Who from Coburg is available for RFC next year?

[tigertim]

We were last in clearances, tackles and 1%ers, second last in first possessions and third last in contested possession this year. I'd say we could use a couple more ball winning centremen.

Of course Disco, but which of Foley, Tuck, Coughlan, Johnson does he replace? And if you think he'd be the "5th" ball winning centreman I'm not sure clubs use 5 centremen. And if we had to he'd still be behind the next batch of Tambling, Raines, Newman, Brown etc. Again, I like Al Neville and I'd love to see him make it, I just don't see him doing it.

 

[Harry]

We were last in clearances, tackles and 1%ers, second last in first possessions and third last in contested possession this year. I'd say we could use a couple more ball winning centremen.

Of course Disco, but which of Foley, Tuck, Coughlan, Johnson does he replace?

Johnson is in his last year and Tuck is average. Also Coughlan has had 2 knee reco's. Neville would be our second ball winner after Foley. Depressing but reality.

 

[Disco08]

Coughlan is no guarantee of coming back and Johnson is a shadow of what he used to be in terms of clearances and contested possessions. I'm as optimistic as anyone that Tambling and Deledio can contribute here but I don't think we have anywhere near enough ball winners on our list yet. The better clubs have 3, 4 or 5 plus backups and developing kids.

Tuck is average

Is he?

 

[Leysy Days]

Ronaldson as a ruckman and Gazzo to replace Krak. Neville probably deserves a chance at AFL level but we just don't need another winger/flanker.

As good as Ronaldson is at VFL level there's no way he's anywhere near an AFL player.

Neville is a ball winning centreman tim, not a winger/flanker you suggest.

Brian, I beg to differ on Ronaldson. He's a very mobile ruckman and I've been impressed by him this season (in the 5 games I've seen him in!). Most people would have thought Ben Hudson wasn't AFL standard 4 seasons ago.

Neville, I stand corrected. I thought he played wing. I like him, I'm still not sure he's what we are looking for though when we have Tuck/Foley/Coughlan etc.

not to knock Travis' endeavour or worth for Coburg but a 196cm ruckman at AFL lvl, meh!

When he comes up against the big lads, (which he will at the next lvl) he just hasnt the size to compete, hell he was slaughtered by Stephen King a couple of weeks back......

 

[Michael]

I'd grab Lill Priest

 

[ZeroGame]

not to knock Travis' endeavour or worth for Coburg but a 196cm ruckman at AFL lvl, meh!

You mean like Simmonds?

 

[Leysy Days]

Simmonds marking & skills around the ground are far far superior to Ronaldson's.

Would you be happy drafting 196cm ruckmen zero?

 

[Disco08]

Would depend on his marking and skills around the ground I'd imagine leysy. ;D

 

[Leysy Days]

Too true ;D

We sure could do with a 200cm+ ruck, cos Simmo also gets monstered by elite tall rucks.

 

[tigertim]

Too true ;D

We sure could do with a 200cm+ ruck, cos Simmo also gets monstered by elite tall rucks.

I'm probably changing topic slightly now but is 4cm really that much difference? Is Dean Cox the premier ruckman because he's taller than the others or because he's better than the others? Would he still be the same player if he were 196cm? I'd hazhard a guess he would be.

Again I've never truly beleived that being a bit shorter than your opponent was an automatic hindrance. Jeff White has made a fair career, Archer always played on bigger forwards, Ablett on bigger backs, Brereton was considered short for CHF, Jack Dyer was considered small for a ruckman, Liberatore ...well you know the story.

I don't mean to compare Ronaldson to these guys in ability only that just being 4cm shorter than your opponent doesn't automatically mean you don't get an opportunity.

BTW, We had a 200cm rucman who turned out to be a complete soft c_ck!

 

[shawry]

Too true ;D

We sure could do with a 200cm+ ruck, cos Simmo also gets monstered by elite tall rucks.

I'm probably changing topic slightly now but is 4cm really that much difference? Is Dean Cox the premier ruckman because he's taller than the others or because he's better than the others? Would he still be the same player if he were 196cm? I'd hazhard a guess he would be.

Again I've never truly beleived that being a bit shorter than your opponent was an automatic hindrance. Jeff White has made a fair career, Archer always played on bigger forwards, Ablett on bigger backs, Brereton was considered short for CHF, Jack Dyer was considered small for a ruckman, Liberatore ...well you know the story.

I don't mean to compare Ronaldson to these guys in ability only that just being 4cm shorter than your opponent doesn't automatically mean you don't get an opportunity.

BTW, We had a 200cm rucman who turned out to be a complete soft c_ck!

Agree with all of that. Some say size isnt everything.

 

[Harry]

Too true ;D

We sure could do with a 200cm+ ruck, cos Simmo also gets monstered by elite tall rucks.

I'm probably changing topic slightly now but is 4cm really that much difference? Is Dean Cox the premier ruckman because he's taller than the others or because he's better than the others? Would he still be the same player if he were 196cm? I'd hazhard a guess he would be.

Again I've never truly beleived that being a bit shorter than your opponent was an automatic hindrance. Jeff White has made a fair career, Archer always played on bigger forwards, Ablett on bigger backs, Brereton was considered short for CHF, Jack Dyer was considered small for a ruckman, Liberatore ...well you know the story.

I don't mean to compare Ronaldson to these guys in ability only that just being 4cm shorter than your opponent doesn't automatically mean you don't get an opportunity.

BTW, We had a 200cm rucman who turned out to be a complete soft c_ck!

Agree with all of that. Some say size isnt everything.

Is that what the women say to you Shawry ;D

 

[shawry]

Too true ;D

We sure could do with a 200cm+ ruck, cos Simmo also gets monstered by elite tall rucks.

I'm probably changing topic slightly now but is 4cm really that much difference? Is Dean Cox the premier ruckman because he's taller than the others or because he's better than the others? Would he still be the same player if he were 196cm? I'd hazhard a guess he would be.

Again I've never truly beleived that being a bit shorter than your opponent was an automatic hindrance. Jeff White has made a fair career, Archer always played on bigger forwards, Ablett on bigger backs, Brereton was considered short for CHF, Jack Dyer was considered small for a ruckman, Liberatore ...well you know the story.

I don't mean to compare Ronaldson to these guys in ability only that just being 4cm shorter than your opponent doesn't automatically mean you don't get an opportunity.

BTW, We had a 200cm rucman who turned out to be a complete soft c_ck!

Agree with all of that. Some say size isnt everything.

Is that what the women say to you Shawry ;D

Cant recollect hearing it.

 

[martyshire]

All depends on who we end up with in the draft (and is likely to play a fair bit in 08/09)

 

[jb03]

I'd like to reiterate that we should take none of the Coburg listerd players.

 

[PurpleSneakers]

If I had to pick one I'd say Carnell - quick, tough with neat disposal - he looks like he knows what he's doing.

 

[checkside]

Yep Carnell would have to be a good chance.

 

[stripes17]

I'd like to reiterate that we should take none of the Coburg listerd players.quote


Agree. Carnell doesn't look too bad, but still maybe not good enough