breaks for you...

Yep but while one is sitting on the bench it means only 3 others can be rotated. Clubs need about 12 mids in a side so they need to have 4 that can be rotated especially if they only have 80 interchanges.

But if you have 4 rotating mids, and only 80 interchanges allowed, then the mids end up spending too much time off the ground in each rotation.
The numbers dont add up. If only 80 interchanges are allowed, the time between rotations increases. And you want an extra player in the rotations? That means an extra 4/3*3/2=12/6 = twice as much time on the bench each time. (4/3 comes from an extra bench player, 3/2 comes from cutting the number of rotations from ~120 to 80)

Having 3 mids rotating off the ground 80 times is about right for the amount of time you want them off the ground resting

[plugger66]

There was some discussion on SEN today about the sub rule. Most are expecting it to be gone next year and an interchange cap of 80. The consensus was that clubs will again start using two genuine ruckman, which I think will be great for us with our current stocks.

I reckon that works against 2 ruckmen. 80 interchanges will mean talls stay on the ground and only smalls get rests.

I disagree Pluggs

Rucks dont make quick changes like mids... you can play one for the first 20 mins of each quarter and then switch as they tire.. only costs you 4 interchanges per match...
It also adds a degree of flexibility

and any team attempting to use a "pinch hitter" in the ruck is then taking a risk.. often times rucks cancel each other out, but when a ruck starts to dominate because he is opposed to a non-ruckman, then they can get on top and win clearances/centre breaks for you...

Yep but while one is sitting on the bench it means only 3 others can be rotated. Clubs need about 12 mids in a side so they need to have 4 that can be rotated especially if they only have 80 interchanges.

But if you have 4 rotating mids, and only 80 interchanges allowed, then the mids end up spending too much time off the ground in each rotation.
The numbers dont add up. If only 80 interchanges are allowed, the time between rotations increases. And you want an extra player in the rotations? That means an extra 4/3*3/2=12/6 = twice as much time on the bench each time. (4/3 comes from an extra bench player, 3/2 comes from cutting the number of rotations from ~120 to 80)

Having 3 mids rotating off the ground 80 times is about right for the amount of time you want them off the ground resting

Well we will see next year. If it does suit an extra ruckman we are in a great position because we can use the 4th interchange to basically split 50/50 in the ruck and on the bench. Obviously it wont be only mids that rotate so I still don't think many sides will play 2 pure ruckman.

[OldGeorgeYoung]

I really appreciate the quality of the comments on this particular Op. Makes a change from some threads
I agree with P66 it terms of the viability of playing 2 rucks (if one is not a quality KPP e.g Roughie) as not the direction the running game is heading.
Playing 2 rucks will be difficult for us once our window starts to open in 3 years time.
I don't agree that we can't play both rucks now as our objectives are different. i.e We need to work out who is no. 1 (regardless of the consequences), we need to find out if Hickey can cut it as a KPP (could have more upside than the alternatives just now), worth developing both in terms of future trade value (whichever may be surplus, hopefully neither) and provides a contest to take the pressure off Bruce & Roo. Shouldn't fit all 3 plus Patty in the one forward line unless some are well up the ground. In term of the original question.... No need to make a decision now, just continue to develop everyone.

[bigcarl]

[quote="plugger66"II still don't think many sides will play 2 pure ruckman.[/quote]

Doesn't it depend on the quality of said ruckman Plugger? Wouldn't there be space for two if you had two genuine gun ruckmen, like, for example, Longer and Hickey. Any case there is a school of thought among good judges other than yourself that the new interchange cap rules will favour two ruckmen.

[plugger66]

[quote="plugger66"II still don't think many sides will play 2 pure ruckman.

Doesn't it depend on the quality of said ruckman Plugger? Wouldn't there be space for two if you had two genuine gun ruckmen, like, for example, Longer and Hickey. Any case there is a school of thought among good judges other than yourself that the new interchange cap rules will favour two ruckmen.[/quote]


Im sure there is. We shall see. As I said if there is room for one on the bench then it will suit us.

[saynta]

There was some discussion on SEN today about the sub rule. Most are expecting it to be gone next year and an interchange cap of 80. The consensus was that clubs will again start using two genuine ruckman, which I think will be great for us with our current stocks.

I have been watching that discussion with some interest. I never liked the sub rule. If it stays then it should only be used to introduce young players into the game, not guys like Schneider.

I would like to see two genuine ruckmen being picked. Just adds to the overall diversity of our game.

I loved watching both Longer and Hickey at the weekend. Far better than watching a quality forward like Bruce struggle against far bigger opponents.

Bit like me struggling to type while keeping our two cats from walking on this keyboard. Outgunned and outmatched.

[Jacks Back]

But what's going to happen when (if) McCartin comes good? I suppose by then Rooey might be spent however they can't all play together as maybe only two of these five could play in the same forward line with one 3rd tall by their side:
Rooey
Bruce
Hickey
McCartin
White

3rd Tall
Membrey
Sipposs
Lee
Gilbert

[gringo]

Interesting on the two rucks thing, I am a supporter of it, both Longer and Hickey are coming on.
Hickey is much more mobile (and stronger) than he looks.

Hickey is a funny one, from a distance he looks like a bean pole but he has serious thighs on him. He actually seems a bit chunkier than Billy who looks bigger from a distance that up close. Don't know how that works. Hicky was a former volleyballer and has very quick reflexes for a big guy.

[saintsRrising]

But what's going to happen when (if) McCartin comes good? I suppose by then Rooey might be spent however they can't all play together as maybe only two of these five could play in the same forward line with one 3rd tall by their side:
Rooey
Bruce
Hickey
McCartin
White

3rd Tall
Membrey
Sipposs
Lee
Gilbert

Well McCartin looks to be at leasta year away.

Membrey has push White back in the order as I think Whte is a more ofa flanker than a key forward.

Lee it looks like they are now giving hima shot at becominga key defender.

Siposs would need some good forma on his return to get back in the running. His injury may well have cruelled his last chance of making it.

Retirements of senior listed players (Schneider is a rookie) may be thin at the end of this year, and so delistings of those not looking to be making it may be the oder of theday to fit in our draft picks (ie picks 4, 22, 40....maybe 56..). Not sure we will have an extra early pick this time as I think we have reached the limit of having any quality players that we are happy to trade.
* Roo will play on
* Demspter is in good form
* Now that Fisher is at last fit again he is playing really good football

* Ray?
* Gilbert. Good enough to stay but if he cannot get back yet again it may see his number called.

I think that the old hands may be kept, and that it will be the mid-tier players like Simpkin, Siposs Shenton etc let go

[Jacks Back]

But what's going to happen when (if) McCartin comes good? I suppose by then Rooey might be spent however they can't all play together as maybe only two of these five could play in the same forward line with one 3rd tall by their side:
Rooey
Bruce
Hickey
McCartin
White

3rd Tall
Membrey
Sipposs
Lee
Gilbert

Well McCartin looks to be at leasta year away.

Membrey has push White back in the order as I think Whte is a more ofa flanker than a key forward.

Lee it looks like they are now giving hima shot at becominga key defender.

Siposs would need some good forma on his return to get back in the running. His injury may well have cruelled his last chance of making it.

Retirements of senior listed players (Schneider is a rookie) may be thin at the end of this year, and so delistings of those not looking to be making it may be the oder of theday to fit in our draft picks (ie picks 4, 22, 40....maybe 56..). Not sure we will have an extra early pick this time as I think we have reached the limit of having any quality players that we are happy to trade.
* Roo will play on
* Demspter is in good form
* Now that Fisher is at last fit again he is playing really good football

* Ray?
* Gilbert. Good enough to stay but if he cannot get back yet again it may see his number called.

I think that the old hands may be kept, and that it will be the mid-tier players like Simpkin, Siposs Shenton etc let go

Thanks for the reply but that doesn't address the issue I was trying to make and that is how many talls can we play in the forward line if Hickey is played as a forward as probably only 2 talls and a 3rd (more mobile) tall seems to be the order of the day. Unless we have 3 talls who can rotate off the bench but it seems the bench is only for midfielder rotations nowadays.

[Pleasing]

Right now ensuring Hickey Longer Holmes and Pierce develop to their full potential is the most important goal and probably why Hickey played this week. The fact that it worked particularly well and in fact a lot better than it apparently had been with him playing forward at Sandy was a huge bonus. Ultimately however under the current rules and particularly on the bigger grounds I fear it will fail more often than it works.

The removal of the Sub creates the possibility of playing two ruckmen with the option of throwing one of them forward then becoming more of a tactical ploy during a game than a permanent part of the structure. That could work.

How the 80 interchanges 4 on the bench rules are used by the coaches to get an advantage will be interesting to see play out. Currently the bench is less of a tactical weapon than a tool for the fitness trainers and sports science boffins to play with. Be nice if these changes see tactics play some part in how it is used.