lamb22 said:
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-ruckmen-overrated-players-or-overrated-position-20140501-zr2f7.html
Leigh Matthews, a man of detached reason about the game, recently observed that Sandilands was the most overrated player. It wasn't as personal an upbraiding as it sounds; it was a measured assessment of not just the player but the position.
"They [Dockers] lose the clearances every week," Matthews said recently on 3AW. "Hitouts are useless, it's only what they contribute to the clearance, running the ball away from the pack.
....
Mark Thompson, in response to Matthews' recent comments on Sandilands, said he broadly agreed with the four-time premiership coach.
"I've never placed a great emphasis on ruckmen either," Thompson said. "But when you haven't got one and you're playing two young kids against someone like Sandilands it does make a difference."
One club's ruck coach said it was difficult to assess the value of ruckmen because people tried to distil their game to statistics that were inadequate and misleading, because the intangibles of a good ruck were unquantifiable.
"What value do you put on a big bloke having presence? What value do you put on a bloke who knocks midfielders over, blocks and puts the wind up them? None of those are stats.
"The ruck stats are basically bulls--t anyway. Hitouts are the most useless statistic ever. You can only look at hitouts to advantage and even then you have to look at clearances and scores from stoppages. You can be putting it down your midfield's throat but if they fumble, get tackled or don't clear it then that is not your fault.
"We never used hitout figures, they are a complete waste of time, they are nonsense. Hitting the ball first means nothing if your team doesn't clear it.
I missed the forest for the trees myself here, thinking a response required some effort and research, until I looked closer. There's nothing here that's opposed to my thought on rucking. I posted a long time back, citing N. Buckley myself, that HOs that don't result in a CLR that leads to an i50, are not that useful. However, obviously if a HO leads to this result because the team's CLR team is good enough to achieve it in enough centre contests a game, it can be decisive in a victory. This is what the great rucks can do, and have, although work around the ground is arguably even more significant. Think Leigh would have happily accepted Sandilands if he had him at his prime in his Brisvegas flag era. Don't you? With that midfield? As I've said before, the game begins with a CB, again post-goals. *Must win the HO to have best chance of winning and scoring from 1st possession. *But that is a product of the functioning of a whole midfield team, not solely due to the ruck. *All teams losing the ruck HOs will syphon mids off to ruck to the opposing/winning ruckman.
I've commented elsewhere on BT's statement elsewhere. But he virtually contradicts himself here, and on Sandilands impact/threat if allowed to dominate. Funny how Freo struggled and dropped down the ladder like a millstone without Sandi, and Fyffe, in '16. Funny how Lyon seems to want him back keenly; not content with the likes of Clarke?
Totally agree with that ruck coach re 'because the intangibles of a good ruck were unquantifiable.' This chimes in well with what I think.
His, and your, final two quoted paragraphs are exactly what I have been trying to get across to you all last year. *As above.
HOs are most useful on these grounds, but you still need to win them; the same as shots on goal. If you kick behinds, costly, but no shots = no scoring chance. No HOs = no chance of HOTA, i50s and maybe scores.
No doubt you'll want to personalise it back to Hampson, away from broader football analytics. To repeat AGAIN. HE proved he was the best option for RFC in '16. HOs are his strength (5th both on aggregate and average p/g; would have been 4th but for playing less games); wherein he also minimised opposition HOs (the lowest against in the AFL). That's his strength; not as good ATG. But marginal improvement. Nank is the reverse; less than half the av. HOs. Hampson was still ahead on Ms, i50s, DE% !!, CMs, Mi50. Nank has his strengths elsewhere.
I'm rapt we obtained him. However, think if they do play some games together, probably determined by injury issues with him H and Griffiths, would be interesting.
