Position Rucks Discussion

[Bomber18]

I personally don't think Zac Clarke is a fait accompli yet.

Competing with McKernan and Mitch Brown for the one spot in the forward line for mine. McKernan has been tearing it up on the training track and adds more aggro and more xfactor for mine.
Brown doesn't ruck but he is a better forward than the others, works harder and presents more. But Brown would require Daniher to pinch hit in ruck, so may mot happen with Danihers injury issues.

In my best 22 ZClarke doesnt make it, but obviously I'm not on the selection commitee.

Yeah, agree with this, by no means guaranteed a spot - still needs to show that he deserves a spot over SMack or it can work if he plays alongside him.

I was just thinking that if he did get selected in Round 1, he probably would continue to play til about round 6 given the difficult ruck draw and it would be a good indication that the dons would be going with the two ruck strategy.

 

[bwright]

Yeah, agree with this, by no means guaranteed a spot - still needs to show that he deserves a spot over SMack or it can work if he plays alongside him.

I was just thinking that if he did get selected in Round 1, he probably would continue to play til about round 6 given the difficult ruck draw and it would be a good indication that the dons would be going with the two ruck strategy.

Supercoach wise I hope we go with Clarke but I feel like SMack really deserved a spot as forward/ruck. Offers an actual option in the forward line rather than just resting a ruckman down there and never get sick of seeing how much he loves celebrating a goal!

 

[Uncle Drew]

It's a little hard to quantify, which I don't like, as quantifying has always been my best mode of explaining things.
It's all tied up in a big messy ball of:
Overpriced players, and trying to workout how overpriced they are.
Over popular players, that are appearing in more teams than their chances of success would indicate they should.
The Rucks being a game within a game, in both AFL and SC. They are not subject to the same grading in structure in SC as the other 3 positions, as their limited number, and potential scoring, force them into a bracket of their own.
The Ruck position having the most inconsistent history in SC.
The Rucks seemingly being the position most likely to miss games.
The perennial problem of SC perception v reality.

The higher any player scores in any given season, the higher the average punter expects them to score the next season. Some might say that is human nature, as they are just reacting to the most recent history. I'd rather look at trends first. I call it "The Icarus Affect". The higher a player flies, the more likely he is to crash, and the higher he flies, the harder he crashes. The last Ruck I really applied it to was Goldstein, coming into the 2016 season. He averaged 129 in 2015, and pretty much nearly everyone on here was labelling him the next SC God, and a must have. I expressed doubts that he could go even close to backing that up. Those that disagreed wrote things along the lines of "at the very worst, he drops to 118-119, and is still clearly the number 1 Ruck, and an absolute must have." When asked, from memory, I said I thought he might drop as low as 115, or even lower. It seemed crazy to pay what quickly becomes a 27 point/$135k premium for a player, and that was if he reached the 115 ceiling I predicted. He didn't. He ended up clearly the number 2 Ruck for the season, and 10 points clear of any player with 20+ games that finished behind him. But would you pay the starting price of 129 to get a 108 player, even if he was clearly 2nd best? With the natural drop of close to 10% by mid season, and 6-7% by round 5/6, it means you would have paid around $150-160k more than what you should have, for the return.

Throw all that into a mixer, and what you come up with is this:
We have 2 Rucks that completely dominated last season. They scored a combined 44/258 last season.
If Icarus flew that high, he would have been dead from heat stroke long before his wings melted!
Let's look at the best two 20+ game Rucks in recent history:
2017 Kreuzer/Ryder 42/213 - (2018 they went 28/170)
2016 Gawn/Goldstein 43/227 - (2017 they went 32/187)
2015 Goldstein/Martin 41/238 - (2016 they went 41/198)
2014 Jacobs/Sandilands 43/223 - (2015 they went 42/214)
None of them even in the ballpark of 44/258! (and look at their follow up years. Games and averages well down! 3 of the 4 are down by 40 points!)
So rather than try and toss a coin, and bet against one, and back the other, I decided it best to bet against both. Depending on how hard one of them falls, if one does, then backing against both is still probably in front of backing both, and one does fall considerably. I don't agree with the premise, that it will take 3-4 trades to get them in. I do however concede if both fire to somewhere near their 2018 level, my season is cooked, and I will struggle to make top 5,000. Against that, rather than run with the majority (I can see at least 50-60% of teams having one or both Grundy/Gawn), I will again tread the path less taken.
Not taking them places another solid (hopefully!) Mid in my Midfield, as against those that are struggling with $500k bet on a hopeful improver at M5. It also adds another Prem into either my Fwd/Def lines, plus a little cash left over. I saw your post expounding the $800k saving on cheap Rucks over Gawn/Grundy. In my current team, that number is closer to $900k, so that extra $100k really does open up the market on the alternatives!

TL;DR
I find it better to bet against players that have a season out of the box, rather than expect that is the new "norm". The fact that we have 2 on the most restricted line in the game makes the bet even more enticing!

I find the 2016 ruck situation very interesting as there are a lot of parallels to this year. Rucks coming off extremely high averages, no obvious value (pending rookie ruck selection) and no obvious breakout contenders. The funny thing about 2016 is I actually don't think starting Goldy was that bad of a choice despite the 20 pt average drop. The reason being that there wasn't really any better choices. Starting Nic Nat was great until his injury. But then all his owners lost the advantage they gained when they were forced to trade him out.

The best option I can see would have been starting Nic Nat and trading him to Grundy when injured. But if anyone traded Nic Nat to a guy averaging 85 at the time then well I tip my hat to them. Lycett looked like a decent value choice as long his famous 2 late in the season was avoided, but apart from that I can't see any good alternatives. Happy to be corrected if someone can find any.

I'm not saying the same thing will happen this year, but it's interesting that a ruck can drop average by 20 pts and still be one of the better starting ruck choices. It shows that the success of starting Grundy and Gawn will have a lot to do with what the other rucks can do, not just what they can do.

 

[anfa18]

So anfa if the Roos went with two ruck strategy is Campbell worth thought? He has already played that role before of being the forward that also rucks and ave 75.

Honestly pretty much all rookie priced rucks are on my radar, Campbell isn't in my top 5 at the moment as i think there may be cheaper options who could provide 70+ scores each week. I think many factors will decide who i go with and if none look good or just one, then i will get a keeper in there as well. A strong game or two in the JLT would help his cause, just like it appears to have helped Clarke from last nights game. Getting named for round 1 will be a big indicator, just like any rookie.

Preuss, Nicholls, Clarke, Fort, English, Smith, O'Brien, Campbell, Mumford are probably my most likely candidates at this point. But again, it all comes down to JLT and if they get named in 18 or 19 days time.

 

[Hondo]

I find the 2016 ruck situation very interesting as there are a lot of parallels to this year. Rucks coming off extremely high averages, no obvious value (pending rookie ruck selection) and no obvious breakout contenders. The funny thing about 2016 is I actually don't think starting Goldy was that bad of a choice despite the 20 pt average drop. The reason being that there wasn't really any better choices. Starting Nic Nat was great until his injury. But then all his owners lost the advantage they gained when they were forced to trade him out.

The best option I can see would have been starting Nic Nat and trading him to Grundy when injured. But if anyone traded Nic Nat to a guy averaging 85 at the time then well I tip my hat to them. Lycett looked like a decent value choice as long his famous 2 late in the season was avoided, but apart from that I can't see any good alternatives. Happy to be corrected if someone can find any.

I'm not saying the same thing will happen this year, but it's interesting that a ruck can drop average by 20 pts and still be one of the better starting ruck choices. It shows that the success of starting Grundy and Gawn will have a lot to do with what the other rucks can do, not just what they can do.

Don’t forget Gawn dropped away cause he got injured and missed 9 games

Not because he naturally dropped off

 

[baz_machine]

My main thing is I never want to pay full price.

It's so historically unlikely that either gawn / Grundy back it up and apart from goldy I have a big meh on all the rest.

Hopefully there is 1 ruck that is sub 250 k that plays and averages 75 plus, that makes this steeping stone worth while. If not, better luck in 2020

 

[Manikato1]

Honestly pretty much all rookie priced rucks are on my radar, Campbell isn't in my top 5 at the moment as i think there may be cheaper options who could provide 70+ scores each week. I think many factors will decide who i go with and if none look good or just one, then i will get a keeper in there as well. A strong game or two in the JLT would help his cause, just like it appears to have helped Clarke from last nights game. Getting named for round 1 will be a big indicator, just like any rookie.

Preuss, Nicholls, Clarke, Fort, English, Smith, O'Brien, Campbell, Mumford are probably my most likely candidates at this point. But again, it all comes down to JLT and if they get named in 18 or 19 days time.

Thanks for the reply. I know the theory is wait until the JLT pick the best rookies you can and then build your team from there but this year I am finding that it is pick your rucks and then build around that.

I listened to the WCE v Cats JLT game on the radio tonight and even from the call it became clear the ease of a lot of centre clearances is going to have major effect on the game. A number of times the person breaking out of the centre ending up having a shot a goal. It comes down to first use and that means the ruck.

 

[Nathan]

Thanks for the reply. I know the theory is wait until the JLT pick the best rookies you can and then build your team from there but this year I am finding that it is pick your rucks and then build around that.

I listened to the WCE v Cats JLT game on the radio tonight and even from the call it became clear the ease of a lot of centre clearances is going to have major effect on the game. A number of times the person breaking out of the centre ending up having a shot a goal. It comes down to first use and that means the ruck.

Less stoppages mean less rucking

 

[Tails]

Less stoppages mean less rucking

From what I've seen thus far .... no PREM rucks have played yet so far so to extrapolate anything thus far to me is meaningless ....points will most likely be lost in some areas but gained in others ... Ie. HOTA v contested possessions ..

 

[Rowsus]

Row,

Love this so much - completely understand your logic and hats off for having the pills to try it!

Only query would be - why 3 mid-pricers and not an R1/R2 who aren't priced at Grawndy levels? Say Goldy/Martin/Nank?

That's a good question, Xabi, and I hope you find this a reasonable answer.
Terms and definitions aren't really defined for all things SC. What fits in one persons mind, doesn't necessarily fit for the next person. I tend to not look at $250k type players as mid-pricers. In my my mind, that's more of a $300-$450k type player. So in my mind, my intended starting Rucks aren't mid-pricers.
So why not start a Goldy/Martin/Nank? Well, I could potentially see me starting Goldy, if it turns out my 3 cheap options doesn't look viable.
I believe there is a pretty basic rule for picking your starting 30 players. Every player must serve a purpose, and I see no useful purpose in "placeholder" selections. Picking someone who will tread water, maybe drop just a little in price, while you hope your intended target drops down to a reachable price from the "placeholder". Picking your starting team in my mind should be basic in principal. Aside from possibly choosing a FD or a FDTP, every other player should be chosen with one of two criteria in mind. I hope he's a Keeper. Or, I hope he makes me a minimum of $80-$100k (good enough for a Stepping Stone pick, probably want a bit more from most of the Rookies though.) Aside from Goldy being potentially a Keeper, I don't see too many Rucks around $400k+ that I can confidentally say will fill one of those two selection criteria.

 

[Tails]

What I find interesting about team ruck setups are the teams going into this season without what I'd call a bonfide No 1 ruck and how they'll go with the new rules ...

- GEE ... stacked full of what I'd call M/F players and the best they have is Stanley ...
- WBU .. also stacked full of what I'd call M/F players and the best they have is English ...

So that is at least two teams who think they can beat the rule changes through stronger midfields ... and a placeholder in the rucks ... going to be interesting to see how this unfolds ...

 

[Bermi]

That's a good question, Xabi, and I hope you find this a reasonable answer.
Terms and definitions aren't really defined for all things SC. What fits in one persons mind, doesn't necessarily fit for the next person. I tend to not look at $250k type players as mid-pricers. In my my mind, that's more of a $300-$450k type player. So in my mind, my intended starting Rucks aren't mid-pricers.
So why not start a Goldy/Martin/Nank? Well, I could potentially see me starting Goldy, if it turns out my 3 cheap options doesn't look viable.
I believe there is a pretty basic rule for picking your starting 30 players. Every player must serve a purpose, and I see no useful purpose in "placeholder" selections. Picking someone who will tread water, maybe drop just a little in price, while you hope your intended target drops down to a reachable price from the "placeholder". Picking your starting team in my mind should be basic in principal. Aside from possibly choosing a FD or a FDTP, every other player should be chosen with one of two criteria in mind. I hope he's a Keeper. Or, I hope he makes me a minimum of $80-$100k (good enough for a Stepping Stone pick, probably want a bit more from most of the Rookies though.) Aside from Goldy being potentially a Keeper, I don't see too many Rucks around $400k+ that I can confidentally say will fill one of those two selection criteria.

RE: …….Every player must serve a purpose, ………..every other player should be chosen with one of two criteria in mind. I hope he's a Keeper. Or, I hope he makes me a minimum of $80-$100k........I don't see too many Rucks around $400k+ that I can confidentally say will fill one of those two selection criteria...….
I know you said 'confidently', may I ask why you are not confident that English ($310,600) won't make $100,000?

 

[Rowsus]

RE: …….Every player must serve a purpose, ………..every other player should be chosen with one of two criteria in mind. I hope he's a Keeper. Or, I hope he makes me a minimum of $80-$100k........I don't see too many Rucks around $400k+ that I can confidentally say will fill one of those two selection criteria...….
I know you said 'confidently', may I ask why you are not confident that English ($310,600) won't make $100,000?

Fair question.
1) He's not around $400k+
2) Needs to be picked every week (no certainty that will happen yet, after 2 games and 7 games in his first 2 years.)
3) He needs to average mid to high 80's to make that $100k, and he's never scored that high, in even a single game!

 

[Bermi]

Fair question.
1) He's not around $400k+
2) Needs to be picked every week (no certainty that will happen yet, after 2 games and 7 games in his first 2 years.)
3) He needs to average mid to high 80's to make that $100k, and he's never scored that high, in even a single game!

Thanks for the reply, English interests me because of what I read recently: "....been the talk of the Dogs’ pre-season, with the highly touted ruckman seemingly ready to take on the duties as a best 22".
My thoughts below:
RE: 1) He's not around $400k+
Ok. With the crowded Midfielders I would not have considered $310,600 'around', but in the sparse Rucks, I did. But that's not important
RE: 2) Needs to be picked every week (no certainty that will happen yet, after 2 games and 7 games in his first 2 years.)
I'm thinking the WBDs need to play him because they haven't got many ruckmen to choose from, Roughead gone and Boyd injured for a while. Also, the new rules, 2 ruckmen may be the way to go this season, so I see him in their best 22. His season last year was derailed by a foot injury and he is having a good preseason now.
RE: 3) He needs to average mid to high 80's to make that $100k, and he's never scored that high, in even a single game!
English won't turn 22 until August, so he is young for a ruckman and won't hit his full potential this year, but I understand his low scoring, being 105cm and he was light weight, but word around is that he has put on enough weight to be competitive this year. So an increase to mid 80s seems quite possible to me.

 

[Juzzo]

I'm pretty sure Rowsus was a Bookmaker's Clerk at some point. He's a numbers man, so has probably framed a market around the speculative ruck choices. So maybe English is not favourable by the numbers.

Edit: This could also be a load of rubbish.

 

[jarrad_]

grundy averaged 90 in his third year with sub affected games no reason why English couldn't average around the same if not more

 

[Diabolical]

...English won't turn 22 until August, so he is young for a ruckman and won't hit his full potential this year, but I understand his low scoring, being 105cm and he was light weight, but word around is that he has put on enough weight to be competitive this year. So an increase to mid 80s seems quite possible to me.

Let’s hope he has put on a bit of height too

 

[Bermi]

Let’s hope he has put on a bit of height too

I'm sure my finger pressed the No 2 key on the key board

 

[Diabolical]

I'm sure my finger pressed the No 2 key on the key board

I’m sure you did ... I do it all the time on my phone and I find it really annoying ... it’s i’s being replaced with o’s are most common for me ... not sure if it’s my aging eyesight or dexterity on the tiny phone keyboard that is the issue!

 

[GrainFedBeef]

Thanks for the reply, English interests me because of what I read recently: "....been the talk of the Dogs’ pre-season, with the highly touted ruckman seemingly ready to take on the duties as a best 22".
My thoughts below:
RE: 1) He's not around $400k+
Ok. With the crowded Midfielders I would not have considered $310,600 'around', but in the sparse Rucks, I did. But that's not important
RE: 2) Needs to be picked every week (no certainty that will happen yet, after 2 games and 7 games in his first 2 years.)
I'm thinking the WBDs need to play him because they haven't got many ruckmen to choose from, Roughead gone and Boyd injured for a while. Also, the new rules, 2 ruckmen may be the way to go this season, so I see him in their best 22. His season last year was derailed by a foot injury and he is having a good preseason now.
RE: 3) He needs to average mid to high 80's to make that $100k, and he's never scored that high, in even a single game!
English won't turn 22 until August, so he is young for a ruckman and won't hit his full potential this year, but I understand his low scoring, being 105cm and he was light weight, but word around is that he has put on enough weight to be competitive this year. So an increase to mid 80s seems quite possible to me.

The positive on English is he has bulked I believe to 100kg which helps his growth in stats given this is a role where weight matters to an extent. Talented player although don't love him at that price.

Had Lycett last year who was cheaper and more experienced in a better side and still tore my hair out in the early stages of the season.

I always try to go a cheaper ruck having used Witts, Lycett in prior years. Agree, big risk going two premium players and whilst I wouldn't go a 250k player in most lines, ruck is different. I do want this role to make money, $300k is getting up there.

Unlikely I would go English at that price unless he absolutely stood out in JLT. Think the focus on a cheaper ruck is correct.

Someone above made a comment building around ruck mid prices rather than rookies. I disagree, ruck mid pricer ultimately will likely impact a premium or mid pricer elsewhere as you are saving money from a premium choice. mid price ruck is another expensive rookie and like all lines, you are balancing making money, job security and not taking too much risk.

A Witts/Lycett didn't need a playing R3 (unless injured) whereas an English may as JS is not quite there yet. Hence I would consider a Fort/Clarke combo buy wouldn't look at either at R2 if I don't have a playing R3. IMO.

Last year Lycett over Ryder (alternative) was a huge win, as was English at R3. Now some may some thats luck as Ryder got injured, however, he wasn't a top 2 ruck regardless and would have still needed to be traded. Hence the value of a mid price/expensive rook ruck, allows you to wait till round 8. Further, last year I rotated them into McInereny (win) and McKernan (not so great) and some other playing rookie ruck (R3) before going to Grundy. Prior year ended up getting Hodor from Freo which I wouldn't have if I started two premium rucks and donut R3.

Rucks is an area which doesn't get the attention that it deserves. Why did so many people not pick English at R3 last year is case in point. Everyone makes this a set and forget area, however, also can be a quagmire if you go a $300-400k placeholder.

Bulldogs do have an alternative to English, think it is 21y Jordan Sweet, which goes to Rowsus point on JS. However, Bulldogs look hopeless for big men and Boyd is injured.