His time on ground percentage for the year from his debut in round 3

67
52
67
67
53
53
54
63

I'd rest Kruezer on the bench and down forward rather than drop him to the Bullants...dont see him learning much in the twos......

_________________
"When you have the attitude of a champion, you see adversity as your
training partner."
- Conor Gillen

Bingo

Resting him to the Bullants is not a rest and would only serve to dent the kid's confidence. He showed enough last week at the back to put him at CHB this week. In the probable absence of Bower and Jamiesen, we could do worse. Although he shows massive potential, he is clearly not ready for the major ruck role, & shouldn't be expected to be, and CHF is too much to expect of a first year teenager as well. His height, athleticism and football brain could be a big plus for us at CHB.

You play 53% of as an AFL game at 18 in the ruck. Its not just the aerobic fitness, it is the knocks bumbs and corkies that get you without a mans body....Play Jacobs...lets see what he can do

Kreuzer is a long term investment. The MC are best placed to know whether he needs a rest (week off all footy) or maybe a run with the Ants (maintain the aerobic work out without the physical battering). Geelong have a policy of not flogging their first year players with all receiving plenty of 'down time' (Selwood exception and not expected to hold down a key position). Let's not be so keen to play him. We don't want to do to Kreuzer what St Kilda did to Kosi in his first year and pay for it in spades down the track. Short term gain for long term pain.

Give him the week off completely. Let him sit at home and watch Entourage with his entourage...... playing in the seconds doesn't sound like a "rest" to me

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

Jacobs seems logical guy to bring in, but he's pretty underdone.

Would the MC consider Aisake? What do we have to lose? Hammer was virtually pulled from Ants reserves to play last yr, so there is a precedent.

About time we had a look at this guy and the MC now have an excuse.

Why not just play Cloke and Hampson???????????

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

Agreed, I think they went for an extra tall to test the Cats defence but clearly the midfield battle was lost and the extra tall isnt required, unless Cloke's injury or fitness means he cant play long stints in the ruck?

Jacobs would have only played a few consecutive games so I don't think now is the time to test him. People may only see 5-6 players on the injury list but Jacobs and Anderson, two likely types, haven't played a lot of football in the last 6-7 weeks (2-3 weeks each from memory).

The Tyrant wrote



Where?

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

Molsey wrote



I can't recall having noticed 2 of the 3 talls (Cloke, Hampson, Kreuzer) sitting on the bench against Geelong.

From what I recall, there was only ever 1 ruckman rucking at a time, 1 was on the bench and the other was either playing as a tall in the fowardline and in the last in defense.

If Kreuzer's out, we still need a tall to take his place to either relieve Hampson in the ruck, or take on a bigman/ KP role at probably CHF.

I still maintain, we did not having 3 rucks playing last week.

Cloke is a fill ruckman at 195cm or playing as a key forward. We have to rotate our bigmen; they have a lot of weight to carry around the ground for 80-100% game time. You have to remember they are on the ball all around the ground when rucking. Hampson and Kreuzer are not seasoned campaigners, they are at the early stages of building their strength and stamina.

Rest Kreuzer in the FP rotating with Fisher at CHF.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

Though I want Waite CHF long term, he has to stay back due to our injuries. Ditto Carlos. Thus, want Cloke CHF and Hammer and maybe Aisake doing the ruck work. Aisake very mobile too. so we'd hardly look top heavy.

Fish to be dropped, thus Jake, Clokey and Fev the targets up forward. Looks a lot better balanced to me.

Hoping the Gerard Healy "tap outs mean stuff all" theory works for us this week!

bondi, I think this is only the second week this year where we played 3 'nominal' ruckmen in the team (22, not 18). In the first game, Hampson only played 37 minutes from memory and found his way back to the bench. Against Geelong we played 3 but most likely you are right, only 2 were on the field at any one time.

I would agree Cloke is a good fill-in and I think for him to stay on the list in say 2-3 years time he'll need to further develop the forward link. 4 goals in 15 or so games suggests he's got a lot of work to do, but granted he hasn't spent much time up there (nor have we had the luxury of having him play there in 2007 given our ruck stocks). In a game where you have 3 talls you can be found out on bench rotations for runners - if you get beaten in the ruck then i think you can effectively lose most of your bench space and I'd prefer to have an extra runner at this stage. When Hampson and Kreuzer are big or mature enough to take on a forward position it looms as a strategic advantage to have all 3, at the moment I think it's a disadvantage.

Are you for real? Did you miss the whole Pagan-sacking?

Waite's development as a defender - sans some shocking disposal - has been great... his spring and run from defence is excellent and if he continues to develop it'll be a great win for us to have sturdy -yet-constructive key defenders in Jamo and Waite. Waite as a forward is a thing of the past...

Ditto Setanta... hopeless forward but adequate and developing defender. He needs a simple proposition to make an impact, and on the last line his height and reach make him really valuable.

And Fisher to be dropped.... why? he's played 2 bad games and was gunning in our wins at the start of the year....

what is it with you guys???????

You want to drop Fisher and play Cloke as a forward... have you watched any football at all in the last 10 years????

crazy stuff

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

errrrrr.... in the ruck???

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

Read the post again, Tyrant. "Ditto Carlos" a reference to him playing him back, not forward.

Waite thrown back by MC when it looked like we had stuff all at the start of the year. Banno, Bower and Jamo have come along in leaps and bounds and add Walker, Thornton, Carrots, Carlos, Browne, Army, Grigg, Scotland etc and we have plenty for the back 6. Agree with plenty of other posters - we have a very powerful defence in the making without the need for Waite spraying it all over the place on the way out. One thing we do know - he can play him there if the need arises, but he's not my first choice CHB.

We have few forward options, hence why Waite should go forward - defenders will not peel off as much and run to Fev whilst he's around. Takes a top defender, no doubt. Cloke CHF for this game as Waite must cover for a few injuries down back.

Fish only dropped to regain form. Jake deserves a go and these guys should be gunning for the same spot, i.e. third tall, so we should be grateful for this.

I'll leave it there.

Fev is the first forward.

Fish and Jake fighting for the 3rd forward.

Who's the second?

_________________
Congratulations CK95

Dropping Fish ain't crazy stuff when he isn't tackling effectively, can't kick more than 35M, misses sitter goals, and goes to ground in every contest. Needs Ants time. Bring in Edwards for the next month and see how he goes.

throw the A-bomb aisake a bone and have him run amok on the fwd arc

what have we got to lose? WELL?!

_________________
"You're my boy(s), Bluuuee(s)..."