Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
kosifantutti wrote:In terms of trades I reckon we made the right decisions regarding McEvoy and Longer, but I have been disappointed with Longer's development. I think Longer is a great tap ruckman and he's hard at it when the ball hits the ground but he should be giving a marking option around the ground and he's just not doing that. It's like he doesn't know how to get his body in the right spot and then he doesn't know how to position his hands. It seems to be flat hands every time and hoping the ball sticks.
If all are fit, I would go with Hickey and Bruce/Lee giving him a chop out.
With Hickey out I would still go with Longer but keeping a very close eye on the progress of Pierce/Holmes.
Long term I reckon Pierce has the most potential to play that forward/ruck role.
Edit. I'm still unconvinced that trading Stanley was the right move.
Holmes looks closer to actually being anything good compared to Longer at the moment.
Holmes was the best tap ruck on the park yesterday which was one helluva surprise. That stated, good work!
Longer looks a mile off being anything at this stage. He has time on his side which is good. For him and with our list, it is a good place to be a developing player!
Hickey looks the most likely by a long way- he can take a mark and kick a goal. Longer I was hoping would have shown a little more in either the intra or NAB1 - but unfortunately he still looks like he cant take a contested mark or earn a kick around the ground. From what i saw in NAB1 Holmes was ever so slightly ahead of Longer and with a whisker of luck could have actually clunked a couple of extra marks - certainly worth persisting with in NAB2 and NAB3 to see if he can gain a bit of confidence and pull ahead of Longer.
I was not a fan of trading Stanley for the very reason that he was a very logical 2nd ruckmen - however in hindsight, I am delighted that we nabbed Hugh Goddard with that pick - so the risk paid off - even though we will have short term pain over the next 2 -3 years until we get this sorted.
If Hickey plays, we can probably afford to play either Longer or Holmes on the bench. If Hickey does not play, I dont think you can carry Longer and Holmes (or Pierce) in the same side as you cant go into a game with a ruck division that provides a sum total of 4 kicks and 2 marks or less in a game - regardless of how many taps they win. When Hickey does not play I think we should use Bruce as the 2nd ruck as the preferred option.
Life is never more fun than when you're the underdog competing against the giants.
Bardon Saint wrote:Rucking non-issue for mine. If we were going for a flag this year, or top 4 or top 8, then I might be slightly concerned. We have 4 developing ruckman. They all have potential and anywhere from 2 - 6 years before they're at an age considered to be at their peak. Like others have said, it will work itself out.
So if that is case no position is an issue because it will just sort itself out. Im not sure things just get sorted out over time.
I think there is a plan. My gut instinct is, from tidbits from Richo and what a few people on here with a bit of inside knowledge, is that the St Kilda brains trust have a future goal of Hickey as main ruck with Pierce as the forward-ruck. Someone on here said Pierce was a forward in junior footy. That seems like a damn good combo with Hickey showing good tap work and able to take grabs when resting forward and if Pierce can develop into that Hale type who kicks goals but can also ruck well so there is no let up in quality ruck work in a grand final. But that is just one hypothetical on paper. Who knows how the reality will play out. Hickey has been injury prone. Will Longer be happy playing in the magoos if Hickey stays fit and they only want one ruck or will he seek a trade like he did out of Brisbane? Would we be happy to trade Longer if we get a decent pick and if Holmes keeps on developing well? Could White do some rucking to help cement a spot in the firsts? If Pierce proves a good forward would we still need to draft another power forward if a Cameron type is available with a no. 1 pick we have? Pierce is yet to play an AFL game so there are still plenty of questions he needs to answer. Plenty of water to go under the bridge.
Agreed and all of which will play out over time. To call it now as an issue is far too early relative to how we as a whole are positioned. If they were all terrible with no signs, then sure... but they're all developing. A key feature of development is time, particularly for rucks.
Bardon Saint wrote:Rucking non-issue for mine. If we were going for a flag this year, or top 4 or top 8, then I might be slightly concerned. We have 4 developing ruckman. They all have potential and anywhere from 2 - 6 years before they're at an age considered to be at their peak. Like others have said, it will work itself out.
So if that is case no position is an issue because it will just sort itself out. Im not sure things just get sorted out over time.
I think there is a plan. My gut instinct is, from tidbits from Richo and what a few people on here with a bit of inside knowledge, is that the St Kilda brains trust have a future goal of Hickey as main ruck with Pierce as the forward-ruck. Someone on here said Pierce was a forward in junior footy. That seems like a damn good combo with Hickey showing good tap work and able to take grabs when resting forward and if Pierce can develop into that Hale type who kicks goals but can also ruck well so there is no let up in quality ruck work in a grand final. But that is just one hypothetical on paper. Who knows how the reality will play out. Hickey has been injury prone. Will Longer be happy playing in the magoos if Hickey stays fit and they only want one ruck or will he seek a trade like he did out of Brisbane? Would we be happy to trade Longer if we get a decent pick and if Holmes keeps on developing well? Could White do some rucking to help cement a spot in the firsts? If Pierce proves a good forward would we still need to draft another power forward if a Cameron type is available with a no. 1 pick we have? Pierce is yet to play an AFL game so there are still plenty of questions he needs to answer. Plenty of water to go under the bridge.
Agreed and all of which will play out over time. To call it now as an issue is far too early relative to how we as a whole are positioned. If they were all terrible with no signs, then sure... but they're all developing. A key feature of development is time, particularly for rucks.
Of course its an issue now. It may not be an issue in 2 years time. Things aren't just sorted out because of time. Hopefully one will come on but just because they are young doesn't mean they will and worst of all because of what we paid we need them too especially on top of Lee who I think is a VFL player standard.
CURLY wrote:Longer 26 hit outs Luenbeger 12. Im missing something here am I. I love ruckman taking grabs but a the moment Longers ruck work is holding up fine.
Everyone admits that his tapwork is fine. Problem is that he is a liability around the ground, and that is at least equally as important as tapwork.
When your ruckman is completely ineffective in general play then you are essentially a man down.
Agreed and all of which will play out over time. To call it now as an issue is far too early relative to how we as a whole are positioned. If they were all terrible with no signs, then sure... but they're all developing. A key feature of development is time, particularly for rucks.[/quote]
Of course its an issue now. It may not be an issue in 2 years time. Things aren't just sorted out because of time. Hopefully one will come on but just because they are young doesn't mean they will and worst of all because of what we paid we need them too especially on top of Lee who I think is a VFL player standard.[/quote]
Saints pre 1997 GF was a rucking issue, if our ruckman were injured or past their prime then rucking issue, if going for a flag this year then an issue. It must be considered in context of where we finished last year. Having 4 developing ruckman is a non-issue for a developing team. I think it's exciting that they are vying for spots. I'd like to think our match committee see this as a positive rather than a negative given where we're at. Should we have recruited for an established ruckman last year to resolve this 'issue'? Or shall we come to an understanding that we are rebuilding and the process will evolve?
I haven't seen all of Saturdays game yet but I think our Ruck stocks are the least of our worries right now. We have four developing ruckmen two of whom are competitive enough to hold down the spot right now but with significant scope to develop still. Another is an athletic freak learning the game who in the event of dire injury crisis can hold the fort and again has huge upside for the future, then finally one who is still a project but may have the most natural football skills of the lot and is now finally big enough that he could be considered for senior footy. That is more ruck depth that we have had since we had Everitt, Vidovic and the Cookie Monster in the late ninties.
The competition between them is great, no one is locked in as the number 1 ruck at this stage all four of them should be able to see a realistic opportunity to be our first ruck. Generally Ruckmen don't hit their straps until 25 plus, ours are mostly in the right age profile to be at their best when we are back in finals contention. Who would have thought Maric Jacobs or Minson would be All Australian ruckmen when they were 21. Patience is the key with the big fellas. We will get monstered in the ruck a few times this year but we will get killed in the midfield most weeks all part of the rebuild.
Even if it all goes to hell and none of them develop we just bite the bullet and trade for a mature ruckman when the time is right like Sydney Haw Rich have done.
Hickey is obviously our number 1 ruck when fit. Showed a bit when he played last year. If he cant get his body right in my view it comes down to saints deciding who will be the better ruck out of Holmes and Longer. If hickey can't play for large sections of the year (touch-wood: hopefully he can play the whole year)then a decision will need to be made on whether you give the game time to Longer or Holmes. I can't see us playing them both in one team and think Bruce will be the pinch hitter + one main ruck (hickey, longer etc..). So either play Longer and assume he will develop his marking and around the ground presence to add to decent tap work or play Jason, who's tapwork is great but is still very raw around the ground.
Bardon Saint wrote:Agreed and all of which will play out over time. To call it now as an issue is far too early relative to how we as a whole are positioned. If they were all terrible with no signs, then sure... but they're all developing. A key feature of development is time, particularly for rucks.
Of course its an issue now. It may not be an issue in 2 years time. Things aren't just sorted out because of time. Hopefully one will come on but just because they are young doesn't mean they will and worst of all because of what we paid we need them too especially on top of Lee who I think is a VFL player standard.[/quote]
Saints pre 1997 GF was a rucking issue, if our ruckman were injured or past their prime then rucking issue, if going for a flag this year then an issue. It must be considered in context of where we finished last year. Having 4 developing ruckman is a non-issue for a developing team. I think it's exciting that they are vying for spots. I'd like to think our match committee see this as a positive rather than a negative given where we're at. Should we have recruited for an established ruckman last year to resolve this 'issue'? Or shall we come to an understanding that we are rebuilding and the process will evolve?[/quote]
No we should not have recruited an established ruckman. We did the right thing but did we pay to much. We will find out over time. It can still be an issue now even if we are a bad side because just being young and competing for spots doesn't mean all or any of them will make it. Based on us being no good this year then you must think nothing is an issue. I think our midfield is also a huge issue. We have many mids but again im unsure we have enough good ones.
Our lack of midfield run is more critical than our rucking IMO ! It would be great to have a ruckman who can take 6 - 8 marks a game and use the ball around the ground, but honestly how many teams have those players. Hickey is at present the best option but give our young ruckman time and they will come through.
SAINTS another day older another day closer to the Holy Grail!
plugger66 wrote: We did the right thing but did we pay to much?
Considering you are asking the question can you remind us again - what did we pay to get these developing ruckman?
Thanks in advance!
Pick 19 I believe for Longer plus we lost Dal. We also got Bruce and gave away pick 41. As for Hickey well we gave away 13, 36 and 55 and White and Saunders after a trade or two. Im sure you knew that but obviously disagree we paid to much. may have been easier to just say that so I didn't have to look it up.
Saints pre 1997 GF was a rucking issue, if our ruckman were injured or past their prime then rucking issue, if going for a flag this year then an issue. It must be considered in context of where we finished last year. Having 4 developing ruckman is a non-issue for a developing team. I think it's exciting that they are vying for spots. I'd like to think our match committee see this as a positive rather than a negative given where we're at. Should we have recruited for an established ruckman last year to resolve this 'issue'? Or shall we come to an understanding that we are rebuilding and the process will evolve?[/quote]
No we should not have recruited an established ruckman. We did the right thing but did we pay to much. We will find out over time. It can still be an issue now even if we are a bad side because just being young and competing for spots doesn't mean all or any of them will make it. Based on us being no good this year then you must think nothing is an issue. I think our midfield is also a huge issue. We have many mids but again im unsure we have enough good ones.[/
The glass is half full. I'd like to think our football operations feel the same way and the majority of posters within this thread feel the same. So I disagree with you? So what?
Bardon Saint wrote:Saints pre 1997 GF was a rucking issue, if our ruckman were injured or past their prime then rucking issue, if going for a flag this year then an issue. It must be considered in context of where we finished last year. Having 4 developing ruckman is a non-issue for a developing team. I think it's exciting that they are vying for spots. I'd like to think our match committee see this as a positive rather than a negative given where we're at. Should we have recruited for an established ruckman last year to resolve this 'issue'? Or shall we come to an understanding that we are rebuilding and the process will evolve?
No we should not have recruited an established ruckman. We did the right thing but did we pay to much. We will find out over time. It can still be an issue now even if we are a bad side because just being young and competing for spots doesn't mean all or any of them will make it. Based on us being no good this year then you must think nothing is an issue. I think our midfield is also a huge issue. We have many mids but again im unsure we have enough good ones.[/
The glass is half full. I'd like to think our football operations feel the same way and the majority of posters within this thread feel the same. So I disagree with you? So what?[/quote]
Seemingly all clubs overpay to attain rucks. That stated, if we can ship off one of Longer or Hickey for a need in due course, mission accomplished.
I'm happy with our current ruck stocks and think there will be enough natural Improvement over the next two or so years.
We had Big Ben who took grabs around the ground but could hardly get a tap out to advantage, at least our rucks have good basic tap skills, I believe that their presence around the ground improves as their physical bulk increases.
I think the best rucks only take relative few marks per round average.
And the president said " I did not have sex with that woman"
And our former president said " Football is like golf"
AMONG the plethora of selection chatter that takes place before a season gets underway, perhaps the most interesting current talking point is the club’s ruck situation....
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
