I don't agree, sure some people would, but not all. No club lets true talent leave easily, it happens very rarely. Sure, some players have moved to a second club and flourished, but how many have moved to a third club and then flourished.

At the end of the day, the chances of getting first class talent in a re-cycled player is very low. The chance of a late pick turning out to be first class might be low, be it does happen and it is more likely than trading for recycled players or picking them up in the PSD.

To become a successful club in the long-term, I reckon each club should be aiming to turn over 5-6 players a years and need 2 of those to prove to be long-term term players.

I will always support the club in drafting young, untried youth with late picks rather than a recycled player. And let's not get into arguments about hindsight, most people on this forum saw the danger of drafting another undersized ruckman and Ackland in particular. I have never seen such a united opinion on one player.

I could even forgive the fact that Ackland was drafted if he and McLaren had played together, but they haven't. If we couldn't financially afford to delist McLaren last year and had to carry him on the list and if he and Ackland weren't going to ruck in tandem, then why draft Ackland?

Why not wait one more year to see what was available and whether Aisake or one of the kids could step up. At the end of '07 we could have either offered McLaren a one year extension or chased another ruckman as a trade and got at least someone serviceable.

This whole saga is a symptom of poor list management, partly due to our financial situation stopping us from delisting crap players we didn't think had a future (eg Teague and McLaren this year, Clarke, ect in previous years).

Okay Steve, so who would be doing the ruck work right now . And by that policy again we wouldn't have drafted Cloke and you would have let McLaren go interesting. So our #1 and #2 ruckman would be the two Irish boys up against Cox, Sandilands, Everett etc etc Sorry Steve, I just can't quit get my head around that idea.

The Saints were so relieved to get rid of their second ruckman they went out and recruited Gardiner .

Were the people who slammed Ackland pre-season the same ones who said the same things about Cloke, who now like hima nd hope he is retained next year? Cloke has been averaging 8 possessions and 10 hitouts while Ackland is 8 and 15.

But I do admit, they're both better when they're both playing giving one a rest. On their own, they're crap.

I'm not sure I understand the first paragraph, Steve.

The intention was to have Ackland and McLaren ruck in tandem. And Cloke was in reserve. McLaren was held back by a back injury over the preseason, but had returned to ruck in practice matches. As it was, Cloke's brilliant form reduced the need for his return. But then in Rd 6, McLaren did his knee and had returned only last week for a half of VFL Reserves. But that wasn't such a worry because we had Cloke. WRONG. Within a week he dislocated his shoulder and was out for the year.

We may still see Ackland and McLaren ruck in tandem this year. Even better, McLaren might replace Ackland so he can get the kick in the bum he so richly deserves.

I don't see how the 2nd paragraph would have worked either. You were really suggesting we should have gone into the 2007 season without a senior ruckman. As we can see now, that's a pretty good way to make sure your side remains uncompetitive. You have to try to have some experienced ruckmen, even if that doesn't end up doing the trick. Better to try and fail than not to try at all. But the last thing you'd want is to gangpress Hampson or Jacobs before they're ready and see their development set back as a result.

In the end it wouldn't have made any difference what we did. We were screwed either way.

Using all of our later picks on kids may have produced a few quality players but that was unlikely, especially considering the leadership and support structure we had in place at the time.

Teague, Bowyer and the rest obviously weren't any better but i'll bet the kids we did have learnt more from them than Whitnall and Campo.

As for Ackland he's basically useless but the fact is we had no ruckman. If we'd done a few things differently that may have changed but it's irrelevant. Dwelling on past mistakes in our list management and recruiting won't change the fact that we had no ruckman going into the season and deperately needed a body to fill the hole until someone is ready to take over.

I would have gone in with McLaren, given that we were going to keep him and looked at our options at the end of this season. I would of taken that risk and in hindsight it probably would have screwed us given McLaren's injury.

But I don't think Ackland was the answer. We'll have exactly the same problem at the end of this year. Given that Ackland is contracted, do we really want to recontract McLaren? If we delist him and not pick up a mature age ruckman we are in the same position as my proposal for this year, unless Aisake steps up (assuming that both Hampson and Jacobs won't play a lot of senior footy until they fill out).

At the end of the day we've created a long term problem and then tried to apply a bandaid solution. We have done that a number of times recently and it hasn't worked.

steve wrote



MeeSo wrote





Dwelling is a waste of time...ie just thinking about it...but to remind ourselves how we failed and who failed, will remind those today and in the future, (that is those in vital decision roles with list management), that mistakes of the past that hurt our club will not be forgotten or swept under the carpet, they will leave an indelible scare and they will be hounded and held accountable for their negligence, as a result, it is always in the list manager's interest to make the right decisions for the club, everytime.

Short sighted mistakes that become long term problems, such as this ruck issue should always be there as a reminder of a place we never want to go back to.

Ruckmen take time to develop, there's usually less than a handful on a list, there's few in the trade period, and there's very few in the draft, so putting all our eggs in one basket whether it be for today in McLaren, Ackland and Cloke or for the future Hampson, Aisake and Jacobs, leaves us in a precarious position if injury happens or if they fail to deliver (ie Ackland, McLaren and Cloke...have failed in 2007, and yes they are all our eggs in the 196cm category, we have no 200cm ruckman available)

We need a couple more Big Genuine Ruck Sized ruckmen on our list of 44.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

Think about this. For the rest of the season, Ackland, Setanta and McLaren (when fit) can all have a go in the ruck. They will try their best, because they're fighting for their place in the side, even if they're ...how you say... not A grade material. Perhaps Jacobs and Aisake (when fit) will get a go. So, that's a possible five ruckmen that can have a go. Ackland at one stage was a valuable member of St Kilda - 6th in the B&F. If he can get back there, he may not be as hopeless as all think. In 2008, either McLaren or Ackland will go. Probably McLaren. Cloke should be back, and from what I saw, he had good tapwork and tried hard. He wasn't the tallest of blokes, but he was doing well. So, another year under the belt and Jacobs may get a few more games, perhaps Hampson gets a game. Aisake will get a game when fit. So that's three young ruckmen competing for a game, Cloke, 23, doing and OK job, Setanta hopefully back in defense, and Acklan or McLaren doing their "best". In 2009, when our B-grade ruckmen are gone, we will have:

Jacobs, Aisake and Hampson - All 200+cm, all young. One of these players should be getting a game every week.
Cloke - 196 cm, 24 by then. Good tapwork, developed, fighting for his place in the side.
Setanta at a pinch. Knows the game now, up around 200cm, a certainty for the side?
McLaren will be gone. Ackland should be gone.

With a good ruck coach and Cloke back fit, Ackland and McLaren could try their best and give us at least an experienced contest, and soon have 4-5 ruck choices of varying athleticism and talent (we'll see).

Glass is half full, just not this year.

Thanks BBS, you're wise well beyond your years. We DO have ruck options and they will come through. If we don't get the desired result it's not from lack of effort, over the last couple of years anyway.

If last weeks debacle showed anything, it was just how important 2 good ruck options are to the side. OhAilpin #2 was going to be elevated before he hurt his groin so I wouldn't be surprised to see Hampson in for a brief run this week.

Our ruck stocks in 2007:

1. Ackland 196cm 96 kilos 25yo (3rd club in 4 years) TOO SHORT, LACKS CONSISTENCY. SHOWING NO COMMITMENT.
2. McLaren 196cm 90 kilos 25yo (2nd club) TOO SHORT, INJURY PRONE, FAILED in 2006-7.
3. CLOKE 195 cm 98 kilos 23yo (delisted & 2nd AFL club) TOO SHORT, INJURY PRONE, great kid.
4. AISAKE 202cm 98 kilos 21yo (yet to play a game;rookie) INEXPERIENCED should start to peak around 2010
5. HAMPSON 201cm 93 kilos 19 yo (yet to play) TOO YOUNG, TOO INEXPERIENCED, NEW TO THE GAME should peak around 2012.
6. JACOBS 201cm 101 kgs 19yo (yet to play; rookie) TOO YOUNG & INEXPERIENCED, SLOW & HEAVY, could peak around 2012

Just my opinion boys. It's not a case of glass is half full or empty. I'm just taking off my rose coloured glasses and trying to be realsistic with our ruck dilemma.

Our first 3 'senior' rucks are too short for the position NOT WORTH BELIEVING THEY CAN BE PREMIER/ FINALS RUCKMEN. They are desperate stop gaps that fail to meet the test. Clokey has shown some heart, but he's not the desirable physique for a modern rucman.

So strike those 3 out, and what have we really got for the future? (whatever that implies...2009, 2012...)

Three unknown quantities.

1 x Irishman new to the game. Will make it on the AFL scene, but maybe not as a ruckman. If he does make it, then lets consider he peaks early for a ruckman, say at 24 yo that means he's competing against the best in 2010.

1 x Ex Soccer player with athletic attributes; played Aussie rules for 2 years, but he's only a skinny 19 yo. If he is to peak early, say 24, then that means he'll be competing as a ruckman around 2012. What if he can't put on the weight, and becomes a leaping HF?

1 x Genuine Aussie rules born and bred 19 yo, who is a good tap ruckman but is too heavy and too slow in 2007. He may start to peak earlier than Hampson, so lets say, IF he is to make it, it'll be 2012. Don't hold your breath on Jacobs making the grade...he was taken as a rookie, and he aint no Dean Cox.

So we have 3 ruck prospects for the future, and don't forget that's all they are.

I have no doubt that Aisake can at the very least become a stop gap ruckman, playing more like a ruck rover, but he's no gurantee as a good ruckman, and still very young in footy terms. I think he'll make it, so that's one.

The other 2 prospects are miles away, and if they peak as ruckmen usually do at around 25-6, then that'll be 2014. So I'm being more hopeful than academic that they'll start to peak in 2012.

What if 2 out of 3 make handy ruckmen in the future (and that'll be a success story) and one gets injured? What happens then?

We don't have much really in terms of ruck depth for the future, we need a couple more ruck prospects, and that includes putting up with mediocre pseudo ruckmen with at least Ackland (contracted) and Cloke or McLaren (1 year extension contract) till the end of 2008.

So what happens with the ruck position in 2009, 2010, 2011? Well we hope Aisake makes it, but we are going to have to rob Setanta from a KP to fill the 2nd ruck.

I want 2 ruckmen, up and running and competing effectively by 2009 to feed our kids in the midfield who will have well and truly matured by then and ready to take us to our first finals campaign (that's only 1 1/2 years away) in Murphy, Gibbs, Walker, Simpson, Carrazzo, Grigg, Russell, Anderson, Benjamin, Bentick as well as a couple high draft picks in 2007 and 2008.

Waiting in hope for 2011 and 2012 doesn't bode with me. We need to target a couple of fair dinkum ruckmen ready to rumble in 2009 over the 2007 and 2008 trade period.

Lets not under estimate the importance of the ruck role and the difficulties associated with securing and developing a premier ruckman, let alone 2 and one in reserve (incase of injury, suspension, contractual dispute or death).

Hampson and Aisake may make it earlier ...2009 and 2010 (and I hope so), but that's 1 ruckman short incase of injury, and I hate living in hope alone.

It's black n white: clearly we need to get serious about this ruck predicament, now. Hoping no injury etc happens , or that our ruckmen will come good at the same time when the rest of the kids are peaking is not good enough for CFC.

Get real and make it happen!!!!

FLAG # 17 asap please.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

I agree, Bondi, let's not waste a minute. Problem is, how do you get that fast tracked ruckman to the club?

We could trade Fev for Cox, or maybe to Richmond for pick 1 to allow us to get Kreuzer. They don't grow on trees as you said, so how can we do this in 2 years?

I haven't seen Asaike play but by all reports he is looking good as a ruckman to work with Ackland and Hampson.

I honestly don't think we need more ruckman, just need them to wake up tomorrow with 2 more years experience. Five or 6 ruckman on our list should be more than enough if the 200+ boys come on as expected.

Duke,

Kruezner would be good, but as an AFL ruckman he too needs time to develop his body and expertise over the coming years. He may make it in his first year as a high draft selection can, but not as a ruckman. It'll take him at least 3-4 preseasons to get the muscle and strength required to be at AFL ruck standard...and even that is pushing it, expecting him to make it by 21-22.



What I'm saying is that Ackland, McLaren and Cloke are not our future ruckmen, they are not 200cm ruckmen, they are not ruckmen, they are stop gaps; that's all. So I have discounted them beyond 2008. I'd drop them at season's end if there were no contracts / we weren't so desperate for stop gaps. They are not the solution to our ruck problems, that's all I'm saying regarding those 3.

So that leaves us with 3 over 200 cm. Say 1 or 2 make it, and Hampson and Aisake should. We should be looking for replacement ruckmen for the older 3.

I don't believe Cox or Sandilands are or will be available to us between 2008 and 2010; but they do resemble what I'm looking for in a ruckman, especially Cox.

But I do believe that at if we do the Carlton thing (the Pratt thing really) and target ruckmen that would serve us well till 2010 and beyond at the end of the 2007 and 2008 seasons (and beyond), especially now that CFC is becoming a more attractive place to be, with a lot of upside in the list and financial stability, we could 'attract' them and their manager for a chat (to start with). Who that is is a mystery, but they are out there, just because we don't know who they are, doesn't mean that they aren't there.Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

We should just keep knocking on doors in our quest for genuine ruckmen. Until we attract 1 or 2 to replace Ackland, McLaren and Cloke, we'll be stuck with this dilemma for at least the next 5 years ie serving ourselves a 5 year sentence if we don't. They don't have to be superstars, but over 200 cm and 100 kg, athletic, competitive in nature and with a record of at least breaking even / able to nullify the big boys in Cox and Sandilands.

There are 16 teams out there with at least 3 ruckmen on their lists (all but St Kilda), there's the VFL, WAFL and SAFL and the rest of Australia. We must leave no stone unturned. There's a diamond to be found out there; somewhere; they're there waiting for the offer.

Regardless of whether we find them or not, imo we are desperate to find a couple out there, so it's no good pretending that we have it covered with what we're sitting with right now; that'd be called resting on your laurels....that's Carlton of the past...those days are long gone...haven't they?

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

The problem with this debate of sorts is that everyone makes valid points. If you want a ready-to-go ruckman in 2009 that is of any real class, yes, we will have to trade. What/Who do we trade? Perhaps a young guy who has shown something, but is running out of time, or an established player that is not essential. No one will want Ackland or McLaren. Hawthorn seem to have done everything right, and everything that Carlton is scared to do. Since I've grown attached to the players, I hate to see them go.

Charman or Seaby is looking good in my opinion.

Maybe a Russell/DeLuca (not the dud one) swap should be on the cards.

Geez I'd want a pick out of that.

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.

bbs wrote:



You can still like them in another jumper if we discard them willingly, but if the player wants to leave the club and does, like Hamill, then you should just hate them (unless they were in a premiership team).



Now you're thinking.

We have to trade 1 or 2 mids/picks for a good ruckman, there's no other way if we want to speed up the development of our kids as a team.

But I do have a list of small midfielders untouchables as far as trading is concerned:

Walker
Murphy
Gibbs
Grigg
Anderson
Carrazzo
Stevens
Simpson

nor consider trading any of these big midfielders:

Setanta
Aisake
Hampson
Thornton
Waite
Fisher

and definetely not Fev, Kennedy, Hartlett, Bower Austin, Jamieson, Benjamin....maybe for a ruckman I'd consider 1 or 2....of my choice....not Fev though.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

There's almost an argument for drafting on average, one ruckman every year, using mostly serious draft picks.

Port, Brisbane and even Adelaide have gone down this path...

Brisbane:

2006 - Leuenberger
2005 - Clark
2004 - Wood
2003 - Spaanderman
2001 - McLaren
2000 - Charman
1999 - Knobel (rookie elevation)

Port:

2005 - Minson, Giles
2004 - Brooks, Brogan (rookie elevation)
1999 - Ackland
1998 - Thurstans, French (rookie elevation)

Adelaide -

2006 - Tippett
2005 - Griffin (rookie elevation)
2004 - Meeson, Maric
2003 - Hudson
2000 - Angwin
1999 - Biglands, Clarke

Ruckmen are notoriously hard to pick, so if you pick often, one or two are bound to come good. Then, because teams without a decent ruckman really struggle, and there are so few even half decent ruckmen around, you can offload any excess, at an infated price. Teams pay over the price to get one in a trade.

Port offloaded Brooks and French for picks 6 and 16!!!

Brisbane traded Clarke for pick 6.

(Sydney gave up pick 15 for Jolly.)

And the net result is that Brisbane and Port have both won Premierships, and Adelaide has come close.

Seems to me there is a good argument for drafting a ruckman almost every year.

_________________
Mens sana in corpore sano.

Bring back the laurel wreath logo!!!

I was thinking of one every two years, but looking at those lists it seems pretty hard to argue with around one a year. Nice pick-up Siegfried.

lets go after steven king. I know it goes against our whole policy, he has height, but the good thing is he is old and injury prone.

_________________
Back like a raging case of pubic lice

Siegfried wrote



There's a message in that!



Well put Siegfried. This is exactly what I have pushed for years.

It's a most vital position on the ground to have secured for structure and strategic planning (game plan); there should be at least 3 of them for senior selection, they should be 200 cm plus (min) and athletic, as they are rare as hens teeth. So having 6 of the 44 listed players and 4-6 rookies on the books is a necessary investment. It's a must and makes sense and is not an imbalance on the list as some seem to think.

Well written; I hope the club has changed its philosophy, in fact if last year is anything to go by with the selections of Hampson and Jacobs, they may have. If not... They should have learned an important lesson by now.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

Here are the players who HAVE PLAYED in the ruck that we've drafted over the last decade. Unless stated, all ruckmen are 197cm (McKernan) - 202cm (Deluca). I know some of them you wouldn't really count.

Matthew Allan - Drafted 1994. On the list until end of 2003.

Mark Porter - Drafted 1997. " " 2001.

Andrew Merrington - Drafted 1999. " " 2003. 192cm.

Adam Matthews - Drafted 1999. " " 2003.

Trent Hotton - Drafted 2000. " " 2002. 193cm.

Ian Prendergast - Drafted 2001 " " 2006.

Callan Beasy - Drafted 2002. " " 2004. 190 cm. Apparently had huge leap allowing him to play in the ruck.

Lindsay Smith - Drafted 2002. " "2002.

Corey McKernan - Drafted 2002. " " 2003.

Laurence Angwin - Drafted 2003. " " 2003.

Ricky Mott - Drafted 2004. " " 2004.

Adrian Deluca - 2004 " " 2006.

Daniel Batson - Drafted 2006. " " 2006.

[Edit] Barnaby French should go in there somewhere.

Cameron Cloke - Drafted 2007. 196 cm.
Cain Ackland - Drafted 2007. 196 cm.
Dylan McLaren - Drafted 2006. 196 cm.
Setanta O'hAilpin - Drafted 2003.
Aisaike O'hAilpin - Drafted 2004.
Josh Kennedy - Drafted 2005. 195-6 cm
Adam Hartlett - Drafted 2004. 196 cm
Shaun Hampson - Drafted 2006.
Sam Jacobs - Drafted 2007. (Pre-Season)

So, 22 players to have played in the ruck since Madden, + Kouta and Lance who have had stints. 19 players since 2000 + draft restrictions.
12 players since 2000 that can be considered true ruckmen.

So, isn't it obvious? Carlton has tried and tried again, against the restrictions imposed by AFL and their recruiting departments apparent incompetence (as documented by the amount of failures above) and have come up with nothing. Now that took me ages, so at least consider it. What a waste of a morning.

BBS

PS: My concentration and interest waned towards the end. There may be one or two mistakes, but I was helped by Blueseum, so it should all be pretty much right.