I feel like the hickey v longer debate is over

[ace]

Was there ever a debate?

StoneCold does not debate.

[ace]

Brian Mynott?

I think you are confused, someone said Why Not, so back in 2015 we did it.
We got 201cm rover Jake Carlisle and 177cm rover Jade Gresham while they got 193cm ruckman Aaron Francis & 182cm ruckman Alex Morgan who has since moved on to North Melbourne.
The mafia man thought he gunned us down, instead he got concrete shoes.


As for Brian Mynott great tap ruckman but like Billy Longer not much else.

[George27]

As for Brian Mynott great tap ruckman but like Billy Longer not much else.
[/quote]


Ace - I am sure you would agree Brian played an important role supporting Alan Morrow in the 66 GF in the absence of Big Carl, and sits a fair few rungs higher than Billy on the ladder of Saints greats . Wonderful servant of the club in a very good team across many years. I humbly suggest your comparison undersells Brian. Not Pommy-bashing, are you ?!

[ace]

As for Brian Mynott great tap ruckman but like Billy Longer not much else.

Ace - I am sure you would agree Brian played an important role supporting Alan Morrow in the 66 GF in the absence of Big Carl, and sits a fair few rungs higher than Billy on the ladder of Saints greats . Wonderful servant of the club in a very good team across many years. I humbly suggest your comparison undersells Brian. Not Pommy-bashing, are you ?!
[/quote]

But he was only about 10 times better than Longer.
You have to lower your expectations by 10 times when comparing that team against today's.

[saintsRrising]

The key point of last night was that Hickey and Marshall worked as a combo such that Longer and any of of other rucks cannot hope for.

Indeed the only thing Longer can swap with is the pine.

[Crossy66]

What I like is that we can play Hickey and Marshall in the same side.

They have the ability to play more than one role.

Longer can play nowhere but ruck. So he becomes nothing more than a bench warmer when he needs a rest.

Longer is probably our best pure ruckman. But that isn’t enough in the modern game.

Agree.

Stonecold is going to explode.

Whatever Hickey offers, Marshall matches or betters. Neither can do what Billy does, so that point of difference is important.
Did anyone notice the rough treatment Gresh copped last night? I think if you asked him, he would love to have had Billy close by, he would have gone in to help out, unlike what happened last night . Still think its important to have a few hard men in the side to look after the little fellas.

I have never once seen Billy being a “hard man” in an AFL game. No one fears Billy, people talk as if he’s Big Mummy or Plugger!

I take it you have first hand knowledge of that eh? Who from an opposition side told you that no one fears Billy?

What a silly statement.

And who has told you they do?

I’m also keen to know which opponents allegedly fear Billy’s so-called mongrel? If he was such a feared opponent, wouldn’t he have taken at least a scalp or two this season?

I think this is just further spin-doctoring the Billy myth - like him being an excellent tap ruck and that he’s a beast at the stoppages.

What use are these perceived strengths if his hitout averages arent actually any better than Hickey’s? This is becoming more and more like Brian Taylor’s defence of Leon Davis after the 2010 drawn GF - “what about that nice hand pass to Daisy?”

What I will say though is that one strength Longer has over Hickey is that Hickey is far too easily pushed and brushed aside. A flaw in Hickey’s game that I’m skeptical will improve, but will have to if Hickey is to ever have any hope of being a no. 1 ruck. Again, hope to be proven wrong, but skeptical.

Who said he was a mongrel? Game has changed, you cant go around taking scalps as used to be the case with plugger, Lazar, Carl, Baker etc. I can tell you Billy is well regarded for his bullocking work, throwing himself into contests and flying the flag. Anyone watching a Stkilda game would not dispute his effort in these areas.

Anyway my point is, if you intend to pick Hickey then dont - pick Marshall instead. He offers everything Hickey offers. The debate should evolve into Marshall or Longer, not Hickey / Longer.( i am assuming that Richo will persist with Paddy at FF)
My other point is that other than perhaps Carlisle, I think the saints dont have many players prepared to protect the little blokes and this will be important as we improve and the likes of Billings and gresham etc come under more scrutiny.

[takeaway]

The key point of last night was that Hickey and Marshall worked as a combo such that Longer and any of of other rucks cannot hope for.

Indeed the only thing Longer can swap with is the pine.

Not sure what that statement means. Players can swap ruck duties fairly easily I would have thought.

[saintsRrising]

The key point of last night was that Hickey and Marshall worked as a combo such that Longer and any of of other rucks cannot hope for.

Indeed the only thing Longer can swap with is the pine.

Not sure what that statement means. Players can swap ruck duties fairly easily I would have thought.

You miss my point.

Hickey and Marshall can BOTH ruck, play around the ground (ie Follower) and play other roles like key forward

Longer can only rucks, but cannot play as a FOLLOWER and certainly offers nothing up forward.

Marshall and and Hickey are both constantly in the game and and can interchange with each other in all 3 roles.'

Longer can only share tap out (ruck) duties and apart from that is for 90% of the game a liability.

[skeptic]

The key point of last night was that Hickey and Marshall worked as a combo such that Longer and any of of other rucks cannot hope for.

Indeed the only thing Longer can swap with is the pine.

I think the other player this calls into question is Paddy.

Marshall and Hickey worked ok because Marshall could go forward in Paddy’s absence...

However with Paddy and Battle possibly in the team too... well I’m not sure it works

[skeptic]

I can tell you Billy is well regarded for his bullocking work, throwing himself into contests and flying the flag. Anyone watching a Stkilda game would not dispute his effort in these areas.

Anyway my point is, if you intend to pick Hickey then dont - pick Marshall instead. He offers everything Hickey offers. The debate should evolve into Marshall or Longer, not Hickey / Longer.( i am assuming that Richo will persist with Paddy at FF)
My other point is that other than perhaps Carlisle, I think the saints dont have many players prepared to protect the little blokes and this will be important as we improve and the likes of Billings and gresham etc come under more scrutiny.

Good response. However, the problem with the first part of this post is that IMO it’s simply not enough.
The qualities you’re describing, flying the flag, throwing himself into contests, bollocking... to me they’re like guarding space and working hard...
They’re expected and you don’t get bonus points for them.

You need to be doing that and having an impact...
And that to me is where Billy falls down. If we saw him frequently dominating the ruck, and dropping back and getting to aerial contests as an extra man and out working his opponent then I would say fair enough, he’s impacting.
But on that output, IMO it’s simply not enough.

Kruezur went down last night and if we had Billy in the team... the difference would like have been 10 less disposals and say 20 more hitouts or something.

Don’t get me wrong... I’m not a huge Hickey fan either. IMO he doesn’t have nearly enough impact around the ground which is meant to be his strength.

Where I disagree with you is that for me... Marshall is the lock and on balance, it looks to me like Hickey and Marshall is the most balanced combination until/if Billy gets to the point that he isn’t a non-factor around the ground.

Like I posted above. The question IMO is more about our forward line if Rowan is going to be playing down there

[older saint]

Last night cannot be used to rate anything as after 1/4 time was up against no one. Next week will be a good test with Nankervis.

I still don't think either are good enough at this point in time.

[Crossy66]

I can tell you Billy is well regarded for his bullocking work, throwing himself into contests and flying the flag. Anyone watching a Stkilda game would not dispute his effort in these areas.

Anyway my point is, if you intend to pick Hickey then dont - pick Marshall instead. He offers everything Hickey offers. The debate should evolve into Marshall or Longer, not Hickey / Longer.( i am assuming that Richo will persist with Paddy at FF)
My other point is that other than perhaps Carlisle, I think the saints dont have many players prepared to protect the little blokes and this will be important as we improve and the likes of Billings and gresham etc come under more scrutiny.

Good response. However, the problem with the first part of this post is that IMO it’s simply not enough.
The qualities you’re describing, flying the flag, throwing himself into contests, bollocking... to me they’re like guarding space and working hard...
They’re expected and you don’t get bonus points for them.

You need to be doing that and having an impact...
And that to me is where Billy falls down. If we saw him frequently dominating the ruck, and dropping back and getting to aerial contests as an extra man and out working his opponent then I would say fair enough, he’s impacting.
But on that output, IMO it’s simply not enough.

Kruezur went down last night and if we had Billy in the team... the difference would like have been 10 less disposals and say 20 more hitouts or something.

Don’t get me wrong... I’m not a huge Hickey fan either. IMO he doesn’t have nearly enough impact around the ground which is meant to be his strength.

Where I disagree with you is that for me... Marshall is the lock and on balance, it looks to me like Hickey and Marshall is the most balanced combination until/if Billy gets to the point that he isn’t a non-factor around the ground.

Like I posted above. The question IMO is more about our forward line if Rowan is going to be playing down there

I still think Billy will get there but happy to concede he is not there yet, you say that Billy's strong points are expected and that you dont get bonus points for them, to me Hickey either doesnt do these things or atleast doesnt do them consistently or to go a step further, no better than Marshall.
My main point is that assuming Battle and McCartin play, Marshall can really only be picked as a ruckman which i would do ahead of Hickey. The only way i would do something different is if he was selected ahead of either Battle or McCartin as a forward cum ruckman.
Hence why i think Hickey is the expendable one. But no matter what, Marshall just wont be able to carry the ruck for a season at his age and level of development therefore we will need a strong back up.

[Scollop]

Situation solved if we develop Marshall as forward cum ruckman where he is showing good signs. Would love to see Hickey and Marshall play several games together.

The new dilemna would be what to do with Bruce, McCartin and Battle

[Crossy66]

Situation solved if we develop Marshall as forward cum ruckman where he is showing good signs. Would love to see Hickey and Marshall play several games together.

The new dilemna would be what to do with Bruce, McCartin and Battle

yep. definitely some pressure for forward spots coming. Could also pose some questions for list development

[footyhead]

I know we love (or hate) our players but I would like to see both improve because both struggle against most other rucks (generally). Both need to work on their strengths. Identifying what each one brings as a strength is the hard bit. Last night is hard to tell (as other posters have said) Carlton lost Kreuzer very early so hard to call on last nights form, but Hickey did present and cause Carlton some issues. I know I am going back time but I always liked the Everitt and Vidovic combination two different styles but worked together well. I know living in the past.

[saintsRrising]

Based on this week Marshall should stay until Paddy's (once fit again) VFL is good enough to displace him, or Marshall's form drops. Note Marshall played well against the Blues and on present form one could argue that counts for little. So he needs to back it up against other teams.

Richo stated this weekend that no places would be gifted. Well at present that should be Marshall over Paddy as the game he played this weekend was more effective than any that Paddy has played this year. That he rucks as well is a bonus.

On form too I would bring back Battle before Paddy (and fitness wise that may be the case anyway).

Battle is also a lot more mobile than Paddy. Battle also plays very hard.

I could certainly see Marshall, Battle and Membrey working well together as all are mobile and Marshall will spend some of the game rucking.

I would keep Hickey over Longer for the Hickey/Marshall combo. The problem with Longer is that once the ball-up is over he is a liability and pairing him with Marshall will not fix that.

Longer/Marshall would not work as well IMO. Hickey is also currently a better ruckman than Marshall.

[Impatient Sainter]

Neither are worthy of the No 1 spot.

[skeptic]

I can tell you Billy is well regarded for his bullocking work, throwing himself into contests and flying the flag. Anyone watching a Stkilda game would not dispute his effort in these areas.

Anyway my point is, if you intend to pick Hickey then dont - pick Marshall instead. He offers everything Hickey offers. The debate should evolve into Marshall or Longer, not Hickey / Longer.( i am assuming that Richo will persist with Paddy at FF)
My other point is that other than perhaps Carlisle, I think the saints dont have many players prepared to protect the little blokes and this will be important as we improve and the likes of Billings and gresham etc come under more scrutiny.

Good response. However, the problem with the first part of this post is that IMO it’s simply not enough.
The qualities you’re describing, flying the flag, throwing himself into contests, bollocking... to me they’re like guarding space and working hard...
They’re expected and you don’t get bonus points for them.

You need to be doing that and having an impact...
And that to me is where Billy falls down. If we saw him frequently dominating the ruck, and dropping back and getting to aerial contests as an extra man and out working his opponent then I would say fair enough, he’s impacting.
But on that output, IMO it’s simply not enough.

Kruezur went down last night and if we had Billy in the team... the difference would like have been 10 less disposals and say 20 more hitouts or something.

Don’t get me wrong... I’m not a huge Hickey fan either. IMO he doesn’t have nearly enough impact around the ground which is meant to be his strength.

Where I disagree with you is that for me... Marshall is the lock and on balance, it looks to me like Hickey and Marshall is the most balanced combination until/if Billy gets to the point that he isn’t a non-factor around the ground.

Like I posted above. The question IMO is more about our forward line if Rowan is going to be playing down there

I still think Billy will get there but happy to concede he is not there yet, you say that Billy's strong points are expected and that you dont get bonus points for them, to me Hickey either doesnt do these things or atleast doesnt do them consistently or to go a step further, no better than Marshall.
My main point is that assuming Battle and McCartin play, Marshall can really only be picked as a ruckman which i would do ahead of Hickey. The only way i would do something different is if he was selected ahead of either Battle or McCartin as a forward cum ruckman.
Hence why i think Hickey is the expendable one. But no matter what, Marshall just wont be able to carry the ruck for a season at his age and level of development therefore we will need a strong back up.

Pretty much spot on on all points... it seems we're pretty much in furious agreement on all points with perhaps the exception being the Hickey contribution vs the Longer on.

I agree that Billy isn't there yet and I agree that Hickey doesn't do the bonus point stuff well enough often enough at the moment... hence that takes me back to the belief that IMO, whilst not there yet, I see Marshall as a better prospect than both and am more tempted to go elsewhere at this stage then try to persevere with Tom and Billy hoping that either will suddenly add a string to the bow.
Personally, would love to see Pierce get a go and a decent one at that but more and more I'm wondering if in fact one of Paddy and Bruce is the expendable one.

A forward line of:
Battle, Paddy/Bruce/McGovern (dream), Membrey
Gresh, Marshall, Billings

With a good FF... it works

I take your point though... Hickey doesn't play FF hence Longer as a tap ruck man makes sense.

f Billy could just get a little better he could end this debate for all of us

[Crossy66]

I can tell you Billy is well regarded for his bullocking work, throwing himself into contests and flying the flag. Anyone watching a Stkilda game would not dispute his effort in these areas.

Anyway my point is, if you intend to pick Hickey then dont - pick Marshall instead. He offers everything Hickey offers. The debate should evolve into Marshall or Longer, not Hickey / Longer.( i am assuming that Richo will persist with Paddy at FF)
My other point is that other than perhaps Carlisle, I think the saints dont have many players prepared to protect the little blokes and this will be important as we improve and the likes of Billings and gresham etc come under more scrutiny.

Good response. However, the problem with the first part of this post is that IMO it’s simply not enough.
The qualities you’re describing, flying the flag, throwing himself into contests, bollocking... to me they’re like guarding space and working hard...
They’re expected and you don’t get bonus points for them.

You need to be doing that and having an impact...
And that to me is where Billy falls down. If we saw him frequently dominating the ruck, and dropping back and getting to aerial contests as an extra man and out working his opponent then I would say fair enough, he’s impacting.
But on that output, IMO it’s simply not enough.

Kruezur went down last night and if we had Billy in the team... the difference would like have been 10 less disposals and say 20 more hitouts or something.

Don’t get me wrong... I’m not a huge Hickey fan either. IMO he doesn’t have nearly enough impact around the ground which is meant to be his strength.

Where I disagree with you is that for me... Marshall is the lock and on balance, it looks to me like Hickey and Marshall is the most balanced combination until/if Billy gets to the point that he isn’t a non-factor around the ground.

Like I posted above. The question IMO is more about our forward line if Rowan is going to be playing down there

I still think Billy will get there but happy to concede he is not there yet, you say that Billy's strong points are expected and that you dont get bonus points for them, to me Hickey either doesnt do these things or atleast doesnt do them consistently or to go a step further, no better than Marshall.
My main point is that assuming Battle and McCartin play, Marshall can really only be picked as a ruckman which i would do ahead of Hickey. The only way i would do something different is if he was selected ahead of either Battle or McCartin as a forward cum ruckman.
Hence why i think Hickey is the expendable one. But no matter what, Marshall just wont be able to carry the ruck for a season at his age and level of development therefore we will need a strong back up.

Pretty much spot on on all points... it seems we're pretty much in furious agreement on all points with perhaps the exception being the Hickey contribution vs the Longer on.

I agree that Billy isn't there yet and I agree that Hickey doesn't do the bonus point stuff well enough often enough at the moment... hence that takes me back to the belief that IMO, whilst not there yet, I see Marshall as a better prospect than both and am more tempted to go elsewhere at this stage then try to persevere with Tom and Billy hoping that either will suddenly add a string to the bow.
Personally, would love to see Pierce get a go and a decent one at that but more and more I'm wondering if in fact one of Paddy and Bruce is the expendable one.

A forward line of:
Battle, Paddy/Bruce/McGovern (dream), Membrey
Gresh, Marshall, Billings

With a good FF... it works

I take your point though... Hickey doesn't play FF hence Longer as a tap ruck man makes sense.

f Billy could just get a little better he could end this debate for all of us

Either way, i think we are going to need to balance the list up next season as we seem to have a lot of sameness across all lines. We will need to swap a mid or two for some foot speed and drop a ruckman and a key forward or two to make room for some class. Its very early to get a good read on Marshall, but he certainly looks like he will be a very good player so far.

[bigcarl]

Based on this week Marshall should stay until Paddy's (once fit again) VFL is good enough to displace him, or Marshall's form drops. Note Marshall played well against the Blues and on present form one could argue that counts for little. So he needs to back it up against other teams.

Richo stated this weekend that no places would be gifted. Well at present that should be Marshall over Paddy as the game he played this weekend was more effective than any that Paddy has played this year. That he rucks as well is a bonus.

On form too I would bring back Battle before Paddy (and fitness wise that may be the case anyway).

Battle is also a lot more mobile than Paddy. Battle also plays very hard.

I could certainly see Marshall, Battle and Membrey working well together as all are mobile and Marshall will spend some of the game rucking.

I would keep Hickey over Longer for the Hickey/Marshall combo. The problem with Longer is that once the ball-up is over he is a liability and pairing him with Marshall will not fix that.

Longer/Marshall would not work as well IMO. Hickey is also currently a better ruckman than Marshall.

I agree re Paddy. He shouldn’t be a walk-up start based on draft position. It’s got to be decided on form and exposed form.

One of Richo’s faults may be in excessive loyalty to his favourites. Longer being a case in point, maybe Weller.

I’d tell Paddy that he and Battle are on level terms and that only form will decide who plays.

As for Marshall, he looks very promising but he’s more of a ruckman than a key forward. Seems to have sticky fingers, which is a good trait in a big bloke.

[The_President]

Remember that we have no second or third rounders this year.

Moves will be made to create better team balance, get picks and also plug holes in the list.

One of Hickey and Longer will be moved on, and I suspect Bruce will be moved if a team comes knocking

[skeptic]

Remember that we have no second or third rounders this year.

Moves will be made to create better team balance, get picks and also plug holes in the list.

One of Hickey and Longer will be moved on, and I suspect Bruce will be moved if a team comes knocking

Am really enjoying this discussion...

This is another really interesting point.
One would think that surely either Hickey or Longer are surplus to needs at the moment. Especially if Pierce gets a look in.

I dare say the same could be said for either of McCartin and Bruce.

What would any of these guys demand though?

Looking through the list, Armitage, Dunstan, Ross, Steele, Acres and Newnes pbly collectively cause the same problem
All not overly fast, not overly damaging with the ball... usually decent accumulators of the ball but a bit inconsistent with it too.

[sunsaint]

a few pundits have Longer going to geelong - Im not so convinced as they have persevered with Stanley for so long and he gives them a lot after the bounce as well
As for improving picks is there any currency in shopping Weller (+another) to re-unite with his GC Suns brother - and oh how that tide has turned - nothing less than one of their priority picks I should think