Strategy The great, big ruckmen thread

[Heapoie]

At the end of the day:
- Blake played 53% of the game, Mumford 47%
- Both failed to take a mark
- Blake had 25 hit outs, Mumford 22
- Of Blakes 25 hit outs, 33% were to our advantage. Of Mumfords hit outs, 9% were to our advantage.

This last point is the exact reason as to why Blakey should be the logical choice upon Ottos return. The role of a secondary ruckman is to be able to come on to the ground to give Otto a rest and to continue winning hit outs to allow the team to continue winning clearances, Blake does this. Whilst Mumford may be slightly better around the ground, Blakes hit outs to advantage speak for themselves. Who started on the ground yesterday when Geelong were smashed out of the centre? Mumford is developing and could be the missing link in a few years, however Blake remains the obvious choice. Imagine how any other side would cope if had their secondary ruckman playing in the primary role for so many matches! Blake has done a fine job since Ottos injury, helping us to win 11 of 12 matches. Blake is the easy scapegoat in this sort of situation, however his clear dominance as a tap ruckman should see him remain as our secondary ruckman for the remainder of the season.

 

[Claude Balls]

Of Blakes 25 hit outs, 33% were to our advantage. Of Mumfords hit outs, 9% were to our advantage.

People keep posting this stat, but as far as I'm concerned it's worthless. When watching the game on TV, as I did yesterday due to being tardy with my efforts to buy tickets, I watch each and every single ruck duel with interest. Blake simply does not direct 33% of his hitouts to advantage. Perhaps 'to advantage' simply means in the direction of your goals, or it might mean that the ball is subsequently won by your own midfielder. Either way, the stat is fallible.

 

[jakethesnake]

Yeah that stat is ridiculously wrong. Or simply the wrong stat to look at. Blake was not good at tap outs yesterday, which is apparently the centre of his game.

 

[The Hulkster]

Mark Blake - Is he seriously up to it?

I think Mark Blake has become a liability. Yes his ruck work is good but i am sorry but to win flags you need to do more than that.

We showed in 2007 Grand Final we were better off without him, in 2008 Grand Final when he had his chance for redemption he was poor.

When has Blake ever really imposed himself on a game or taken some contested marks. Has he ever been in our best players. I am struggling to figure out what he brings to the side.

I think it is a given that Mumford is a prefered option in front of him, demonstrated by the fact he started yesterday.

Did anyone see his poor effort stopping Gardiners mark in the last minute yesterday.

What are we going to do with him, i dont think he is up to it.

 

[jakethesnake]

Re: Mark Blake - Is he seriously up to it?

Multiple threads on this already, your opinion isn't important enough to warrant a new one.

 

[Yaaablett]

Re: Mark Blake - Is he seriously up to it?

No I dont think he is. Mumford has gone past him and with Ottens coming back I feel he will be left out.

Many other clubs would pick him up but he is not in the top 2 at Geelong.

Not sure he can be blamed for Gardiners mark though. Sensational grab and he would have taken that on anyone.

 

[cats2rise]

Re: Mark Blake - Is he seriously up to it?

Multiple threads on this already, your opinion isn't important enough to warrant a new one.

I think it is.


I would love to see West come in for Blake. West may not be ready to pass Blake as of yet but I have had enough. He improved from 2006 to 2007 and then again from 2007 to 2008 to a degree, but has not improved and without Ottens it shows.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Re: Mark Blake - Is he seriously up to it?

West? You are joking. Like Blake, but hopeless in ruck.

 

[jakethesnake]

Re: Mark Blake - Is he seriously up to it?

Yeah, West is pretty bad.

 

[Belisarius]

At the end of the day:
- Blake played 53% of the game, Mumford 47%
- Both failed to take a mark
- Blake had 25 hit outs, Mumford 22
- Of Blakes 25 hit outs, 33% were to our advantage. Of Mumfords hit outs, 9% were to our advantage.

If those stats are true then I may have to consider the merits of Mummy over Blake more seriously. However watching on TV (which I think gives you a better look at a ruckman's work than at the ground) I thought Blake's ruck work was ok but did not think it was substantially more effective than Mummy's after quarter time.

It is about, I assume with Ottens returning, who take the second best ruckman mantle. This does allow Blake some respite but I just have difficulty in seeing Blake progress any further than has. I just see more upside for the Geelong team with Mumford in the team, but only time will tell if this becomes a reality.

 

[donbooger]

Re: Mark Blake - Is he seriously up to it?

I think Mark Blake has become a liability. Yes his ruck work is good but i am sorry but to win flags you need to do more than that.

We showed in 2007 Grand Final we were better off without him, in 2008 Grand Final when he had his chance for redemption he was poor.

When has Blake ever really imposed himself on a game or taken some contested marks. Has he ever been in our best players. I am struggling to figure out what he brings to the side.

I think it is a given that Mumford is a prefered option in front of him, demonstrated by the fact he started yesterday.

Did anyone see his poor effort stopping Gardiners mark in the last minute yesterday.

What are we going to do with him, i dont think he is up to it.

Yep Mumford was rucking for the first 4 goals of the match and got belted at least Blake rucked ok, neither of them could defend Gardiner. If mumford is so fantastic why didnt they put him on Gardiner the whole game.

These two are what we have to work with, Ottens even if he does return may never get the full fitness back for finals.

 

[Geelong Fella]

Re: Mark Blake - Is he seriously up to it?

Yeh totally agree Mark Blake isn't up to it at the moment. He hasn't really improved in 2 years and now he needs to take that next step and I think the coaches are putting Mumford ahead of him, Mumford started on the ground at the first bounce. If he can improve, would it be a possibility to play Mumford and Blake in the ruck and Ottens up forward? because Hawkins' is really struggling

 

[mrlukey69]

Re: Mark Blake - Is he seriously up to it?

when ottens comes back in blake should go out your new ruckman watever his name is. is a gun blake might be looking for a new club next year dont no if any 1 will want him tho i dont

 

[Belisarius]

Re: Mark Blake - Is he seriously up to it?

Just one point here. I would prefer a ruckman who has some real attitude and a bit of grunt. Not sure Mumford believes he is good enough yet - as he needs to be given more time to develop into the role - but he does bring these attributes that I want in a ruckman.

 

[Schmegg]

Re: Mark Blake - Is he seriously up to it?

Just one point here. I would prefer a ruckman who has some real attitude and a bit of grunt. Not sure Mumford believes he is good enough yet - as he needs to be given more time to develop into the role - but he does bring these attributes that I want in a ruckman.

I agree, much like the Flanigan role, a ruckman needs to be mean & nasty, he has to fly the flag for his teammates. I thought the aggressive way Mumford attacked the ball in the final quarter and the confidence in his back line teammates to keep giving him the ball in a passage of play late in the last showed volumes. For a big bloke to lay tackles, and impose himself physically in stoppages certainly makes a difference.

I know Mumford's first twenty minutes looked poor, but he did get his hand to the ball in the ruck contests, so I'm not sure who was directing the midfield talks but he was actually doing alright from that perspective. Blake did hit a few targets early when he came on, but I thought Mumfords work after quarter time, much like Geelong as a team was a lot better and a lot more polished.

P.S: Did anyone feel confident when the ball ended up in Blakes hands about twenty metres out from St Kilda's goals late in the last? I know I wasn't.

 

[byron2009]

Re: Mark Blake - Is he seriously up to it?

The days of big a big slow un-coordinated lumbering ruckman have passed. At least Mumphett is mobile and at least was staying with Gardiner, Blake was 20meters away from him when he took that big mark.

Mid to Tall and mobile ruckman are the future of the league, Blake should be dropped. The guy can't even kick the ball for god sake. Tap ruckwork is overrated anyway, Darren Jolly is the only one in the league who can do it consistently with any real effect for his team mates.

Blake was a funny oddity for a while, but now the joke's no longer funny, get rid of him.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Re: Mark Blake - Is he seriously up to it?

I forget all the elements to the King trade, but you cant tell those involved arent regretting giving him to St Kilda for NOTHING. Were we still drunk from the premiership? We relied heavily on Blake getting better, but since it hasnt occured, we're in danger of shooting ourselves in the foot big time.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Re: Mark Blake - Is he seriously up to it?

If he can improve, would it be a possibility to play Mumford and Blake in the ruck and Ottens up forward? because Hawkins' is really struggling

Emphatically, EMPHATICALLY no.

No, no, no, no, no,..NO!

So we're getting killed in the ruck..lets put our best ruckman in the forwardline...where he never plays well?

Ottens. Must. Ruck.

 

[Catman]

Yeah that stat is ridiculously wrong. Or simply the wrong stat to look at. Blake was not good at tap outs yesterday, which is apparently the centre of his game.

So the official statisticians of the AFL are wrong?

People on here mentioned something stupid about a "vibe" that when Blake rucks we struggle while the opposite happens when Mumford rucks. Well yesterday it was more than a vibe in the first 20 min (which is where we lost the game) when we were slaughtered out of the centre while Blake sat on the bench. Soon as he came into the game, it turned our way.

I'd also like back the three goals Mumford gave them.

While he has more upside and could overtake Blake in the long run, he has failed to decisively prove he is number two behind a fit Ottens at this stage.

 

[Spluff]

Re: Mark Blake - Is he seriously up to it?

Emphatically, EMPHATICALLY no.

No, no, no, no, no,..NO!

So we're getting killed in the ruck..lets put our best ruckman in the forwardline...where he never plays well?

Ottens. Must. Ruck.

Brad Ottens never plays well in the forward line? You seem to have a selective memory. He is best used in the ruck and then pushing forwards, ie. like Gardiner did occasionally yesterday. His accuracy from set shots is something Geelong could really use.

 

[rizzo]

Yeah that stat is ridiculously wrong. Or simply the wrong stat to look at. Blake was not good at tap outs yesterday, which is apparently the centre of his game.

The stat isn't wrong. It just doesn't suit your argument. Blake had more taps, more to advantage and more possessions. For a bloke that is better around the ground, Mumford lost in the regard to Blake.

West? You are joking. Like Blake, but hopeless in ruck.

Yeah, West is pretty bad.

Writing off players after a handful of games? Good stuff

 

[Inferno]

Re: Mark Blake - Is he seriously up to it?

Brad Ottens never plays well in the forward line? You seem to have a selective memory. He is best used in the ruck and then pushing forwards, ie. like Gardiner did occasionally yesterday. His accuracy from set shots is something Geelong could really use.

He was replying to the suggestion that Ottens should primarily play as an FF, which is a bad idea and was already tried in 2004-06. Of coarse Ottens should play at FF for some of the game as a rest from rucking, but not play there the whole game with Blake and Mumford in the ruck. Although I do agree that saying he never plays well up forward isn't right, but he is much better use in the ruck.

 

[Belisarius]

Re: Mark Blake - Is he seriously up to it?

He was replying to the suggestion that Ottens should primarily play as an FF, which is a bad idea and was already tried in 2004-06. Of coarse Ottens should play at FF for some of the game as a rest from rucking, but not play there the whole game with Blake and Mumford in the ruck. Although I do agree that saying he never plays well up forward isn't right, but he is much better use in the ruck.

I think yesterday's game illustrated well enough why Ottens needs to primarily play in the ruck for Geelong. Sure, if he is fit enough, send him forward to rest and hopefully stretch the opposition backline. Mind you Hawthorn who beat Geelong last year have pretty hopeless ruckman - but Geelong probably should have won that GF.

 

[Heapoie]

So the official statisticians of the AFL are wrong?

People on here mentioned something stupid about a "vibe" that when Blake rucks we struggle while the opposite happens when Mumford rucks. Well yesterday it was more than a vibe in the first 20 min (which is where we lost the game) when we were slaughtered out of the centre while Blake sat on the bench. Soon as he came into the game, it turned our way.

I'd also like back the three goals Mumford gave them.

While he has more upside and could overtake Blake in the long run, he has failed to decisively prove he is number two behind a fit Ottens at this stage.

Spot on. The main reason people prefer Mumford is his superior 'around the ground' work. I assume by this they mean the ability to take contested marks when players run out of options and kick long toward the ruckman. If he is so superior in this area, why didn't he take any marks yesterday, contested or uncontested? Blake is a scapegoat, however many people tend to forget the way he is often used as the midfield link to dish of a handball and set up attacking thrusts.

 

[Belisarius]

I can see why the arguments continue over Blake V Mumford for the second rucking position in the side continue. From a standpoint - Who is a better ruckman right now ? then it might be a difficult call. I thought Mumford starting on the ground was a mistake and Blake did better than Mumford when he came on. However I thought Mumford was about as effective as Blake after quarter time.

Blake has had a lot more experience, had more time to learn his trade and a few more pre-seasons to get his strength up. Mumford is a 'pup' in comparison. So who is better right now ? I suspect the selectors will go with Blake at this stage.

However it seems to me, given Mumford is only a 'pup', he might develop more in time - while with Blake I cannot see any real or substantive further improvement in his game.

If you cannot mark above your head after 3-4 years in the AFL it is unlikely you will ever be able to. If you slow after 3-4 pre-seasons it is unlikely you will get any faster. If you cannot do any good work below your knees after such a period of time it is unlikely you will get any better as you get older.

I just cannot see any real upside IN THE FUTURE for Blake. His dad was a good ruckman - he did tap the ball well and could be relied upon to take some marks around the ground - some even above his head. Mark is not as good as his dad.

So my point, and others I believe with regard to this topic, is the future. Who is worth putting more time into this season and the next 2-3 ?

Sure it is a premiership year - so Geelong have to get this selection right now - but looking into my crystal ball - I think that Mumford could well as good as Blake by the end of the year. He may not be quite as effective tap ruckman but may well make up for this with around the ground work - and some grunt work. Sure this still needs some improvement to say he definitively a better choice this year - but that is possible. He didn't even play TAC or anything equivalent and has really only had 1 1/2 seasons in the system. Given that background I think most would say his efforts and performances have been quite good. It is, after all, all relative.

I do not like to criticise any Geelong player - and I think Mark is doing his best - but this is as good as he is going to get. He is simply not competitive enough as a follower as required by the modern game - and the days that teams can allow this to happen are all but over. Too easy to exploit.

Mumford may not be there yet - but ask yourself - if he had Blake's experience and pre-seasons - would he be a better all round player ? Everyone is entitled to their opinion - as this is guess work. But some of us (humbly I hope) back our own judgements in this matter. Sometimes you think you can see real promise in a kid coming thru. As long as you have a reasonable history of getting it right - then it is ok to back yourself and your reasonings on such a thread as this.

Max Rooke is a classic example - he never looked that good but his attitude was fantastic, and I see a bit of Rooke in Mumford (and knowing a family member well who watched him grow up - he apparently has got a bit of grunt in him). Its just his size and bulk and more aggressive attitude lend me to believe he could be a good prospect. Rooke never tears a game apart but he gives 100 % and you would play taller around him.

I feel I have a got a reasonable record over 30 + years seeing potential in players (not just Geelong players) - though I have so far been proved wrong by Tomahawk, Byrnes, Varcoe and Davenport - although the jury is still out and not completely conclusive yet - but things are not looking good for me at this time. I will stick my neck out and say I think Gillies will be a player of the future for the Cats. Perhaps it is 'just the vibe' you get when watching a young, raw player in the twos do a few things.

So for good or bad I am backing Mumford (I just hope Rizzo ? Rabbi ? doesn't make some crack about my dealer !).