btoz_01 said:
Yep.
Compete for the tap out.
Work hard as the extra mid.
Run forward to be second tall forward.
Run to defence to cover opposition ruck.
Yeah, easy work at Richmond.
-
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 !!
- Thread starter Tigaman
- Start date
Yep.
Compete for the tap out.
Work hard as the extra mid.
Run forward to be second tall forward.
Run to defence to cover opposition ruck.
Yeah, easy work at Richmond.
RedanTiger said:
That's our way. Just keep flogging him, then look forward to Grigg or JR being 1st ruck when he goes down
tigertim said:
Soundly beaten around the ground, also had 9 tackles and 21 hitouts. Double teamed, rested opponents all game, no respite for him. Only Grigg as his relief ruckman. :
X2. Looked spent by the mid of the 4th.tigers80 said:
I hope we bring a tall in next week to support him. Lloyd/Menadue hopefully out bring in Lennon for another crack & the tallest available in the reserve to support Nanks. Throw them in to help him imo
Their rucks had 17, 3, 3 and 50 between them. And zero goal shots. But Sinclair was better at ground level. Four clearances to him. Ouch. None to our man.
(FWIW I don't give a rat's *smile* infection about the hit outs. It's not that they don't matter ever it's that they were academic on the day.)
Nankervis accounted for them around the ground IMO. And was over all at least ok.
He's a young player and he made mistakes. But we want him to keep taking risks. So he can improve. And it's not like we've got anybody else.
So back to the topic of Sinclair's clearances. We need Toby to do better in this area. This is not about how many rucks we play. This is about the performance of the one we do play. We want Toby to get those clearances because then the other guy can't.
The question Toby's game begs is one that makes Richmond fans uncomfortable, particularly those who are fans of Nank's work. It's not whether we need another ruckman, rather do we need a better one?
I don't have an opinion on that yet.
(FWIW I don't give a rat's *smile* infection about the hit outs. It's not that they don't matter ever it's that they were academic on the day.)
Nankervis accounted for them around the ground IMO. And was over all at least ok.
He's a young player and he made mistakes. But we want him to keep taking risks. So he can improve. And it's not like we've got anybody else.
So back to the topic of Sinclair's clearances. We need Toby to do better in this area. This is not about how many rucks we play. This is about the performance of the one we do play. We want Toby to get those clearances because then the other guy can't.
The question Toby's game begs is one that makes Richmond fans uncomfortable, particularly those who are fans of Nank's work. It's not whether we need another ruckman, rather do we need a better one?
I don't have an opinion on that yet.
Nank has less left in the tank when playing against multiple opposition ruckman. Absolutely needs a chop out.
Jack do you reckon Sinclair gets the clearances if he shoulders Sydney's ruck duties all day?
Jack do you reckon Sinclair gets the clearances if he shoulders Sydney's ruck duties all day?
Aegean Tiger said:
Fewer, AT. But I think that our ruck alternative (rotated) got off the leash a dozen times easily during the game. We're comfortable nett winners on our ruck alternative ploy IMO. I think it's an obvious winner.
Todd Goldstein should come onto the market at the end of the year. He may already be on the market. (Trading rounds are the byes.) Does he improve us?
*smile* the two rucks thing BTW. One only and the ploy.
BTW we're getting two smalls bonus through playing small. Caddy, when forward, getting off a tall back. And the ruck alternative getting off the resting Naismith or Sinclair.
Sydney nett lost on Naismith and Sinclair. We were getting a player off the rester.
Getting back to the clearances. There was only one big-bodied midfielder on the park and that was J P Kennedy. We had only Toby for that mass of ground support. And Toby had to deal with the oppo ruck as well. Toby was doing ok here.
Despite our inferiority of mass Longmire threw Buddy in to play inside mid in the last quarter. More mass at a contest he was already winning with mass. J P Kennedy got off the leash due to this. That hurt. J P Kennedy didn't get off the leash because our ruck was tired. It was the smalls who were out of legs.
Who was on J P Kennedy when he slammed a goal all on his own at the edge of the arc? Where was the running small? Where were the swarms?
No one player is responsible for our loss yesterday. The better team won. But we have to look at which players and roles are vital to upgrade. Nankervis comes under notice. It's not like he can play second ruck. Yet. ATM I'm leaning towards the idea that we should persevere with him. And not pursue a glamour ruck. But I always prefer the blue-collar ruck. Maybe I'm wrong.
willo said:Soundly beaten around the ground, also had 9 tackles and 21 hitouts. Double teamed, rested opponents all game, no respite for him. Only Grigg as his relief ruckman. :
He got injured in the 2nd quarter in a tackle and got up proppy.
Newspaper reporting he's got a corked calf.
Also reporting McKintosh with hamstring tightness although I spoke with him yesterday and he said he pulled up fine
Though Ryder dominated the ruck , I thought he battled manfully around the ground and limited Ryder's influence.
Ryder dominated first half, but Like the rest of the team Nank seemed to lift in the second half...Ryder still good second half but Nank was invlolved, did some goood thjngs and Ryder was less influential.
