It's as simple as you like.
If your ruckman doesn't help your team win clearances and doesn't offer anything else around the ground, you don't play him.
If you don't have another ruck option (which we did without even going too far out the box - Griffiths or Vickery or both - clearance numbers either the same and better and offer more around the he ground) then you get creative. That is an extra player in your 22. They can't be useless dead weight just because you like seeing big men jump. Play an extra mid and rove and tackle. Play an extra forward and circulate your talls through the centre. Play a young tall in the ruck.
Do something. Don't be content with a ruckman who had no benefit to the team, just because he's the best at getting hit outs. It's irrelevant unless it can be converted into clearances regardless of whether that's the ruckmans or the midfields fault. You don't play a player that has absolutely zero strengths you can capitalise on tactically.
Which is why you don't play Hammer in the ruck just because he gets tap outs, you don't play Jacob Townsend in the centre just because he leads with his head, you don't play Steve Morris in the forward line because he does star jumps with intensity, and you don't play Taylor Hunt in the back line because he runs hard.
Hampson will offer no benefit in the centre and be useless at everything else. Townsend will never help us get the ball, and be useless at everything else. Steve Morris will never pressure their backline, and be useless at every thing else. And Taylor Hunt will never be a link option and be useless at everything else.
Thing is, the coaching staff obviously have a plan that requires these role players, so they continually try to jam a square peg into a round hole. They need a tap ruckman in their plan so they insist on playing one even when he's useless.
A good coach uses the strengths of the cattle at his disposal, and designs tactics based around that.
Our coach uses the tactics at his disposal and tries to design players around that. To our evident success.
If your ruckman doesn't help your team win clearances and doesn't offer anything else around the ground, you don't play him.
If you don't have another ruck option (which we did without even going too far out the box - Griffiths or Vickery or both - clearance numbers either the same and better and offer more around the he ground) then you get creative. That is an extra player in your 22. They can't be useless dead weight just because you like seeing big men jump. Play an extra mid and rove and tackle. Play an extra forward and circulate your talls through the centre. Play a young tall in the ruck.
Do something. Don't be content with a ruckman who had no benefit to the team, just because he's the best at getting hit outs. It's irrelevant unless it can be converted into clearances regardless of whether that's the ruckmans or the midfields fault. You don't play a player that has absolutely zero strengths you can capitalise on tactically.
Which is why you don't play Hammer in the ruck just because he gets tap outs, you don't play Jacob Townsend in the centre just because he leads with his head, you don't play Steve Morris in the forward line because he does star jumps with intensity, and you don't play Taylor Hunt in the back line because he runs hard.
Hampson will offer no benefit in the centre and be useless at everything else. Townsend will never help us get the ball, and be useless at everything else. Steve Morris will never pressure their backline, and be useless at every thing else. And Taylor Hunt will never be a link option and be useless at everything else.
Thing is, the coaching staff obviously have a plan that requires these role players, so they continually try to jam a square peg into a round hole. They need a tap ruckman in their plan so they insist on playing one even when he's useless.
A good coach uses the strengths of the cattle at his disposal, and designs tactics based around that.
Our coach uses the tactics at his disposal and tries to design players around that. To our evident success.