Strategy The great, big ruckmen thread

[randyzany]

Re: Mark Blake

Kingy.

I dislike blake not only because he's a substandard ruckman (which he definitely is even as a backup he's not much chop) but also because his little hissy fit and sulking at been dropped for a far superior player in the 07 GF was instrumental in getting rid of an All Australian former captain. Disgraceful.

 

[Patronus]

Re: Mark Blake

Except today, because Freo go with Sandilands at 99.9% of their ruck contests. And guess what, Mumford went better against Mr. 211 than Blake did.

In reality all Sanderlands needs to do is plant his arse in one spot and he is going to win almost every hit out. No one is taller than him and it would be hard to push him out of the way. At least Mumford has some bulk behind him to try.

Blake is not a wrestling ruckman he likes to come over the top. Usually when he stops and props he gives away the frees.

In the end both of them were not that great today. Blake had more hitouts and you can argue about how they went around the field but they were almost identical in stats.

 

[And_ROOS]

Re: Mark Blake

After watching Mark Blake's performance against Sandilands, I am prepared to trade Mark Blake and Ryan Gamble.

To put it bluntly, we will never win a flag with Mark Blake as the 2nd ruckman.

I would be prepared to trade Mark Blake in a 3 way deal to get Matthew Maguire. We need a Centre Half Back who can hold the fort and set up attacking moves from Half Back.

Pretty sure Taylor, Harley and Milburn set up enough as it is...

WAIT, your not suggesting Maguire from the Saints are you? The one that has been injured for ages, and before injuries wasn't setting the world on fire?

You're taking the piss with that last bit.

 

[Turbocat]

Re: Mark Blake

How Blake performs against Soft Cox and the big Clydesdale is not that important ATM , it will be far more relevant how he fits in our mix against the Saints. Unfortunately King will be out but Gardiner and McVoy and Kozzy as they represent "Finals" opposition , it wouldn't be good for Blake if he has a bad game in two weeks time.

 

[HulkHawkins]

Re: Mark Blake

The thing that bothers me is that he's not that "great" a tap ruckman and he does sweet fa around the ground.

He's 2nd string, which means his spot isn't cemented when Otto returns.

From what i've seen of Mummy i know which way i'd go.

At least Mummy has a fair dinkum crack.

 

[Team Chemistry]

Re: Mark Blake

After watching Mark Blake's performance against Sandilands, I am prepared to trade Mark Blake and Ryan Gamble.

To put it bluntly, we will never win a flag with Mark Blake as the 2nd ruckman.

I would be prepared to trade Mark Blake in a 3 way deal to get Matthew Maguire. We need a Centre Half Back who can hold the fort and set up attacking moves from Half Back.

I see the merit of trading for a CHB, we haven't been the same in defence since Egan went down. Sure our attack from defence has risen but we cant contain opposition forwards as much as we could when Egan played. We miss him dearly.

But no for the idea of goose. Has been.

TC

 

[Rosso]

Re: Mark Blake

I thought that Blake should have been left out for West this week. Of the current stock available, we wern't going to win too man taps so by bringing in the more mobile West, perhaps we could've exploited Sandilands around the ground. Tell him not to worry too much about winning the ruck contests, just be there and contest and then act as another onballer and provide us with another option.

Blake has to step up now more than ever. People in the media have started questioning his position in the side and I'm not sure if he is capable of influencing games enough to silence them.

I hope he can but..........

 

[Roos08]

Re: Mark Blake

I see the merit of trading for a CHB, we haven't been the same in defence since Egan went down. Sure our attack from defence has risen but we cant contain opposition forwards as much as we could when Egan played. We miss him dearly.

But no for the idea of goose. Has been.

TC

Ahhhhh, make that never been.

 

[Just do something]

Re: Mark Blake

Massive game for Blake this week coming up against Lade & Brogan who have previsouly pushed him around on occasions.
Im a little nervouse for Blake but i just dont think Mummy can ruck for the same amount of time Blakey does, not at the moment anyway.
He is still our next best ruckman Blake, but gee Mummy is a massive goer.

 

[Fuzzyash]

Re: Mark Blake

Another ruck lesson dished out to Blake this week. With all these lessons you would think he would be learning. But no, apparently. Even if Blake IS a better tap ruckman than Mumford, all of the other stuff more than makes up for it. We need ruckmen who tackle and get their own clearances.

Stats always make Blake look better than he is, but watching the games it was just obvious today that our midfield was stronger when Mumford is in there, offensively and defensively.

Admittedly Blake did get some important taps late, when Sandilands was buggered. He needs to do a lot more, and even if he is slow and unco, make an effort defensively.

 

[Team Chemistry]

Re: When "The Pill" returns

In: Ottens
Out: Blake

Agree..... Mummy seems to offer alot more around the ground.....and really throws in the body

I would go so far as to say:
IN: West
OUT: Blake

Seriously I hate to say it, because I have always had a soft spot for Blake, but he is actually not deserving of a spot atm.

West by years and exp. should be far ahead of Mumford in development, and I think he was short changed by only being given one shot at the seniors (granted he didn't exactly grab his chance).

If Mumford is going be the 2nd ruckman once Otto is back, why not let him and West battle royale for that spot. Because at this rate it's certainly not going to be going to Blake.

TC

 

[CATACK]

WELL WELL WELL, Blake needs to GO. He is no good, the problem we have no one else will want him neither. So just plss him off.

GOOD BYE BLAKE

 

[Tay29]

Re: When "The Pill" returns

I would go so far as to say:
IN: West
OUT: Blake

Seriously I hate to say it, because I have always had a soft spot for Blake, but he is actually not deserving of a spot atm.

West by years and exp. should be far ahead of Mumford in development, and I think he was short changed by only being given one shot at the seniors (granted he didn't exactly grab his chance).

If Mumford is going be the 2nd ruckman once Otto is back, why not let him and West battle royale for that spot. Because at this rate it's certainly not going to be going to Blake.

TC

I can't believe I am going to say this but next up is Port with Brogan and Lade. Don't think it's a wise move to drop Blake as I honestly can't see West competing a hell of a lot better against those two big guys. I personally think Blake has taken his position for granted the last 2 years and think he needs a good kick up the arse.

 

[CATACK]

Re: Mark Blake

Pretty sure Taylor, Harley and Milburn set up enough as it is...

WAIT, your not suggesting Maguire from the Saints are you? The one that has been injured for ages, and before injuries wasn't setting the world on fire?

You're taking the piss with that last bit.

Milburn is in his last year!

and by the way, NO ONE WOULD WANT BLAKE

 

[Generalissimo]

Re: Mark Blake

NO ONE WOULD WANT BLAKE

Maybe we can sucker the Tigers into giving us something for him.

 

[noclashjumpers]

The fact is, if this trend of Mumford over shadowing Blake continues until Ottens' return, then there really is only one choice. Blake will have to go.

TBH I was shocked @ how well Mumford performed against Sandilands today. To borrow a phrase from Ross Lyon, 'it was pleasing'.

 

[Grey Matter]

WELL WELL WELL, Blake needs to GO. He is no good, the problem we have no one else will want him neither. So just plss him off.

GOOD BYE BLAKE

Cant mark cant kick cant handball and is just a very average ruckman as well...the only time we looked remotely competitive was when Mumford went in....said it before and will say it again, when Blake had his big sook in 2007 the cats should have sent him packing and kept Kingy...If Blake gets picked before Mumford the cats aren't serious in 09. GOOD BYE BLAKE !!!!

 

[Team Chemistry]

Re: When "The Pill" returns

I can't believe I am going to say this but next up is Port with Brogan and Lade. Don't think it's a wise move to drop Blake as I honestly can't see West competing a hell of a lot better against those two big guys. I personally think Blake has taken his position for granted the last 2 years and think he needs a good kick up the arse.

He may not compete any better, but Hell he couldn't compete any worse.
If needs a kick up the arse, give it to him this week. I'm all for Blake if he lifts his game, atm though I reckon he is undeserving of a spot in the side before West.
Give Trent a few shots at it, if he's no good, throw Blake back in.

Regardless once Ottens is back the combo has to be Brad-Shane, no other option.

TC

 

[SmothOperRaider]

Re: Mark Blake

and by the way, NO ONE WOULD WANT BLAKE

The Dogs took Peter Street, and Blake is better than him.

 

[Vegas.]

Re: Mark Blake

The Dogs took Peter Street, and Blake is better than him.

We got like pick 20 for him too (which we then wasted by trading it to WCE for Haynes, although they wasted the pick on some shem).

Shows how overrated draft picks are.

 

[Selective Retention]

Re: Mark Blake

Ahhh Peter Street 10 year AFL footballer

I probably posted a month ago in this thread and nothing much has changed. Mumford is getting closer and closer to overtaking Blake but when Ottens comes back he is going to need a few games to gain match fitness and the club won't like having to rely on Mumford to carry the bulk of the ruck load. Blake is locked in for the short term.

ps we got Haynes AND Spencer from that Street deal. How lucky were we!

 

[CATACK]

Re: Mark Blake

The Dogs took Peter Street, and Blake is better than him.

Street and Blake are the same, both are CRAP

King got traded and we got pick 90, i wonder if we would even get a pick for Blake.

BLAKE DO US A FAVOR AND RETIRE AND MILK COWS YOU DONKEY....

 

[rizzo]

Yawn. Same crap different week.

 

[Schmegg]

Yawn. Same crap different week.

The only thing that is the same is the substandard performance of Blake, he's been over rated to blazers from some quarters when all he is is your stock standard tap ruckman. I've long held the view that if his old man had never played for Geelong then he wouldn't be on an AFL list. You think that is harsh, but the proof is on display every weekend. He is a liability around the ground and the majority of his so called "possessions" are just gimme handballs linking two midfielders who'd probably be better off avoiding him altogether.

Let's just get some realism here, Mummy did well against Sandilands in last years game when Blake got exposed, because he is prepared to put his body on the line, Blake has to realise that his spot is not guaranteed and that he has to work his arse off every week to prove himself.

No-one on this board can tell me that he is doing that atm.

 

[InsideRail]

Re: Mark Blake

Another ruck lesson dished out to Blake this week. With all these lessons you would think he would be learning. But no, apparently. Even if Blake IS a better tap ruckman than Mumford, all of the other stuff more than makes up for it. We need ruckmen who tackle and get their own clearances.

Stats always make Blake look better than he is, but watching the games it was just obvious today that our midfield was stronger when Mumford is in there, offensively and defensively.

Admittedly Blake did get some important taps late, when Sandilands was buggered. He needs to do a lot more, and even if he is slow and unco, make an effort defensively.

Agree