Strategy The great, big ruckmen thread

[Catsace]

This just in, the "AFL Concise Dictionary" has just released new definitions to the term "No 2 Ruckman"

1. Being tall and ordinary.
2. Tap well to advantage according to Champion Data.
3. Stop short in contests.
4. Do nothing around the ground.
5. Sook when things don't go your way.

I think after reading this I am swayed, Mark Blake must be Geelong's No2 Ruckman!!

Paul Chambers board

Hard to argue with most of that...although i reckon if Geelong gives West a go it could re-kindle the competitive fires of all the rucking heir apparents to Ottens. Maybe after playing almost all season, Blake could use a week or two in the Magoos to rekindle his competitve streak, and if West does O.K maybe Mumford could also get a break for a game or two. In some respects i'm not panicking yet about Ottens, there is 8 rounds to go before the finals, and if he is able to get back in a month or so, he could still be a vitally important part for us. But with his return now under some question marks, we need to see who of the three can give Geelong the best mix.

Maybe even something as outlandish as suing Lonergan as a rucking pinch-hitter and as such an extra forward/back option a la Blake of St.Kilda under Thomas, allowing for an extra quick small player. As important and unique as Gardiner's 4 goals were, some extra pace and running power will always be of benefit in a finals situation. At least Geelong is trying different things for their team structure this year, and given it may have been some of that which cost us last year, i'm all for it.

 

[Patronus]

And the ridiculous overrating of Mark Blake's pure ruckwork continues.

To be fair, his defenders really have nothing else to go with so it's no wonder they are milking the highly fallible 'taps to advantage' stat for all it's worth.

Nothing to go on?

How about he gets more kicks, handballs, marks, inside 50's, goal assists, 1% and has 10% better disposal efficiency . He also almost doubles Mumford in hitouts (we can use the to advantage as well for this, If you like you can work out how many better hitouts he has a game)

I could have sworn it was the ruckmans job to get hit outs and if he was a good one to actually get them into his team mates hands.

This just in, the "AFL Concise Dictionary" has just released new definitions to the term "No 2 Ruckman"

1. Being tall and ordinary.
2. Tap well to advantage according to Champion Data.
3. Stop short in contests.
4. Do nothing around the ground.
5. Sook when things don't go your way.

I think after reading this I am swayed, Mark Blake must be Geelong's No2 Ruckman!!

Funny thing is that Blake is still Geelongs number 1 ruckman so your definitions apply to Mumford.

 

[jakethesnake]

Funny thing is

hilarious

 

[Claude Balls]

Nothing to go on?

How about he gets more kicks, handballs, marks, inside 50's, goal assists, 1% and has 10% better disposal efficiency . He also almost doubles Mumford in hitouts (we can use the to advantage as well for this, If you like you can work out how many better hitouts he has a game)

I could have sworn it was the ruckmans job to get hit outs and if he was a good one to actually get them into his team mates hands.


Funny thing is that Blake is still Geelongs number 1 ruckman so your definitions apply to Mumford.

Do you ever watch them play, or do you just look up their stats?

 

[Topper]

I would like to see them drop Blake when Ottens returns and then once he gets some form in the VFL bring him back in.

Agreed.

We'll bring Blake back in sometime in 2014

 

[Patronus]

Do you ever watch them play, or do you just look up their stats?

Yes I watch them play.

People get over excited by Mumford's attack on the ball and ignore almost everything else becuase they are impressed with one aspect of his game.

He does not beat Blake in anything except what people would call 'hunger' for the contest.

Does that one thing (which for me is an added benifit for a Ruckman not a nessesary requirement) over ride everything else?

I was only posting those stats to answer your question that Rucking efficiency is all us Blake defenders have.

From what I see of the Mumford lovers side is the 'vibe' of him compared to Blake becuase he does not win anything else.

 

[Topper]

Yes I watch them play.

People get over excited by Mumford's attack on the ball and ignore almost everything else becuase they are impressed with one aspect of his game.

He does not beat Blake in anything except what people would call 'hunger' for the contest.

Does that one thing (which for me is an added benifit for a Ruckman not a nessesary requirement) over ride everything else?

I was only posting those stats to answer your question that Rucking efficiency is all us Blake defenders have.

From what I see of the Mumford lovers side is the 'vibe' of him compared to Blake becuase he does not win anything else.

He's also got youth and the opportunity to improve, which is a huge upside when compared to Blake

 

[Patronus]

He's also got youth and the opportunity to improve, which is a huge upside when compared to Blake

Yes becuase that whole 9 months is a giant age gap.

If you had said AFL experience I may have taken it as a reason for why people go for Mumford over Blake. At the moment they are giving similar output to one another but people talk Mumford up as if he is streets ahead.

There is nothing to also stop Blake from improving.

 

[Topper]

Yes becuase that whole 9 months is a giant age gap.

If you had said AFL experience I may have taken it as a reason for why people go for Mumford over Blake. At the moment they are giving similar output to one another but people talk Mumford up as if he is streets ahead.

There is nothing to also stop Blake from improving.

Sorry my mistake, should have said experience

 

[Tex_21]

Lets do a swap with Freo. They can have Blake in the number 29 jumper, playing as Pavlich, and we can have Pav, playing in the 24, as Blake. They have the same nose-you know it makes sense

 

[rizzo]

Re: Grant Thomas Article

I agree there is a lot of support for Blakey amongst the moderation class. Sad that they feel that pumping up his flat tyres is going to make him a better player.

It's got nothing to do with pumping up Blake. You will see I am just as critical of his game on the weekend. Its about the consistent bashing that is doing my head in. Everyone talk about mummy's "vibe"... Is that all they have to go on?

That is pretty funny coming from you Rizzo, you are obsessed with the combination of West and Blake, which would be comically bad.

Yes because West has played what? 7 games total. Do you have any idea about player development, let alone ruckman? Very hard to write off someone after 7 games. Mind you from his one game West had 16 hit outs, Mummy averages 13.

Food for thought? But I guess Mummy's vibe maks up for everything

 

[jakethesnake]

Re: Grant Thomas Article

I think you pay too much attention to stats. Pretty funny your posts in relation to this topic.

Anyway, going to watch a real sport, cricket.

 

[Ninty]

Come on Tex, Geelong would never do that deal. Blake is a fair few years younger than Pav.

 

[Tay29]

Nothing to go on?

How about he gets more kicks, handballs, marks, inside 50's, goal assists, 1% and has 10% better disposal efficiency . He also almost doubles Mumford in hitouts (we can use the to advantage as well for this, If you like you can work out how many better hitouts he has a game)

I don't know where to start with this post as half of it is filled with massive inconsistencies. Let's just take a look at season 2009 as both players have played enough to make a statistical comparison. I will use a combination of stats from http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/tp-geelong-cats and http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/club/0,26579,19766,00.html .

Firstly, both players aren't on an equal footing due to their playing time. Mumford has played 50% of game time, Blake is higher with 60%. A solid assumption would be the longer you spend on ground, the more stats you'll get so Blake's stats are 'inflated' compared to Mumford. To combat that I'm going to multiply Mumford's stats by 20% (1.2) except where the statistic is already a percentage. This will get a real 'per minute' value for both players (I could have divided Blake by 6 and Mumford by 5 but that would require calculations on both players and I am lazy). Mumford's raw stats will be in brackets.

Kicks: 2.2(B) 2.04(M 1.7)
Handballs: 7.2(B) 8.5(M 7.1)
Contested Possession: 3.9(B) 6(M 5)
Uncontested: 5.8(B) 4.8(M 4)
Marks: 2.5(B) 2.3(M 1.9)
Tackles: 1.1(B) 4.2(M 3.6)
Hitouts: 24.2(B) 15.6(M 13)
Disposal Efficiency: 84%(B) 74%(M)
FF: 1.0(B) 1.1(M 0.9)
FA: 1.4(B) 1.2(M 1)

So, just a couple of points. Blake is ahead in DE but some of that would be because Mumford gets more contested ball than Blake and thus is trying to move the ball on under more pressure than Blake. It might not eqaute to the full 10% in difference but it would count for some of it.

Inside 50s doesn't mean much to me. Blake got one on the weekend but kicked it straight to St Kilda. Meaningless stat when it doesn't take into account that the disposal went to Geelong's advantage.

I don't have access to some of Champion Data's stats but if Blake was averaging more 1%ers than Mumford this season I would be very suprised. Now can we get back to saying that Blake beats Mumford in hitouts and Mummy has Blake covered in most other areas of the game?

I could have sworn it was the ruckmans job to get hit outs and if he was a good one to actually get them into his team mates hands.

If that was true then Gardiner wouldn't have kicked 4 goals on the weekend. Your opinion is stuck in the 80s mate. The game has moved on, it's time you did too.

 

[Tay29]

Re: Grant Thomas Article

What's wrong with the article? In keeping with the boxing analogy, Saints had has reeling in the 1st quarters with 5 goals to 0. Then the Cats toughed it out and almost snatched it but lost on a points count.

Hate to intrude on your board, old boy, but with due respect, i'd like to put forward a few anti-Gellong-biased comments.

1). Saints aren't at full strength. King and Hudgeton are out, both good players. Obviously, not the same combo as SJ and Ottens, but there is still a question mark over Ottens.

2). Still a fair bit of improvement from our end. Milne was beaten badly, Ball only play 47% of game time (14 disposals), Gram, Schneider, Montagna and Ray had less possessions than their yearly average and Raph Clarke won't be playing.

3). You did hold Roo and Kosi to 5 goals.

4). St. Kilda inside 50's = 51, Geelong inside 50's = 53...you had more inside 50's.

5). My last point is that Geelong did play really, really well.
Chapman - 39 disp, 10 marks, 6 i50
Bartel - 37 disp, 7 tackles, 7 i50
Selwood - 30 disp, 7 tackles
Ablett - 27 disp, 8 tackles, 2 goals
Enright - 30 disp
Corey 27 disp

Anyway, don't want to stir the pot, and hope i haven't by highlighting the above.

All-in-all a ripping game, worthy of the build-up. I hope we do meet in the GF, it would be another classic match-up.

cheers

I would come right back at you and say our forward line didn't kick in if you're going to bring up your runners and small forwards not doing much. Turn and turn about. So to say you guys didn't play to your potential but Geelong played very very well is well.... biased crap yourself. It's the nature of two competing teams. There are always going to be players not performing in close games.

 

[rizzo]

Re: Grant Thomas Article

I think you pay too much attention to stats. Pretty funny your posts in relation to this topic.

Anyway, going to watch a real sport, cricket.

How else do you measure a players influence on a game. Pretty much everything is measured these days. Yet you refer to a "vibe". Can you measure that? Does vibe turn a game?

 

[tooby]

Re: Grant Thomas Article

How else do you measure a players influence on a game. Pretty much everything is measured these days. Yet you refer to a "vibe". Can you measure that? Does vibe turn a game?

sounds like "The Castle"

 

[Hinkley29]

I don't know where to start with this post as half of it is filled with massive inconsistencies. Let's just take a look at season 2009 as both players have played enough to make a statistical comparison. I will use a combination of stats from http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/tp-geelong-cats and http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/club/0,26579,19766,00.html .

Firstly, both players aren't on an equal footing due to their playing time. Mumford has played 50% of game time, Blake is higher with 60%. A solid assumption would be the longer you spend on ground, the more stats you'll get so Blake's stats are 'inflated' compared to Mumford. To combat that I'm going to multiply Mumford's stats by 20% (1.2) except where the statistic is already a percentage. This will get a real 'per minute' value for both players (I could have divided Blake by 6 and Mumford by 5 but that would require calculations on both players and I am lazy). Mumford's raw stats will be in brackets.

Kicks: 2.2(B) 2.04(M 1.7)
Handballs: 7.2(B) 8.5(M 7.1)
Contested Possession: 3.9(B) 6(M 5)
Uncontested: 5.8(B) 4.8(M 4)
Marks: 2.5(B) 2.3(M 1.9)
Tackles: 1.1(B) 4.2(M 3.6)
Hitouts: 24.2(B) 15.6(M 13)
Disposal Efficiency: 84%(B) 74%(M)
FF: 1.0(B) 1.1(M 0.9)
FA: 1.4(B) 1.2(M 1)

So, just a couple of points. Blake is ahead in DE but some of that would be because Mumford gets more contested ball than Blake and thus is trying to move the ball on under more pressure than Blake. It might not eqaute to the full 10% in difference but it would count for some of it.

Inside 50s doesn't mean much to me. Blake got one on the weekend but kicked it straight to St Kilda. Meaningless stat when it doesn't take into account that the disposal went to Geelong's advantage.

I don't have access to some of Champion Data's stats but if Blake was averaging more 1%ers than Mumford this season I would be very suprised. Now can we get back to saying that Blake beats Mumford in hitouts and Mummy has Blake covered in most other areas of the game?



If that was true then Gardiner wouldn't have kicked 4 goals on the weekend. Your opinion is stuck in the 80s mate. The game has moved on, it's time you did too.

But what are you actually saying?

The only meaningful inferences I can make from your stats are:
- Mumford gets 2 more contested possessions per game, and is a far more prolific tackler
- Blake gets significantly more hitouts and his disposal is significantly more efficient than Mumford

I don't profess to be a Blake lover, but what your stats show is that he does the traditional rucking duties better than Mumford.

And I reckon your last comment is irrelevant. Mumford is not doing any of the things that Gardiner did on the weekend, so again, what are you actually saying in regards our rucking situation?

The weekend's game, and particularly the first qtr showed that Mumford is not yet capable of leading a ruck division, in fact it wasn't until Blake came on that we stopped the bleeding in the middle.

 

[Claude Balls]

Yes I watch them play.

People get over excited by Mumford's attack on the ball and ignore almost everything else becuase they are impressed with one aspect of his game.

He does not beat Blake in anything except what people would call 'hunger' for the contest.

Well, you must watch them with your eyes closed if you honestly think Mumford has Blake covered only for 'hunger'.

Does that one thing (which for me is an added benifit for a Ruckman not a nessesary requirement) over ride everything else?

I assume you are referring to Blake? He is the one trick pony remember? It is Mumford who posesses 'everything else'.

I was only posting those stats to answer your question that Rucking efficiency is all us Blake defenders have.

From what I see of the Mumford lovers side is the 'vibe' of him compared to Blake becuase he does not win anything else

Fair enough. My point howevever, is that Blake defenders are concerned primarily with stats. When I see that Mumford had only 1 tap to advantage on the weekend, yet I saw him have two with my own eyes, I know that stats don't necessarily paint the right picture.

Anyway, refer to Tay29's post for a fairly sound dismissal of the additional stats you quoted.

 

[jakethesnake]

Re: Grant Thomas Article

How else do you measure a players influence on a game. Pretty much everything is measured these days. Yet you refer to a "vibe". Can you measure that? Does vibe turn a game?

I have never once used the word 'vibe'. So I'm not sure where you are quoting that from, and have no idea what you are talking about.

Stats can be accurate, but also wildly misleading. Influence does not have to be measured..

 

[mad-saint-guy]

Re: Grant Thomas Article

I personally thought Gardiner was dominant, Mumford was ok, Blake was crap and McEvoy hardly got on the ground.

Mumford shows a lot of promise for a young ruckman, but neither of your big men were equipped to go with Gardiner.

And next time we meet you can expect to see Hudghton, King and Dempster in the side. Hudghton is our best defender, King is far better than McEvoy (and will allow Gardiner to go forward), and Dempster is a quality tagger/defender who frees up a Gilbert/Fisher/Goddard.

 

[rizzo]

Re: Grant Thomas Article

I have never once used the word 'vibe'. So I'm not sure where you are quoting that from, and have no idea what you are talking about.

Stats can be accurate, but also wildly misleading. Influence does not have to be measured..

Well his influence around the ground hasn't been to great for a person whose major part of the game is that. So there has to be a vibe, maybe its his presence? Even still whats the point in getting to those contests if your not getting your hand on the ball.

I'm not sticking up for Blake, nor bashing Mummy. Just trying to put this in some perspective. People say Mummy was promising yet Blake who had a very similar game was crap and has no future. For the record, I don't think either have the potential to be a first AFL ruck, Although I personally think West does. That's just my opinion though. I seriously hope Mummy and Blake prove me wrong because if both continue their rubbish form we are in some serious trouble when Otto goes.

 

[goodoldcats]

I voted for mummy.
Blake does not have one athletic body in his bone. i don't believe those figures of tapouts to advantage as he is always looking at the opposition and not the ball. In my opinion he is the worst player in the AFL, he will cost us in finals, you wait and see. On top of this he is a sook, even before he was drafted he was not an athlete and a sook.

 

[Catman]

I voted for mummy.
Blake does not have one athletic body in his bone. i don't believe those figures of tapouts to advantage as he is always looking at the opposition and not the ball. In my opinion he is the worst player in the AFL, he will cost us in finals, you wait and see. On top of this he is a sook, even before he was drafted he was not an athlete and a sook.

You don't believe those figures? So Champion Data just make them up, do they?

The rest is just troll-like rubbish.