Nankervis !! | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Nankervis !!

Tigertough1974 said:
... anyone who watched the swans vs crows final (obviously RFC recruiters) can confirm this bloke can run, mark and kick, he's light years ahead of hammer and only 22.... now, whether we play him is another question....

But this is what you did say, that he's that far ahead on the basis of that ONE game, even if a final. Of course I'm using exaggeration back at you, TT!

I love the fact we have grabbed him and really hope he is going to be a great acquisition in the ruck for RFC. But let's not get carried away; he's just a young player finding his way, give him time to develop and establish himself at PRO without pumping up his tyres heaps before he's even played a game. The weight of glorious expectations Tiger fans place on new players is damn heavy at times. Just give him the time and space to settle in.

Did you notice what happened after this final? He was dropped for Tippett; never played another.
 
GEDS1 said:
Perhaps Maric has a good pre season and is back in the frame

Walking frame?
:hihi

I've come back to edit as was just having a laugh here. Love Eevan, have defended his retention as ruck back-up, coach and mentor. Would love to see him make it back to playing capable AFL. Will need to improve his mobility though - hope his back can recover for that to occur.
 
leon said:
But this is what you did say, that he's that far ahead on the basis of that ONE game, even if a final. Of course I'm using exaggeration back at you, TT!

I love the fact we have grabbed him and really hope he is going to be a great acquisition in the ruck for RFC. But let's not get carried away; he's just a young player finding his way, give him time to develop and establish himself at PRO without pumping up his tyres heaps before he's even played a game. The weight of glorious expectations Tiger fans place on new players is damn heavy at times. Just give him the time and space to settle in.

Did you notice what happened after this final? He was dropped for Tippett; never played another.

Gotcha, hey im not saying hes a superstar hes a 22 year old kid that shows upside, im very pleased to have him and equally as pleased it should mean the velvet hammer is limited in doning our great jumper going forward
 
Tigertough1974 said:
Gotcha, hey im not saying hes a superstar hes a 22 year old kid that shows upside, im very pleased to have him and equally as pleased it should mean the velvet hammer is limited in doning our great jumper going forward

Who knows? May form a formidable duo - the velvet hammer and the iron fist.
 
leon said:
It's not too late; we could still just delist him. For that matter - Maric and Soldo too. All list-cloggers now we've got Nank. Who needs 'em!

Hampson was better this year, but he is no where near the likes of Gawn, Mumford, Nic Nac, Sandilands, Goldstein, Jacobs, Martin, Grundy to name a few. We need better, a lot better. I'm tipping Nankervis to be a lot better.
 
tigerman said:
Hampson was better this year, but he is no where near the likes of Gawn, Mumford, Nic Nac, Sandilands, Goldstein, Jacobs, Martin, Grundy to name a few. We need better, a lot better. I'm tipping Nankervis to be a lot better.

Yes, Hampson's weakness is the around-the-ground impact but he did improve that somewhat this year, increased marks and the occasional goal. In fact, if you examine his performances against these top rucks, he might have done better than you think, especially at his strength - HOs. I'm expecting Nankervis to be a better proposition all-round in the long run, but he's still a long way from his prime and will be spotting the giants many centimetres such as Sandi and Gawn. Don't think he has a great leap either. But expecting a strong Maric-like competitor.
 
Hammer gets pantsed by Jacobs every time they meet. Nanka got the Swans off to a flyer against Crows in a final.

He is already better (who isn't) but you are right, he has much improvement in front of him.

BTW bringing Tippet back in for Nanka may have backfired in the GF. Swans loss, our gain.
 
lamb22 said:
Hammer gets pantsed by Jacobs every time they meet. Nanka got the Swans off to a flyer against Crows in a final.

He is already better (who isn't) but you are right, he has much improvement in front of him.

BTW bringing Tippet back in for Nanka may have backfired in the GF. Swans loss, our gain.

Another case of trying to distort the facts to make your case, Lamby? You should be a politician. I remembered distinctly that Hammer beat or at least broke even with Jacobs in the only game we played them in Rd.3. However, went back to check:
- Same no. of kicks, 8; but Jacobs had 6 more HBs; H won DE%, 72.7/64.7; HOs 34/28, Ms 5/3, even CLGs 1/4, Gs 1/0, CLRs etc.
Overall, Hampson won on AF - 95/78, which is a handy summative match evaluation. So you're simply wrong from the outset, but this is only one match and opponent anyway, so it would not prove your totally biased position.

I liked Nank's final for the potential he showed, but was it that impressive (I've already posted the stats above)? For you to be crowning him an accomplished finals campaigner on the basis of that, is just laughable. Ranked about the Swans 6th worst player; against your mate Jacobs, AF points were 57/81, HOs 16/33. So there's a direct comparison. So much for your claims when directly examined!
He was dropped for Tippett and ranked third in line, behind Naismith too. I agree Tippett was underwhelming; there were aspects of Nank's game that I valued more.

I'm very chipper he represents a good ruckman for the rest of his career with us, but just don't go wrapping him up too much yet. Your bias against Hampson blinds you to reality at times. Most teams still play two rucks, think Nank will be the keen apprentice to Hammer for 2017, into 2018.
 
leon said:
Yes, Hampson's weakness is the around-the-ground impact but he did improve that somewhat this year, increased marks and the occasional goal. In fact, if you examine his performances against these top rucks, he might have done better than you think, especially at his strength - HOs. I'm expecting Nankervis to be a better proposition all-round in the long run, but he's still a long way from his prime and will be spotting the giants many centimetres such as Sandi and Gawn. Don't think he has a great leap either. But expecting a strong Maric-like competitor.
Yep we win more HO but less clearances.
 
Bill James said:
Yep we win more HO but less clearances.
Might be a reason why we recruited Prestia n Caddy then. To help bolster n improve our mid field quality so that we can take full advantage of Hamster winning the hit outs n thereby winning some clearances.
 
TigerMasochist said:
Might be a reason why we recruited Prestia n Caddy then. To help bolster n improve our mid field quality so that we can take full advantage of Hamster winning the hit outs n thereby winning some clearances.

Blind Freddy knows that
 
Our midfield will be a lot better with Nankervis, they were very poor roving to Hampson. Miles will love Nanks.
 
TigerMasochist said:
Might be a reason why we recruited Prestia n Caddy then. To help bolster n improve our mid field quality so that we can take full advantage of Hamster winning the hit outs n thereby winning some clearances.

Exactly. But some posters like Lamby and maybe Bill think the knock ruckman is fully responsible for both the HO and the clearance. He's meant to tap it into their lap unopposed every time or tap it down, gather it and stuff it up their jumper or something. Otherwise he's totally at fault for losing the clearance!!

Mind-boggling. Did they see GAblett in the GC game who out-roved our mids to Hammer's HOs because his reading of the fall of the ball, anticipation, hands and movement beat ours time and time again? They know Cotchin and Miles are our best, so the opp block, grab and tackle them sharply.

Yes, Prestia n Caddy should make a real difference in our depth and strength, allowing other mids less pressure and more recovery time too I hope. But still would have liked to keep Pick 6.
 
leon said:
Mind-boggling. Did they see GAblett in the GC game who out-roved our mids to Hammer's HOs because his reading of the fall of the ball, anticipation, hands and movement beat ours time and time again? They know Cotchin and Miles are our best, so the opp block, grab and tackle them sharply.

Yes, .
Did you mention that to Dimma, either Hammers tapping to the wrong spot, or the rovers are going to the wrong spot. My money is on Hammer.
 
Where do I collect my money. In the last two years when we have played Ivan without Hammer and visa versa the team stats are

Hammer only 23 games, 901 Hitouts, 730 Clearances
Ivan only 22 games, 789 Hitouts, 781 Clearances

Pretty sure the clearance problem is Hammer not the midfielders.
 
leon said:
Exactly. But some posters like Lamby and maybe Bill think the knock ruckman is fully responsible for both the HO and the clearance. He's meant to tap it into their lap unopposed every time or tap it down, gather it and stuff it up their jumper or something. Otherwise he's totally at fault for losing the clearance!!

Mind-boggling.

It doesn't matter who's fault it is that Hampson doesn't help us win clearances. The simple fact is, he doesn't.

If his hit outs aren't an advantage, and his everything else is a disadvantage, then where's the advantage in playing him?

The knock ruckman is useful if one or more of the following are true:

A) He hits it to where the midfield can take advantage
B) He is a making option around the ground
C) He can win clearances
D) He is a handy forward
E) He can scrap and nullify the opposition

Hampson is a cross on all of those. Whether or not A is his fault or our midfield's is irrelevant. His only asset (hit outs) is not an advantage to us, and he has no other value.

It's arguable be can also contribute E, and I believe that's the reasoning behind him playing. I also believe Griff, previously Vickery, and now Nankervis can do this to much the same extent, and offer much more of the other points.

I still don't see the point in Hampson.
 
Coburgtiger said:
If his hit outs aren't an advantage, and his everything else is a disadvantage, then where's the advantage in playing him?
Bingo.
 
I am hoping Nankervis has an impressive pre-season and stamps his authority on the number one ruck position. Nankervis may not be the next AFL superstar, but already I think he is an upgrade on Hampson. Hope it pans out that way in season 2017.