Indie wrote:
But 4thchicken, that's the bizarre thing about the selections. It was obvious that throwing Hammer against Sandilands in his 1st senior match of the year was unlikely to end well. I noted that it would have been better to wait a week and bring him in against Josh Fraser. I can see him climbing all over Fraser, but not Sandilands. It would have been better to have Santy take the ruck and have our mids rove to Sandilands. At least Santy would have enabled us to outnumber them 4 mids to 3 in the centre square and give us more around the ground.
I love the way that these sorts of things are only recognised in retrospect with an awed sense of inevitability.
Hammer would still be a good match up for Fraser, but has his confidence been shot by this ill-considered venture?
Not really. Sandilands would have killed setanta in the ruck. Setanta wouldnt have been strong enough either (still giving 25+kg away), and doesnt have the leap of hampson (one thing that may potentially be useful to counter sandliands).
As raw as hampson is, he is a better ruckman than setanta in my book. Furthermore, I dont agree that having setanta in the ruck would have meant 4:3 mids in the centre square - he doesnt get/attract a lot of the ball around the ground and realistically is more likely to give away a free than get a centre clearance. Personally I'd play hampson ahead of setanta in the ruck. Greater potential to develop as a player+age on his side.
In terms of ruckmen on our list that might do ok against sandilands, the only one I'd have faith in to do a reasonable job/compete would be jacobs and unfortunately he is injured atm.