And?

I don't think anyone thinks you can win the premiership off the back of a ruckman alone.

Good night, I'm going to watch Goldmember.

_________________
"We used to sit around and talk about how bad the game plan was." Anthony Koutoufides

Thanks CM.... very good response and very interesting stuff at that.

But the real question that sticks in my mind is, is Wayne Hughes really picking the players or is Pagan? I suspect it might be Pagan

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

See ya

You've missed the point again Juzz. It's not about showing a player can play for more than 6 seasons, it's playing at the elite level for more than 6 seasons.

I asked a question as to which ruckmen (Everett aside) in the last 10 years have played more than 6 years at the elite level. You gave me Ball and Primus. As TheGame rightly says, Ball was a forward for the first 4 or 5 years he played (and not a grewat one at that). Once he moved into the ruck, he struggled for a bit (1998-2001, average over those years was about 11 possessions, 4 marks and 8 hit outs per game), missed 2002 entirely, then was solid in 2003-05 (averaged 11 possessions, 4 marks and 15 hit outs per game). Nothing to write home about there, and certainly NOT an example of a ruckman playing elite football for more than 6 years.

Primus...was good from 96-98 (ave 13 possessions, 3 marks, 15 hit outs per game), missed 99, similar averages in 2000, then had great years in 01-02 (avergaing 21 hit outs a game), 2003 was poor by his standards (7 possessions, 2 marks, 12 hit outs per game), missed 04, and 05 was good, but nothing spectacular (9 possessions, 5 marks, 16 hit outs per game). So, 2 great years, 4 good years, the rest either injured or average. Again, certainly not playing elite level football for 6 years or more.

Contrast that with Hird, Voss, Buckley, Williams, Bradley, Kelly etc etc, loads and loads of midfieldres (and a fair few KPPs) who played 10+ years at the elite level.



Clarke has played about 235 games, I'll give you that, although I would never call him an elite ruckman or an elite talent. Keating's example actually supports what I (and Teddy and TheGame) am saying 150 games in 11 years...if I was to tell you that we'd get 150 games in 11 seasons from our number 1 pick this year, would you be happy with that?

Fraser has never dominated the ruck for anything more than a week or two.

King was the dominant ruckman for 2-3 years, then faded.

What's the issue? The issue is that there are several people here who are thinking that what we want from our number 1 pick this year is someone who is likely (cause nothing is guaranteed, but you want to maximise your chances) to play 250+ games for CFC at the elite level. History shows us that ruckmen just don't do that anymore. Not consistently over 10+ years at the top level of performance.

So, for me, when I think about who I want with my number 1 pick, I am thinking who is the most likely player, given that there are a bunch who are rated fairly evenly in terms of talent, to give CFC that return, 250+ games of elite level football? The answer that I come up with is that it is unlikely to be a ruckman (of course it doesn't rule it out, but the odds, as history shows, are stacked against it).

It is more likely to come from a KPP than a ruckman.

It is MUCH more likely to come from a midfielder.

We have the blessing of the number 1 pick, we need to make sure that we maximise the benefits of that player for CFC for as many years as we can.

_________________
Mens sana in corpore sano.

Bring back the laurel wreath logo!!!

Well said Siegy

_________________

You asked for one and I gave you one.

Deal with it and don't go quoting stats like it means Leuenberger isn't an entirely separate case to the ruckmen who played before him.

Why is Wayne Hughes weighing up drafting Gibbs or Leuenberger if your theory is sound?

Send him an email asking him this question and PM me the reply because I need a good laugh.

Then Craig Cameron.

And then Trevor Woodhouse.

hey Sieg - do you think the centre circle rule change will help fix this? Is that one of the reasons for its introduction? Because I think its an excellent point you make. Drafts being a limited commodity (and number 1's rare as hen's teeth - though not for us lately) have to be used for the best effect for the team.

_________________
This type of slight is alien in the more cultured part of the world - Walsh. Its up there with mad dogs, Englishmen and the midday sun!

As I said, I just chose teams A-G and managed to pick out a whole heap of ruckmen who have played well over 100 games. I could go from H-W and get the same result. History will show you that the real good ruckmen play heaps of games.

Good to see you don't have too high expectations for our top pick in the draft. Even Barnaby French would suit you, he played over 100 games.

_________________
"We used to sit around and talk about how bad the game plan was." Anthony Koutoufides

It seems to me that yhis argument is missing an angle. I for one accept the premisae that your average number of years of elite performance from a ruckman who reaches the top is far lower than your average number of years of elite performance from a midfielder who reaches the top. However, doesn't this mean that you need to turn your ruckmen over more often and therefore it is necessry to draft them more often - that is whilst you'll get, say, half the elite years out of a Leuenberger than a Gibbs, you'll need another twice as soon. On that view, a potential elite ruckman is equally as worthy of top pick as an equally elite midfielder, assuming you value the contribution of ruckmen and midfielders performing at an elite level in a given game equally.

On this view, the longevity debate is simply erroneous, and you go back to picking the better talent.

So you don't rate Jeff White either I suppose?

Good question Danny...and I don't know the answer. It's entirely possible that it may fix it, but I guess we'll not know the answer for a few years yet. Clearly, there has been an issue with ruckmen not remaining dominant for more than a few years at a time sine probably the mid-80s. Before then, there were loads, Nicholls, Farmer, Dempsey, Madden x 2, Round, Moore, Scott...the list goes on. Then it all changed, in fact, maybe it changed when they first introduced the line across the centre circle as a result in the late 70s as a result of that Preliminary final where Moore and Demspey tangled all day.

Perhaps it was the line that started to cause the problems, with big bodies crashing into each other 30 or 40 times a day. But since around about that time, there has definitely been a lack of ruckmen who have dominated the game for more than 5 or 6 years at a time.

Actually Danny, it's a really good question, now that you've got me thinking about it. Would be interesting to know what kind of research the AFL did, what they came up with, when they looked into it and decided to introduce the second circle.

_________________
Mens sana in corpore sano.

Bring back the laurel wreath logo!!!

Does a ruckman "dominating" mean he is better than all the other ruckmen or something else? This vague terminology is quite confusing.

Juzz, you gave me two examples of ruckmen, neither of whom dominated the game for more then 5 or 6 years.

All I am doing is making an observation that the last 20 or so years tells us that ruckmen do not (with the exception of Everett, he is the only one I can think of) dominate the game for more than a handful of years. So when I am thinking of who we should use our prized first selection on, one of the things I consider is how long that player is going to play for us, playing elite level football, dominating the competition.

History suggests that ruckmen don't dominate for more than a few years. Now, call me selfish, but I want someone from this number 1 pick who is going to play dominating football for 10+ years, 250+ games. Nothing is guaranteed, Leuenberger may turn out to do that. But the odds suggest we have more chance with a midfielder or a KPP than a ruckmen, and I don't think we can afford to play against the odds, given our position.

Why is WH considering Leuenberger? Because that is his job. He has to consider, fully, any potential number 1 draftees. However, that doesn't mean he will select him. It's interesting that given we have taken Ackland, WH seems to have decided not to slect Leuenberger. Which in itself says something, because even though we are desperate for all types of players (with the possible exception of forwards), we probably need a ruckman more desperately than any other type. And there is one available, who everyone suggests is a top 4 or 5 prospect, maybe as good as the others, yet it seems that he has opted for Ackland, so that he can draft someone other than the ruckman.

Maybe WH is thinking that he wants to get someone in with pick 1 who gives us the best chance of a player who will play 10+ years, 250+ games, of elite, dominating football? Or maybe he is thinking something else?

_________________
Mens sana in corpore sano.

Bring back the laurel wreath logo!!!

'Dominating' to me is something you'd want from a number 1 draft pick. What Voss has done for years, and Buckley, and Hird (when fit...as I said, there are no guarantees), and Carey, and Crawford, Williams, Silvagni, Bradley, Kernahan, Mcleod, Tim Watson etc.

This is the kind of player I want with pick 1. Unfortunately, history shows that with ruckmen, over the last 20 years, it is extremely rare that you get one who dominates the game for more than 4, 5 or 6 years.

Again, call me selfish, but I want more than that out of our number 1 pick (just as I want more than that from Murphy), and I want to make sure we maximise our chances of getting that.

_________________
Mens sana in corpore sano.

Bring back the laurel wreath logo!!!

Lucky you don't work for our club since your recruiting technique is entirely based on playing the percentages.

Not entirely Verbs. If Leuenberger was the stand out number 1, clearly better than anyone else, then you take him, simple.

But that is not the case, he is one of 5 or 6 that people throw a blanket over. In that case, the percentages do come into it, and I hope to hell that WH is taking those percentages into account.

Given that there are a bunch of players who are similar in talent/ability, ONE of the things to consider is which one is MOST LIKELY to give us 10+ years, 250+ games at the elite level?

_________________
Mens sana in corpore sano.

Bring back the laurel wreath logo!!!

It's interesting that you know all this about the 5 or 6 players you're "throwing a blanket over".

I don't, and have said as much in many other threads. I am going by what I read in the press, what I read on TC.

I am completely open to accepting that player x is now considered to be ahead of the rest, if there was a strong enough argument for that.

But up until this point, everything I have heard and read suggests that there have been 3 stand outs, Gibbs, Hansen and Gumbleton. Some believe that Gibbs is ahead of the other two. After those 3, there are Thorp, Leuenberger, Sellar and Selwood. Some believe that if Selwood hadn't been injured this year, he would be up there with the top 3. Some believe Leuenberger is making a late run to the top 3. Others believe that all 6 would be worthy number 1 picks.

But I have heard no one suggest that Leuenberger is a stand out number 1, because he is BETTER than the others (some have suggested he should go number 1 because he is a ruckman and we need a ruckman badly and quality ruckmen are hard to come by).

_________________
Mens sana in corpore sano.

Bring back the laurel wreath logo!!!