Strategy The great, big ruckmen thread

[Patronus]

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.

I think people only believe it to be worthless becuase it does not suit their argument.

No matter how it counted 33% is much better than 9%. If we are going to say that hitting the ball to a players advantage is not worth anything for a ruckman you might as well put Lonergan out there to stand there against the opposition ruck.

He will may not get many hit outs but at least he can take some contested marks around the ground, put some pressure on and nullify hurt around the ground.

I am going to go out on a limb and assume that 'to advantage' means that the ball his hit clearly from the ruck and someone from your team gets first hands on the ball after they get the ball who knows what happens.

As some others have said all Mumford has going for him is the 'vibe'. Yes he can do some one percenters but he is suppose to be getting the ball to our players not tackling the other teams ruckman becuase he could not get the ball out of the area.

People were ready to blame Blake for Geelong being so low on the clearances last week but I think it has to do more with Mumford and the stats back it up. All I know is yesterday Mumford started in the ruck and St Kilda got the jump on Geelong that ended up winning them the game.

 

[Belisarius]

Although it did not prove a good move to start the game with Mumford in the ruck - it was not ALL his fault that Geelong were down 5 goals in the first quarter. Some players made uncharacteristic mistakes, even Ablett early on, that contributed to the bad stat Geelong had.

I think St. Kilda pressured Geelong very well early and out played them - and not just in the ruck. We had more inside 50's than the Saints but could not kick a goal. That surely is not Mumford's fault alone - and I could not see Blake going forward and kicking one.

Although it is important to have a good ruckman in the middle it is not the only factor that contributed to Geelong being well behind at quarter time.

 

[Tay29]

The stat isn't wrong. It just doesn't suit your argument. Blake had more taps, more to advantage and more possessions.

Nope. You're wrong there although possessions for either weren't very substantive.

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.

Geez Heapoie. Who are you? His father? Your assumption is flawed. It's more than what you suggest. It's the stuff that isn't reflected in stats that Mumford is also better than Blake in. It's in being right behind your man to spoil the mark. Although it cost us a goal yesterday, it's being able to get to the goal sqaure and spoil on the line. It's putting pressure on the player who has the ball and causing them to be less accurate in their disposal. The ability to jump on the ball and hold it in or get it out if the ball is in dispute. Have you ever seen any of those things from Blake? Apart from the rare occassions on spoiling the mark, he gets a big fat 'F' in the other categories.

Blake as a link man... LOL. Even the midfield are beginning to handball/kick over his head. Blake's "links" invariably go backwards a few metres. Never seen him do an offensive forward handpass that has put the Cats in a more dangerous position. The importance of his "link" play is weak just like your argument.

Both ruckman average 9 possies a game this season. So let's look at a few other things the Blake-lovers ignore.

Contested possesions: 3.9(B) 5(M)
Uncontested possession: 5.8(B) 4(M)
Tackles: 1(B) 4(M)
Time on ground: 60%(B) 50%(M)
Career matches: 72(B) 14(M)

So let me get this right. Here we are arguing over who is better and when everything is measured up, they are pretty close. Blake is better tap ruckman but Mumford is better around the game(game time taken into account). What is laughable is the difference in games. Blake has almost 3 seasons of senior experience more than Mumford and he's only breaking even?!?!?!?!

If Blake is still at the club when Ottens retires, I can't wait for what you Blake supporters are going to say then if he's still considered our best ruck. There is going to be so much backpedalling it's going to be hilarious.

 

[AM]

For what it's worth, Dwayne Russell said on his sports program tonight that he has it on good authority (whatever that means) that West will get a run in the ones this week. If he's right it will be interesting to see who gets the chop. Personally, I hope it's not Mummy.

 

[Tay29]

For what it's worth, Dwayne Russell said on his sports program tonight that he has it on good authority (whatever that means) that West will get a run in the ones this week. If he's right it will be interesting to see who gets the chop. Personally, I hope it's not Mummy.

If that's the case I just hope they give him a good run. I don't see the point in bringing him in if they are just going to drop him a week later. The guy needs to get a few weeks under his belt so he can adapt to the difference in skills and pace of the AFL. Let's see if he actually has talent.

 

[Schmegg]

"Did Mark Blake pull short in the marking contest, Thommo" GOOD CALL!!

 

[Schmegg]

Damning indictment on the vision, the fact of the matter is that Blake had a duty to smash that contest and he pulled short.

 

[archilino]

Damning indictment on the vision, the fact of the matter is that Blake had a duty to smash that contest and he pulled short.

Agreed just saw it on footy classified and it showed blake trailing gardiner by about 1-2 metres as the are both running towards the flight of the ball, gardniers jumps and makes and wins them the game as we know whilst blake backs off the contest in the final few metres.

Grant Thomas is right. Just said that Blake is soft and he had a duty to bust his gut and at least make a contest and no simply hope that gardiner drops the mark. Hopefully during the review this gets highlighted and he gets scallded for it. Totally unacceptable effort from Blake.

 

[hamG]

Blake is not as quick as Gardiner, Blake was never going to have an impact on the contest. I think it is extremely unfair to hang the guy on this one moment just because it was on TV.

Hang him on his general ineptness at football first.

 

[Barabbas]

Blake is not as quick as Gardiner, Blake was never going to have an impact on the contest. I think it is extremely unfair to hang the guy on this one moment just because it was on TV.

Hang him on his general ineptness at football first.

That's not really true, he clearly pulled up, he might not have been able to reach the ball, but a bit of body on the jump and it could have turned out very differently.

 

[hamG]

That's not really true, he clearly pulled up, he might not have been able to reach the ball, but a bit of body on the jump and it could have turned out very differently.

If he dived full stretch extended his arms he might have touched an ankle. No chance of having a remotely significant chance of stopping his opponent from marking.

 

[The rabbi]

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

No worries! If you don't make any drug induced statements there should not be a problem.

 

[Heapoie]

Nope. You're wrong there although possessions for either weren't very substantive.



Geez Heapoie. Who are you? His father? Your assumption is flawed. It's more than what you suggest. It's the stuff that isn't reflected in stats that Mumford is also better than Blake in. It's in being right behind your man to spoil the mark. Although it cost us a goal yesterday, it's being able to get to the goal sqaure and spoil on the line. It's putting pressure on the player who has the ball and causing them to be less accurate in their disposal. The ability to jump on the ball and hold it in or get it out if the ball is in dispute. Have you ever seen any of those things from Blake? Apart from the rare occassions on spoiling the mark, he gets a big fat 'F' in the other categories.

Blake as a link man... LOL. Even the midfield are beginning to handball/kick over his head. Blake's "links" invariably go backwards a few metres. Never seen him do an offensive forward handpass that has put the Cats in a more dangerous position. The importance of his "link" play is weak just like your argument.

Both ruckman average 9 possies a game this season. So let's look at a few other things the Blake-lovers ignore.

Contested possesions: 3.9(B) 5(M)
Uncontested possession: 5.8(B) 4(M)
Tackles: 1(B) 4(M)
Time on ground: 60%(B) 50%(M)
Career matches: 72(B) 14(M)

So let me get this right. Here we are arguing over who is better and when everything is measured up, they are pretty close. Blake is better tap ruckman but Mumford is better around the game(game time taken into account). What is laughable is the difference in games. Blake has almost 3 seasons of senior experience more than Mumford and he's only breaking even?!?!?!?!

If Blake is still at the club when Ottens retires, I can't wait for what you Blake supporters are going to say then if he's still considered our best ruck. There is going to be so much backpedalling it's going to be hilarious.

There will be no backpedalling. Most of the "Blake supporters" havn't flagged Blakey as the superior selection as secondary ruckman beyond this season. We have simply given our opinion that, upon Ottos return, this season, Blake should be selected ahead of Mumford for his superior rucking ability. When Otto retires is a completely different matter. I myself have, earlier in this thread, said that Mumford could be the answer with further development, however at this point of time Blake is my obvious choice. You're now comparing the number of games each has played. That has nothing to do with what we're arguing. I am judging each player on their merits at this point of time alone, why would I bother factoring in number of games played? I may consider this stat if we were comparing who will be the superior player in the years to come, however it is irrelevant when arguing which player should take us in to the finals as our back up ruckman.

 

[Jonny27]

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.

 

[Claude Balls]

There will be no backpedalling. Most of the "Blake supporters" havn't flagged Blakey as the superior selection as secondary ruckman beyond this season. We have simply given our opinion that, upon Ottos return, this season, Blake should be selected ahead of Mumford for his superior rucking ability. When Otto retires is a completely different matter. I myself have, earlier in this thread, said that Mumford could be the answer with further development, however at this point of time Blake is my obvious choice. You're now comparing the number of games each has played. That has nothing to do with what we're arguing. I am judging each player on their merits at this point of time alone, why would I bother factoring in number of games played? I may consider this stat if we were comparing who will be the superior player in the years to come, however it is irrelevant when arguing which player should take us in to the finals as our back up ruckman.

That's all well and good, but the problem with your reasoning lies entirely within the bolded sentence.

Firstly, whether Blake is categorically superior to Mumford in terms of ruckwork is open to debate as far as I'm concerned. The stats say a far higher percentage of his taps are to advantage, but upon careful qualitative scrutiny of his work, as opposed to quantitative scrutiny (for those of you who continually base your arguments on stats) , anyone with half a football brain can see that this stat is highly fallible. I feel that Blake is certainly a slightly stronger and more consistent ruckman, but the edge he has over Mumford in this capacity is far, far from the winning argument Blake defenders think it is.

Secondly, to suggest Blake deserves to be number 2 purely on the back of his ruckwork implies that pure ruckwork is more valuable than every other aspect of the modern ruckman's game, to such a degree in fact that one ruckman, whilst pathetically, comically hopeless at every other aspect of a modern ruckman's game, is more valuable than his counterpart who is 3 times his superior in these same aspects. Is this what you are saying?

We know Blake is completely rubbish in big games. '07 Prelim, '08 GF, last week against the Saints... will his 'superior' ruckwork warrant playing him in another finals series over the guy who actually has a heart and is capable of making it felt?

 

[rooie]

If he dived full stretch extended his arms he might have touched an ankle. No chance of having a remotely significant chance of stopping his opponent from marking.

Gardiner ran 50m to get to that contest, and Blake was goal side before he began his run. Blake could easily have bodied up and Gardiner would not have made it. Even a slight bump or getting in his way would have been enough to stop Gardiner making the contest. That is more the issue. Other than the fact that Gardiner outran Blake easily over 50m.

 

[Belisarius]

Gardiner ran 50m to get to that contest, and Blake was goal side before he began his run. Blake could easily have bodied up and Gardiner would not have made it. Even a slight bump or getting in his way would have been enough to stop Gardiner making the contest. That is more the issue. Other than the fact that Gardiner outran Blake easily over 50m.

Could not have said it better - Blake should have been goal side of Gardiner all the way - and therefore could have blocked his run or made a spoiling attempt. Blake just did not RESPECT his opponent sufficiently - pure and simple.

 

[OldStyle2007]

I think people only believe it to be worthless becuase it does not suit their argument.

No matter how it counted 33% is much better than 9%. If we are going to say that hitting the ball to a players advantage is not worth anything for a ruckman you might as well put Lonergan out there to stand there against the opposition ruck.

I just question the stats accuracy. As raised last week, I counted at least 2 of Mummys taps going straight to an onballer but the official stats recorded only 1 tap to advantage.

It's just a very rubbery stat. The tap could go to advantage because of:

• ruckman skill
• midfielder skill
• luck
• or all of the above

Furthermore, it's up to the stats man's opinion. It's like the baseball "was it a base hit or an error?" question.

All we're saying is that it's not as reliable as goals, marks, hard ball gets, kicking efficiency etc...

 

[Schmegg]

I just question the stats accuracy. As raised last week, I counted at least 2 of Mummys taps going straight to an onballer but the official stats recorded only 1 tap to advantage.


It's just a very rubbery stat. The tap could go to advantage because of:

• ruckman skill
• midfielder skill
• luck
• or all of the above

Furthermore, it's up to the stats man's opinion. It's like the baseball "was it a base hit or an error?" question.

All we're saying is that it's not as reliable as goals, marks, hard ball gets, kicking efficiency etc...

True, I think the stat is based on a statsman's point of view. It is the one area where champion stats lets itself down, I think they consider a tap to advantage to be a tap that leads to a possession for your own teammate.

This interpretation is crap, because isn't the tap to advantage based on who you are hitting it to, I mean what more can a ruckman do if he taps it to the right spot, his teammate gleefully takes it, only to be buried under half a dozen players.

I think there have been plenty of games when Ottens has absolutely monstered opponents, only for me to check the H/S and find he had 30 hitouts of which 13% when to advantage, turn it up!!

And like previous people have said I'm sure I saw Mumford hit a Geelong player on more than a couple of occasions in the 3rd quarter, so why weren't they credited????

 

[Schmegg]

It is pleasing to see that almost 85% of the Geelong population believe Mumford is the better option going forward, I'm a big believer that you need to play with heart on the ground and fight it out till the end. Being near enough is not ever good enough, and just because you've been in a privelidged position for two and a half years doesn't give you the right to a game if you aren't up to scratch.

The people have spoken.

 

[Patronus]

Nope. You're wrong there although possessions for either weren't very substantive.

You do realise that the stats you quote yourself say Blake gets more of the ball?

Not by much but he does.

Geez Heapoie. Who are you? His father? Your assumption is flawed. It's more than what you suggest. It's the stuff that isn't reflected in stats that Mumford is also better than Blake in. It's in being right behind your man to spoil the mark. Although it cost us a goal yesterday, it's being able to get to the goal sqaure and spoil on the line.

Mumford if great at getting on the line and smashing it for a point. I could have sworn he punched a ball back into play and gave his opponent a goal. But lets crucify Blake for not making a marking contest? What is more of a skill error?

It is pleasing to see that almost 85% of the Geelong population believe Mumford is the better option going forward, I'm a big believer that you need to play with heart on the ground and fight it out till the end. Being near enough is not ever good enough, and just because you've been in a privelidged position for two and a half years doesn't give you the right to a game if you aren't up to scratch.

The people have spoken.

Because we know everything that goes on behind closed doors?

It was not so long ago that they were calling for Thompson to be sacked. If the majority had won that round who knows what could have happened.

 

[cat in sydney]

Mumford if great at getting on the line and smashing it for a point. I could have sworn he punched a ball back into play and gave his opponent a goal. But lets crucify Blake for not making a marking contest? What is more of a skill error?

Yes, both 'skill' errors (defense is just as much of a skill as punching through a behind).

What the Blake incident showed though is what I believe is the difference between the two - effort and workrate.

Time and time again Blake switches off when the ball leaves his immediate vicinity. And when I say immediate, I mean within two feet of his hands.
If the ball is on the ground near him, he stands back, looks at the ball and acts as if it's about to come toward him somehow.
Mumford on the other hand, if the ball is on the ground, sees a teammate going for the ball and immediately looks to shepherd. He is proactive in creating space for his teammates.
Blake simply does not do this.

While both their skills have a lot to be desired, Mumford has shown me that he is more capable (or perhaps more willing) of doing the 1%ers that make the difference.

Personally, I'm not sure there will be a big difference between them (if at all) by the time finals come around. That being so, while Mumford may not have a major upside in comparison to Blake, Blake certainly has the potential for a major downside in comparison to Mumford.
Finals will show up the intensity and willingness to do the 1%ers. That's why I fear Blake could get shown up also.

 

[Belisarius]

It is pleasing to see that almost 85% of the Geelong population believe Mumford is the better option going forward, I'm a big believer that you need to play with heart on the ground and fight it out till the end. Being near enough is not ever good enough, and just because you've been in a privelidged position for two and a half years doesn't give you the right to a game if you aren't up to scratch.

The people have spoken.

Is it just the 'vibe' or can 85 % of the Geelong population see this factor in the game ? Whatever the case YOU ARE SPOT ON THE MONEY by me.

 

[Hoova]

Re: Blake, Mummy or Ottens

If this thread is posing the question, "Who is the best suited ruckman to play alongside Brad Ottens", then it's hard to go past Mark Blake. A secondary ruckman comes on when Ottens is resting, comes on and wins ruck contests, wins the taps. This is the secondary ruckman’s main concern. This is Mark Blake.

Although Mumford has proved to be superior at ground level and tackling, he is without doubt, an inferior tap ruckman. Without that use of stats, it's obvious that Blake jumps higher, gets greater purchase on the ball, and gives it better direction. He has done this well since his debut, and as a ruckman myself, I have always watched this part of the game carefully.

On the other hand, Mumford doesn't seem to time his leaps well, but this will come with more time.

Remember our second-string ruckman doesn't need to play as a midfielder, even if it would be useful. The first priority for this player is to win the ruck contest, one of the most important contests on the ground. Stats prove it, and so too does visual evidence, Blake is a better at this part of the game, hence is the first choice for the second position.

 

[Tay29]

Blake is not as quick as Gardiner, Blake was never going to have an impact on the contest. I think it is extremely unfair to hang the guy on this one moment just because it was on TV.

Hang him on his general ineptness at football first.

Hate to disagree with you mate but scores are tied, not much time to go, ball bombed to a very dangerous position, his opponent is going to crash the pack. Whether or not you think you can stop him, you go, even if it's in vain. You do not give up, stop and hope.

I just question the stats accuracy. As raised last week, I counted at least 2 of Mummys taps going straight to an onballer but the official stats recorded only 1 tap to advantage.

It's just a very rubbery stat. The tap could go to advantage because of:

• ruckman skill
• midfielder skill
• luck
• or all of the above

Furthermore, it's up to the stats man's opinion. It's like the baseball "was it a base hit or an error?" question.

All we're saying is that it's not as reliable as goals, marks, hard ball gets, kicking efficiency etc...

I agree this "Hit to advantage stat" is highly subjective. I just finished watching the last quarter and a half tonight and took note of Mumfords hit out to advantage. According to the official stats he only had 2 of his 22 hitouts to advantage, which I presume means, hit out to a Cats player who cleared the ball or set up play to clear the ball. I counted 4 occassions when Mumford did exactly that. One of them was iffy. For those who care the times I recorded are:

3rd quarter - 12:50 left, 9:22 and 8:45
4th quarter - 6:10

I guess a point can be made that both players are being rated the same so perhaps Blake hitouts to advantage is higher also. IMO, it's not the strongest stat to pin everything on.

You do realise that the stats you quote yourself say Blake gets more of the ball?

Not by much but he does.

Yep but Blake spends 20% more time on the field than Mumford. If they had equal time on the park Mumford would be ahead in disposals. On top of that Mumford gets more contested ball which for me is much more valuable than uncontested, especially with what Blake does with it (handball backwards). Mumford streaks ahead of Blake in tackles and even though I haven't seen proper stats, I suspect he's miles ahead on 1%ers.

Mumford if great at getting on the line and smashing it for a point. I could have sworn he punched a ball back into play and gave his opponent a goal. But lets crucify Blake for not making a marking contest? What is more of a skill error?

A groan escaped my lips when Mumford hit it back into play. It also happened when he handballed into Taylor's legs and went out on the full. Both mistakes cost Geelong goals. The difference though is I see Mumford busting a gut, throwing his body around and contesting. OK, so Mumford hit the ball back into play, I challenge you to find the last time Blake actually touched the ball on the line. In the play immediately preceding Mumford's out on the full(14:10 remaining 4th quarter), he sprinted 10m to lay a bump on Gardiner as he tried to soccer through a goal. The bump affected the kick and Mumford tried to tidy up. Have you ever seen Blake try to put that much pressure on his opponent?

It's not all negative. Mumford probably saved the Cats a goal with 17:50 to go in the 4th. Ball was loose near the Saints forward 50m with Jones and Schneider 20m in the clear. Mumford is the first Cat there and knocks Jones off the ball just as he is about to pick it up. He then gets up and puts pressure on Schneider. Eventually forcing the ball over the boundary line. If Blake was on the ground, more than likely Saints would have had a running shot on goal.

It's these little things that aren't represented in stats(maybe 1%ers) that people often overlook. But as some of you say, winning the tap is all that matters right?

I will suck up the mistakes(as a supporter) from a player who you cannot question his endeavour and commitment over a player who takes the easy option. Mumford (hopefully) will learn from his errors on the weekend and be a better player for it.