bondiblue wrote:
ThePsychologist wrote:
bondiblue wrote:
I'm from the school of having to bonafide 2 mobile ruckmen.
I'm not keen on pseudo ruckmen against bonafide ruckmen (I thought we saw the end of them with Ackland, Cloke, McLean gone....then we had 4 200cm ruckmen).
I don't like the idea of our No 1 ruckman getting injured and having to rely on a KPF to do the ruckwork normally expected of a ruckman...may as well hand over the keys to the oppositions midfield when that happens.
You can't have 2 tall KP in backline and 2 KP tall in forwardline and one ruckman. Suicide imo.
I'm not in love with Hampson, but having seen the replay a coupla times I was most impressed with his effort to get to a contest when the ball didn't carrry to where he was stationed.
You've got to look at those situations and ask if any of our KPF's or ruckmen would have got to those contests and seriously couldn't see our other ruckmen attack the opportunities Hampson did. I just wish he didn' have such hard hands and kicked straight.
Hence no to Betts for Hampson for me.
Understand BB but it would be Warnock v Jacobs and Rowe v Jenkins. Where's the harm? You also can't pick a side "in case of injury". We need to be effective across our entire 22.
The game is also now having less and less stoppages caused by the sliding rule and the umpires throwing the ball up quickly around the ground. In some cases we are having as few as 3-4 ball ups a qtr.
The key point for me is carrying a player that has little effect. There can be a huge advantage having another midfielder. More rotations which is vital.
If we had Cox & NicNat I would totally agree with you but we don't.
When Kruezer comes back I can see he and Warnock being given a fair run together. My main concern is Hampson being made into a forward. Will never happen and I believe his ruckwork is suffering because of it.
With Waite back it complicates it further. A fwd line of Waite, Rowe/Casboult & Kruezer surrounded by Judd, Yarran, Betts, Garlett and the mids is very dangerous. I think that's how we will end up looking. Hampson would get in the way.
IMO we are so much better having a fit Warnock doing 80% of the ruckwork. Rowe has shown he can handle the back up work and has been impressive when he has.
Really, I'm only going to be assertive about the need for 2 ruckmen in a Grand Final...the rest of the time imo is experimenting and looking for a good mix. Problem is a good mix one week is not neceassrily a good mix another week and thats not good result for supporters
...so youve got to get a good mix. Kreuzer has to learn to play KPF imo...for the team and without losing anything ...he already knows how to play ruck and ruck rover....if we need him there if Warnock needs a rest or is injured.
We have to develop him to work for us when he is at FF...its going to happen. and he has to improve that aspect of his game like we saw when he first started.
2 ruckmen when the stakes are high. Thats all.
BB, We will have to agree to disagree.
Kruezer will never be a key forward. Not even close. Can he play a role there, of course, but will never make it as a pure key forward.
IMO Hampson has had enough time and chances and will never be more than handy. At the end of the year trade him. GWS & GC are on the hunt for a mature ruckman. May get something good in return.
Warnock & Kruezer are both No.1 ruckman although different in style.
Salmon grew up as a key forward. He was a star. After doing his knee and maturing he became a very good ruckman. Different skill set and most importantly background.
The best Ruckman/Forward I ever saw was S.Madden. A gun. But even he only pinched hit up there and was still much more valuable as a ruck.
I just think people are trying to create something from nothing.
We have Waite, Henderson, Casboult, Rowe, Mitchell as key forwards on our list. We need to develop them and give them opportunities. If they aren't up to it we need to recruit and trade to get one. Not invent one. Never seen it work.
Login
Register
FAQ
Yep!
