shaun hampson threads [merged]

[lamb22]

Re this post too, Lamby. Isn't there a glaring contradiction between your point 4 above where you advocate grabbing a major, huge, classy ruckman obviously for CBs and CLRS, then in the next paragraph, question their purpose or use whatsoever? That is, just 'play an extra clearance player rather than specialist ruck.'

Which is it Lamby? I'm finding your pronouncements confusing and befuddling? Surely not having a bob each way? What are you actually advocating? Could we ruck Daniel Rioli and do better than with Hampson? The bulldogs Caleb Daniel? Yet they play 2 dedicated rucks. The Cats play three; BTW they're on top of the ladder.

No contradictions Leon. Your top ruckmen are not just tap ruckmen but ruckmen who provide possessions or marks or goals or smarts or in Nicnat's case a top class mobile athletic pressure player to add to hitouts.

So to summarise if you can halve the clearances or better with "footballer' ruck rover types who can take marks down the line, find the ball and use it, like a I said you are on a winner.

If you can find a player who can do those things and give you a clear clearance advantage, even better.

Hampson however gives us neither clearance advantage or any footballing ability.

Remember Leon that clearances are important and quality clearances even more important.

Hitouts are not important unless they lead to clearances (for your team)

 

[leon]

They dont lie and they seem to prove our point. Vickery takes more contested marks and Griff takes more contested marks per game. Both Vickery and Griff take more marks inside 50 and both Vickery and Griff kick more goals.

Why not bring in Beanie who is likely to kick more goals and take more marks than either Griff or Ty. Let Griff and Ty ruck and pension off Hammer to the EDFL thirds.

Finally got back to deal with this one. Given Ty and Griff spent most/or significant time forward, whereas Hammer limited time forward, it is patently obvious they SHOULD BE taking far more CMs and kicking more goals. And while they're doing that, H is doing the lion's (or tiger's) share of the grunt work in the ruck.
I have always agreed, H is not much of a mark, he has problems with his depth vision and wears Contact Lenses too (not sure about the corrective surgery)
Neither TV nor Beanie are tough or fierce enough, nor have the bodies, to do much serious ruck-work.

Happy to see the Bean given a chance up forward in lieu of Ty, but not as optimistic as you. Liam is years away from being able to compete seriously in the ruck, just as Essendope know the same with Joey D who is more advanced than Bean, on face value. So they had to take big L and the Russian, from retirement.

 

[lamb22]

Don't know that Joey D is more advanced than Beanie. He has just been given more opportunity.

Agree that Beanie's full on big man game might be a couple of years away but I would expect Vickery and Griff to carry the can.

Anyway Hampson has given Richmond the following 7.8 disposals a game, 2.19 marks of which 0.73 are contested, 0.11 goals (that is just over a tenth of a goal per game).

He has also played in 10 wins and 16 losses (38.46%) while over these last three years we have had a win record of 55.17% (to rd 12 this year)

His big stat is 29 HO per game and when you look at his poor overall input and the negative affect he appears to have on win loss you see how irrelevant Hampson and his hitouts are.

PS If you exclude games that Hamspon has played in we win 68.75% of the time.

So without Hampson our win rate over 32 games is 68.75%. With Hampson over 26 games it is 38.46%. That's a pretty big stat in support of he doesn't add any value. In fact he is quite a significant liability as I have often stated.

For more context, our win rate without Hampson would net us 15.12 wins a season. Our win rate with Hampson would net us 8.46 wins a season.

 

[Tigerfan]

Someone remind me again, when did hammer both ankles fixed?

 

[Ian4]

should have a closest to the pin contest to guess the date Richmond announce his contract extension and how long it will be

 

[Harry]

should have a closest to the pin contest to guess the date Richmond announce his contract extension and how long it will be

We're not seriously extending him are we?

 

[Tigers of Old]

Someone remind me again, when did hammer both ankles fixed?

end of last season. Missed a chunk of pre season.

 

[Tigerfan]

I just watched his interview

He's looking at going up a gear.

 

[tigerlove]

Also, Hammer can mark, kick a rare goal and does put his body in. He's clumsy and unco, but many huge men are.

Comparing Hampson with Gawn? Surely not. Gawn only had 14 disposals but he had 8 tackles, 4 inside 50s, 6 clearances, 9 contested possies. He's a machine. I can't imagine how much better we'd be if we had Gawn playing instead of Hampson.

 

[tigertim]

I just watched his interview

He's looking at going up a gear.

What, into 1st?

 

[tigertim]

Also, Hammer can mark, kick a rare goal and does put his body in. He's clumsy and unco, but many huge men are.

Where's that meme with Fry saying "Not sure if serious"?

 

[tigerlove]

What, into 1st?

lol, from idle to first.

 

[Dyer'ere]

Hampster is out of contract at the end of the year. He's a big upgrade on Orren Stevensen. A keeper IMO. Whether we battle through with him in the ones next year I'm not sure. Depends who we can pick up and the shape of our 2017 side.

What we pay him I dunno. We can't trade him. And he may stay fit and continue to improve.

We need at least one more ruck but we need at least one more everything. We should be planning a new #1 ruck for 2017 or 2018. Which year it happens doesn't matter IMO.

We can make do with a back up reject for 2017 and I wont care. If we trade for a project ruck fine. But I'd almost cop Jamar. Maybe not quite.

A new back line is our most important need as I see it. New full back. New #3 back. (Any #3 back.)

 

[tigerlove]

Hampster is out of contract at the end of the year. He's a big upgrade on Orren Stevensen. A keeper IMO. Whether we battle through with him in the ones next year I'm not sure. Depends who we can pick up and the shape of our 2017 side.

What we pay him I dunno. We can't trade him. And he may stay fit and continue to improve.

We need at least one more ruck but we need at least one more everything. We should be planning a new #1 ruck for 2017 or 2018. Which year it happens doesn't matter IMO.

We can make do with a back up reject for 2017 and I wont care. If we trade for a project ruck fine. But I'd almost cop Jamar. Maybe not quite.

A new back line is our most important need as I see it. New full back. New #3 back. (Any #3 back.)

I agree, our ruck stocks are in such diabolical shape we have no choice but to extend his contract but we need to replace as a priority asap.

 

[Ian4]

We're not seriously extending him are we?

I think everyone agrees Ivan is shot. and even if the club recruits a ready-made ruckman, we will still need a backup. like it or not, hammer is an absolute certainty to be retained next year. you can put your house on it.

 

[Tames]

is an absolute certainty to be retained next year. you can put your house on it.

And here's the hammer coming down now, "Sold to the RFC, for another 3 years"

 

[leon]

Whose talking about three years?

 

[leon]

I just watched his interview

He's looking at going up a gear.

Actually haven't seen as yet, but did he dedicate it to all his fans on PRE, Lamby chief amongst them?

 

[leon]

Hampster is out of contract at the end of the year. He's a big upgrade on Orren Stevensen. A keeper IMO. Whether we battle through with him in the ones next year I'm not sure. Depends who we can pick up and the shape of our 2017 side.

What we pay him I dunno. We can't trade him. And he may stay fit and continue to improve.

We need at least one more ruck but we need at least one more everything. We should be planning a new #1 ruck for 2017 or 2018. Which year it happens doesn't matter IMO.

We can make do with a back up reject for 2017 and I wont care. If we trade for a project ruck fine. But I'd almost cop Jamar. Maybe not quite.

A new back line is our most important need as I see it. New full back. New #3 back. (Any #3 back.)

Fully concur; another realist. But never, ever Jamar. Maric still better! The big Russian is well-done.

I still think Cal Moore has real potential to become the 'New #3 back.' But curious why you don't rate Grimes as already that; is 193cm and can play on talls or smalls which is an excellent attribute. Want to see Moore given some experience/development over latter half of this lost year. So I think the gap is in the No.2 backman spot, being vacated by Chappo and Astbury doesn't seem capable of stepping up, but must be a bigger bodied type.

Think we should go for the promising young ruck high in the draft where you can usually find one, so we can develop one for the long-term, not another short-term fill-in. Keeping Hammer gives him the time to grow into his body and learn his craft. If Hammer goes down, we can find out about Griff, Vickery (who I have little faith in and maybe gone anyway) McBean and Soldo.

 

[Dyer'ere]

Fully concur; another realist. But never, ever Jamar. Maric still better! The big Russian is well-done.

I still think Cal Moore has real potential to become the 'New #3 back.' But curious why you don't rate Grimes as already that; is 193cm and can play on talls or smalls which is an excellent attribute. Want to see Moore given some experience/development over latter half of this lost year. So I think the gap is in the No.2 backman spot, being vacated by Chappo and Astbury doesn't seem capable of stepping up, but must be a bigger bodied type.

Think we should go for the promising young ruck high in the draft where you can usually find one, so we can develop one for the long-term, not another short-term fill-in. Keeping Hammer gives him the time to grow into his body and learn his craft. If Hammer goes down, we can find out about Griff, Vickery (who I have little faith in and maybe gone anyway) McBean and Soldo.

I'm kidding about Jamar, leon. ;D And Chol is 19yo. C Moore the same. (That's why I'm ok with a stopgap.) I like em both too. On Grimes. He doesn't play #3 back. (Presumably because of his fragility.) Batchelor does. Again. And did in the final last year. Ouch. Looks like we have Grimes in for #4 back. But as injury susceptible as he is, he's not a banker IMO.

On recruiting rucks in the ND I will not bore you or the readership again with my irrefutable case. ;D (See Frank thread.)