08-15-2016, 04:53 AM
(08-15-2016, 04:27 AM)LP link Wrote:Which of the serious finals contenders run with only one genuine ruck option?
It seems there are very few examples that support your argument, just look at last weekend!
Hawthorn - McEvoy/Ceglar
Sydney - Nankervis/Naismith
Adelaide - O'Brien/Jenkins
Geelong - Stanley/Smith + Biclavs
GWS - Mumford/Lobb + Paton
WC - Naitanui/Lycett
Bulldogs - Roughead/Boyd
North - Goldstein/Daw
Sides are different and you select them to your strength but because it's the done thing to pick two.
Anyway, Daw only plays when Waite is out. Boyd is a key forward, didn't pay 1 miillion a year to ruck, Jenkins is mostly a key forward. Sydney will play Tippett when he's back, Paton will always offer something good as a forward. Hawthorn are key positionless due to illness and injury but last year had Hale, who was a good as a key forward as he was a ruck. Using your names there has thoroughly convinced me we use one ruckman and Casboult, same as those sides above. Thank you for confirming what I think.
2 rucks is ok if they are mobile and do alot around the ground, goddamn friggen useless if they do nothing as you're one man down the whole game. At Carlton, who in their right mind would play two rucks when you can pick another runner and increase your run around the ground. Anyone who knows anything at all about football Casboult can take up the slack as he has done before for a few years pretty well, and where he plays some of his best footy in that dual role. Happy to lose a few tapouts for better round the ground output. Many sides win the clearances against losing rucks.
What would you prefer, two lumbering useless ruckmen or one and an extra runner? By having one you'll increase both the output of Kreuzer, Casboult as well as giving us good run with the extra midfielder. What do you think? You couldn't possibly say two useless lumbering ruckman, if you do, well......