Positives

[Cairnsman]

The two years that i mentioned is an exception to the rule plugs. Name another team that won one without one or two good ruckmen

I have never said ruckmen arent important. Not once. What i have said is hit outs either to advantage or not are the most overated stat in footy as proven by the fact that only one team in the top 6 for those stats made the finals last year. And the days of 2 ruckmen are over. Well at least at the moment. if the second ruckman cant play at least 50% of the game as a key forward then he cant play. Would like you to tell me how we use 2 ruckmen in the same side.

Yes but isn't it a risk to not have at least two qualified ruckman at a club capable of playing finals because it is considered almost impossible to win a flag without at least one ruckman standing strong in the final quarter of a GF. Insurance policy if you like to develop two genuine ruckman at the same time?

[plugger66]

I have never said ruckmen arent important. Not once. What i have said is hit outs either to advantage or not are the most overated stat in footy as proven by the fact that only one team in the top 6 for those stats made the finals last year. And the days of 2 ruckmen are over. Well at least at the moment. if the second ruckman cant play at least 50% of the game as a key forward then he cant play. Would like you to tell me how we use 2 ruckmen in the same side.

Yes but isn't it a risk to not have at least two qualified ruckman at a club capable of playing finals because it is considered almost impossible to win a flag without at least one ruckman standing strong in the final quarter of a GF. Insurance policy if you like to develop two genuine ruckman at the same time?

Insurance because one may not make it or because of injury? Im not sure you can develop 2 ruckmen in the same team though which means a high draft pick with at least 3 years experience is playing at Sandy. Seems a waste of a pick if that is the case.

[PJ]

If you don't play the 2 ruckmen with one working in the forward line when not on ball then who is the other player that plays in the ruck? Please don't say Maister - he can't play the ruck position.

[plugger66]

If you don't play the 2 ruckmen with one working in the forward line when not on ball then who is the other player that plays in the ruck? Please don't say Maister - he can't play the ruck position.

Thats the problem though. At the moment neither seem like they will be marking forwards so you either have one ruckman with just help from others or you have a player up forward who cant mark it and cant really run. That is why we somehow need stanley to become better. He is nearly the ideal second ruckman if he could improve which isnt looking likely.

[PJ]

I actually think Stanley is a reasonable mobile ruck and he does some effective things in the forward line - marking doesn't appear to be one of them unfortunately.

Longer and Hickey both seem capable of taking a pack mark at present. Stanley may have to prove his worth on the VFL.

[plugger66]

I actually think Stanley is a reasonable mobile ruck and he does some effective things in the forward line - marking doesn't appear to be one of them unfortunately.

Longer and Hickey both seem capable of taking a pack mark at present. Stanley may have to prove his worth on the VFL.

I dont think I have seen Hickey or Longer take any type of mrk in the forward line in the 2 practice games. You are obviously happy to play one up forward where as I just cant see it working. i think you will get your way because we somehow have to get games into them.

[stinger]

watching it live we were really terrible in the 2nd and 3rd quarters....if we have a game plan then fiik what it is......

[HitTheBoundary]

....if we have a game plan then fiik what it is......

We're developing a new version of the rope-a-dope.

[gringo]

....if we have a game plan then fiik what it is......

We're developing a new version of the rope-a-dope.

Watter's will think we stole his IP. It's a kind of chaos theory, infinite randomness sort of plan.

[Dave McNamara]

Armo wasn't a positive, but I thought it won't hurt him to live with a tag and need to work harder
Jones may of had his best kick ever

Two good 'gets' there K.

Now come-on K, no one last season (which I would argue makes it four in a row that you've called correctly ),
so who will be anointed for 2014?

The players are all waiting.


(Based on your criteria, I can only see two players... Rhys Lightning and Sippa'. Both these blokes currently look as likely as your previous three calls did at the time. So, if you could get either of those two blokes 'over the line', then that would be a huge boost for the team. )

I'm pretty sure Lee will be worth the wait. He needs some confidence and he will be a gun. His body hasn't let him play properly yet but watch out when it does.

We now have two effective ruckmen!

Dunstan is a player!

Lee can kick goals, now all he needs to do is get a tank!

I think that Gringo, Bernard and Con (below) have summed up really well where Tommy Lee is at.

A few positives surprisingly enough.

Dunstan is the ready to go player we all thought/hoped for.

Wright,Newnes, Saunders and Webster all look capable and up to standard.

Longer and Hickey look capable and will be up to standard.

Savage works hard and is up to it.

Lee is a good footballer but needs some time to bulk up after his shoulder op.

So thats 9 youngsters + Jack = 10.

Only 12 to go and we have 4 years! Not too bad really.

Great assessment there IMHO, Con.

[saintbrat]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-pre ... 6842984002

[fugazi]

Positive from this game:

It looks like we'll have the pick of these blokes:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-11-22/a ... s-draftees

[whiskers3614]

Big positive is average life expectancy for males in Australia is now over 80 for males.
Therefore the younger posters on here are some hope of seeing another GF.
Alas I am 55!

[one point]

6 grand finals (plus the draw) since 1965. One every 8 years or so. Plenty of time for you to see another 2 or 3 grand finals before you hit 80 whiskers3614

[whiskers3614]

From your mouth to God's ear!

[bigcarl]

Webster did some silky things, reminds me of dal

Midfielder in the making maybe.

Gears should continue to make a show in the midfield, I liked his half of footy in and around the contest

We can do with some leadership and hardness in there that's for sure, particularly sans Lenny

Armo wasn't a positive

He gives away dumb frees. I'd prefer him harder at the ball than the man.

[bigcarl]

Lee can kick goals, now all he needs to do is get a tank!

Too often he is trying to take contested pack marks, which isn't the bread and butter for a wannabe full forward.

He needs to lead into open space.

And, yes, a bigger tank will help him present more often.

He's a beautiful kick for goal and won't need a lot of the ball to make it count on the scoreboard. Just needs to win more of it.

[borderbarry]

Do you mean that each team does not still have two ruckmen, two ruck-rovers, and a 19th and 20th man! What!

[dragit]

Do you mean that each team does not still have two ruckmen, two ruck-rovers, and a 19th and 20th man! What!

What do you mean by "centre square"?

[BigMart]

Hickey... Pack Mark?

Really?

If its agreed that only one genuine Ruckman in a 21

Can it surely be agreed we shouldn't have used two top 20 picks to secure two Ruckman? At the same sort of ability/development level?
In essence we used a top 20 for an 'insurance policy' if we agree that both are genuine Ruckman which they most certainly are...Pierce is also one, as is Holmes .... Stanley to me is a Ruck/Fwd... So he at least can provide fwd of the footy ability imo

[dragit]

We didn't use a top 20 pick on longer...

Hickey was not a straight swap for 13...

So no, we can't agree on your faulty premise.

[BigMart]

But we used Pick 13 as a part of that trade yes?

I know we got early 20's picks... But to give up a top end talent pick to secure a second Ruckman who is down on the pecking order elsewhere is odd....

[dragit]

But we used Pick 13 as a part of that trade yes?

I know we got early 20's picks... But to give up a top end talent pick to secure a second Ruckman who is down on the pecking order elsewhere is odd....

We also gave up a plodding ruckman and got 2 first round draft picks plus a promising midfielder.

Half full or half empty…

You talk about wanting us to take risks… well we've done that… given up a couple of first round draft picks, we've also added a couple. You don't like either of our new ruckmen, that's fine, but as part of these deals we've also added Dunstan, Acres, Savage, Lee, White & Wright. So let's not leave that out of the equation.

It's not as simple as your pick #13 for Hickey theory and you know it.

With the state of our list we have needed to add more than one quality pick each year…

[White Winmar]

Hickey... Pack Mark?

Really?

If its agreed that only one genuine Ruckman in a 21

Can it surely be agreed we shouldn't have used two top 20 picks to secure two Ruckman? At the same sort of ability/development level?
In essence we used a top 20 for an 'insurance policy' if we agree that both are genuine Ruckman which they most certainly are...Pierce is also one, as is Holmes .... Stanley to me is a Ruck/Fwd... So he at least can provide fwd of the footy ability imo

Took seven contested marks in one game against the filth in 2012. That was a record for that year. It would suggest the lad can take a contested, or pack mark, as you call it. Honestly BM, I know you don't rate him, but don't let that blind you to his undoubted potential.

[Cairnsman]

Actually I reckon I've seen signs of him being a good lead up mark too.