Against Freo when Kreuzer went down we were treated to the near-biblical spectacle of "Tbird & Goliath". Given the rules do not permit use of slingshots this was one battle Tbird wasn't going to win and the double-decker docker dominated whilst Jacobs was rested.

So could we go the other way and run all 3? All of the 3 ruckmen offer something up forward, although none in my view would earn their keep as a pure forward. Warnock's height is hard to counter, he has surprising mobility and an accurate kick. Kreuzer is very mobile, accurate kick and although not a great mark would be a real worry to most backs just because of size and Hampson is incredibly quick and developing his skill set although not a quickly as I'd like. All 3 would get plenty of ball to ground for the 3 amigos. Could you run the 3 as a ruck/ruckrover/ forward pocket merry-go-round? Obviously you would have Warnock rucking or forward but the other 2 could do the 3 roles. It is a tall team to be true, and with most ruckmen you would be found out when the ball hits the ground, but Kreuzer and Hampson especially have mobility good enough to match midsize mids and defenders. And they would certainly add a big body into the midfield rotation to help with the physical stuff. And, heaven forbid, if one goes down during the game you still have 2 genuine ruckmen to share the rucking duties without having to call upon a "give him a break KPP" - not that you'd pick the 3 simply against that eventuality. An intersting prospect and one worth comtemplating and perhaps trialling in the NAB cup. Even if Kreuzer wasn't ready for those games you could run Hammer as a ruckrover/ 3rd man up to see how it went.

I am of the opinion that running one ruck is a huge risk. Collingwood managed it last year and so everybody will want to do it all the time but they were lucky all year with their lack of serious injuries to big men and Jolly played all games IIR. He certainly didn't get injured during the game and have to leave the field. Had that happened, we would not have seen the success that they had doing it. I can't imagine Brown rucking for three quarters against Warnock or Sandilands if Jolly does his ankle in the first term.

I do not believe for one minute that one man playing as a pinch hitter in the ruck was the reason for the Pies Flag/ success.
I thought Brown did well for the Pies when he played deeper in the forward line and used his weight and height advantage against smaller defenders. His ruckwork was pffft...the midfielders' pressure was what won it for them not their rucks...imo.

The Pies had no 2nd ruck! So they didn't play a 2nd ruck!

What will they do when Jolly is injured and Brown's form dies off in 2011....watch this space.

Once upon a time, there was a competition where there were NO interchanges, only two subs. Each team had two rucks, one of whom rested in either the forward or back pocket. They also had things called 'rovers' who 'rested' in the forward and back pockets which created rotations through the midfield and enabled them to 'rest'. Of course they were not as good as the midfielders of today. People like Skilton, Goggins, Ashman, Cable and co could never get a game in today's frenetic spectacle.

Like hell they couldn't.

So what's the big deal? The ability to rest a ruckmen up forward still exists. Last year we did it in two games and IIR, when we did, we had two last quarters of 9 and 10 goals. The concept of resting the ruckman on the pine is amazing to me. Warnock leaning against the goal post while Hampson rucks and vice versa gives me a hard on. (Well as close to a hard on as I can muster at my age but the point is made.)

And that's the mismatch we can create. I believe a KP forward/ target should be Tall. Most footy commentators do too. 200cm is a tall target...as long as they can mark/ gets hands to the ball first/ get the ball down to the dangerous smalls st their feet.

I can't imagine a team having the balls to flood all their backs to the midfield with 200+cm of resting ruckman in the 10yard square. It would require two backmen to stay there with him or risk a one on one marking contest.

With a great midfield who can get the ball forward quickly, and I think we can do that in 2011, then I agree, a 200cm marking target at FF can hinder the plans to press forward like Pies and Saints do. To their peril when they do.

Meanwhile, the entire midfield rotation continues off the bench and through the forward or half back lines. The biggest problem is the poor bastard who has to watch it all with his vest on and hope that one of his mates gets injured. That will be the hardest position to fill IMO. Walker or O'hAilpin might be the perfect sub for us because they are both fast and play tall or short. As for the rest of the bench, fill it with running midfielders and keep two rucks on the ground.

Kreuzer can play the Sergio Silvagni/Ron Barassi/James Hird role of just chasing the footy around the park where he is needed at any given moment.

There's been a couple of mentions of comments by Bailey. Does anyone know of a link to those comments? Cheers.

Kruezer is a ruckman.

1st, 2nd and 3rd.

He will play up forward at times, for a rest, to give the other ruckman a run, cause some matchup issues for the opposition.

We may briefly play two ruckmen on the ball for very limited periods of a game...as a bit of a change up, to catch the opposition unaware....5mins here and there. Some games it may happen more than others, it won't happen at all in a lot of games.

Mentioning him as a forward I can accept, but any thought that he's a ruck rover and any lineup that lists him as a ruck rover is just wrong. I don't care what anyone takes from any comment from the coaching staff on it.

Kruezer is a ruckman.

1st, 2nd and 3rd.

He will play up forward at times, for a rest, to give the other ruckman a run, cause some matchup issues for the opposition.

We may briefly play two ruckmen on the ball for very limited periods of a game...as a bit of a change up, to catch the opposition unaware....5mins here and there. Some games it may happen more than others, it won't happen at all in a lot of games.

Mentioning him as a forward I can accept, but any thought that he's a ruck rover and any lineup that lists him as a ruck rover is just wrong. I don't care what anyone takes from any comment from the coaching staff on it.

You may be right but if we want to see Kruez playing on the park and not sitting in the stands watching for the best part of the next 10 years = He needs to get out of the ruck

I like the comments as much as everyone but I wonder if this subjective assessment is the way the match committe track the progress.

I don't know how many of you have read Michael Lewis' book Moneyball, but that book shows how important it is to assess performance with quantitative analysis (Baseball in this case) and not just rely on perception and one or two standout games.

I would hope that our coaches have worked out what are the key drivers of performance that leads to winning outcomes and that they measure and test these assumptions regularly.

There is room for judgement and gut feel but todays world has the tools for identifying and measuring an edge and we must use them.

A small edge makes a huge difference and even a fraction of 1% advantage is enough to make just about every casino profitable and it is enough to make a winning footbal program.

Again, I like the comments but they seem a little bit superficial and don't really tell us much more than we haven't yet created our edge.

CB