Two Rucks

The Average Tourist · Joined: 08 Apr 2010

Not wanting us to get in front of ourselves but our mid field must be pinching themselves we have two ruckman who can win taps and tap to advantage.
(We still need to get the basic 5 ruck free kicks against per game out of our system but)

We must continue to play both Grundy & Witts together as they are carrying the load, supporting each other and both earning their spot and improving each week. They are and will be a point of difference hopefully for 10 years.

I cannot remember us having two legit ruckman maybe Monkey & Charlie?

Whilst Brody kicked the goal Wittsy was good in the last as well

Dave The Man · Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:33 pm

I posted that we should play 2 rucks a week or so ago

sixpoints · Joined: 27 Sep 2010 Location: Lulie Street

^
Absolutely agreed.

As Jack Dyer used to say, "in the last quarter the quick ones get slower, but the tall ones don't get any shorter"

Dave The Man · Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:34 pm

Dave The Man · Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:51 pm

Better then Richards and Bryan

Tannin · Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:56 pm

I agree. Playing a single ruckman and getting a Leigh Brown type to fill in is a viable tactic, but it only makes sense when you have:

(a) A very high quality ruckman who can run out the whole game with ~ 80% gametime - e.g., a Sandilands, a Jolly in his prime.

(b) A genuine use for the fill-in ruckman while he is not rucking. Doesn't matter whether he is a forward, a utility, or whatever, but he must be a player who you would pick just to fill that other role even if he didn't ruck at all. Otherwise you might as well play a second true ruckman.

(c) No loss of structure when the second ruck leaves his normal position to have a run on the ball. Imagine, for example, that we went in with Grundy as #1 ruck and used Jack Frost as the #2. That is just asking for the opposition key forward to boot a couple while he has a mismatch.

(d) The willingness to take a risk of injury to your one and only genuine ruck early in a vital game. Last year when Hudson went down early in the game against Carlton, we were screwed, we were virtual certainties to be defeated by an inferior club, and we would have been had it not been for the heroics of one Q. Lynch, who stepped up and played the game of his life to get us over the line. Magnificent efforts like that are very, very rare. Nine times out of ten, we'd have been up that famous creek.

Finally, by playing a single ruckman, that player does not get a chance to develop his game and learn how to do anything other than ruck. Then, when we do play two rucks, we get nothing much out of the non-rucking one 'coz he doesn't know how to play forward or drop back a kick behind and work with the defenders to save a goal.

Yes. Keep on playing Witts and Grundy together all year (now and again giving one a rest as needed) and watch them learning how to be just as dangerous resting up forward as they are on the ball.

PS: White has blossomed as a permanent forward. Keep him there! Let him concentrate on that role, and only use him in the ruck to cover contingencies.

PPS: Witts and Grundy and are both good contributors at bounces after the ball hits the deck. Let's encourage that part of their games too. From time to time, we should encourage them to both contest the clearance, e.g., Witts taking the tap and Grundy contesting at ground level with his strength and bulk. There is a lot of merit in the old-fashioned notion of a genuine ruckman playing as ruck-rover. Not all the time, of course, but now and again to create the mismatch and crunch a few opposition smalls. Some other sides do this these days, with marked success.

themonk · Joined: 02 Mar 2004

Dave The Man · Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:59 pm

Johnno75 · Joined: 07 Oct 2010 Location: Wantirna

It's working a treat at the minute.

If both guys maintain the same impact over the next few weeks what do we do when Ben Reid is ready to comeback?

I assume it would be 1 of the rucks we would have to drop, anyway it will be a good problem to have.

Dave The Man · Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 2:03 pm

Albert Parker · Joined: 13 Dec 2012

simon tonna · Joined: 24 Oct 2013 Location: carindale

is Cloke untouchable when it comes to team structure?

Dave The Man · Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 2:57 pm

simon tonna · Joined: 24 Oct 2013 Location: carindale

i wouldn't mind seeing the current Collingwood team minus T Cloke
and replaced with B Reid. Travs a champion and a favourite of mine.
but even the formidable need to sit, watch and absorb from a different
perspective, it may clear he's head from built up frustrations on the field
[or where ever else]and freshen him up with a hunger and desire that
comes after a lay off.
for what seems a long while now we have been a team that has had the
luxury of knowing that if in doubt for the forward entry "i can just bomb
it into a leading Cloke because he's a great contested mark" at the end
of a strong lead. but so is White and so is Reid and both kick accurately
for goal.
the structure wouldn't change just an attitude going forward with the ball
would.

Lutts · Joined: 29 Oct 2007 Location: Launceston

From my memory I though Reid was an AA CHB! Leave Witts & Grundy to ruck. Leave Cloke & White as tall forward targets. I'd even leave Frost & Keefe as tall backs.
Sorry Maxy, love your work as the general in the backline, and as a spare backman you are amongst the best, but Reid's experience now should allow him to perform the same role as well as 1) play on a man if need be, 2) mark the ball in a pack situation instead of only ever going for the spoil, 3) kick longer and more accurately to a target.