Last time we played a final Warnock was mighty against Cox and NicNat. He was also very good up against Hille and Ryder the week before.
Maric is a different type of player to those two though.
I agree, historically Warnock doesn't go so well against the physical likes of Maric, Mumford, Hudson or Minson. But at the moment he is our only option, Rowe and Casboult are of negligible impact in rucking contests and offer almost nil 2nd and 3rd efforts.
In context of Saturday Warnock did lift, but he did so against a couple of rookie type ruckmen which you would expect him to dominate, not against an Ivan Maric type!
People can criticise SpecialK for his effectiveness in the ruck and that was justified, even SpecialK would admit he did not have a good one. He is injured no doubt because he isn't jumping with any vigor or result. But that is just one of many ways to evaluate his presence. Was he less or more effective than Casboult inside F50, not really I did not see SpecialK get out marked despite his lack of form!
Lately we lose more clearances than we win, and the 2nd efforts become more critical. Following up when you hit the ground and driving opposition mids, KPPs and defenders in the turf with tackle after tackle is a big positive. SpecialK is the only ruck we have that does this, he gets up off the deck like a mid and lays tackle after tackle. In this regard Warnock offers us almost nothing, and Levi is often out of the contest after his first effort even when he stays on his feet!
Rowe needs another uninterrupted pre-season, but there are no guarantees, plain and simple.
Listening to Bryce on SEN he too praised Warnock and credited him for starting the comeback.
Very big call to go with out Kruz though
I agree with Bryce to some extent, I think Warnock did lift after 1/2 time, but for me the question is why didn't he put in for the first half with just as much vigor?
As for going without Kreuzer and leaving Warnock effectively rucking solo, he may have had nothing left in the tank after 1/2 time and any lift at all would be out of the question! And Warnock is a massive basket to be putting all your eggs in, some may say a basket case!
On the counter argument to play both, Warnock is 206cm and if he is fresh and running at the end of a game he doesn't get any shorter! Kreuzer may not have got much effective ball in the ruck, but his tackling and chasing were second to none and that certainly impacts on the freshness of the opposition.
Can you repeat that in English? Those words do not reflect anything I said. What I did say was if Kreuzer is dropped, to assume it;'s due to injury is not correwct. Pretty simple from where I sit.
It cannot be the case that if you base an argument on an assumption that only that assumption can correct, and that counter assumptions negating your case cannot.
As I read it you are arguing based on an assumptions that support your position and you in defense of your case you are effectively arguing that MBBs counter argument is invalid because it is based on assumptions. You have created a logical ambiguity.
Both cases are based entirely that the assumption that the supporting assumption is correct and the counter assumption is not. Both are equally correct, or equally wrong!
Like I said, everyone is nursing injury this time of the year, to say Kreuzer isn't 100% so therefore if he doesn't play he's injured is BS. Nonetheless, rather than engage in boring one line pot shots with you, I'll just let you wallow in your own ineptitude.
No if he doesn't play he is injured and that is the reasonable and correct assessment.
Injuries being carried by players at this time of year are not a black and white issues, of course some injuries can be carried while other cannot and the conclusion that a player has been dropped because a club says he is injured is an incorrect conclusion. Probably a conclusion based on a confirmation bias.
Hawthorn often use one ruck and Roughead but may get away with playing too simply because of the type of tall Buddy is. They soon sub out Bailey the moment they lack run though.
The fact they run with Bailey for 1/2 to 3/4 of a game allows the other rucks to run out the full game. If he wasn't there they would be cooked by 1/2 time, Roughead would not be so sprightly if he had to ruck from the first bounce. If you do not agree with this then explain why they used Spangher to give Hale and Roughead a chop out? I suspect they will do the same again this week and assuming Bailey is fit he will be the preferred option not Spangher.
That leads me to another matter, the smart use of subs. MM was forced to use Duigan earlier than he would normally and it paid off. By default MM and most other clubs leave their sub sitting on the bench getting cold for 3/4 in case someone gets injured, in the interim they often lead a spud running around the ground for 3/4s having stuff all influence and wasting space. That is a a dead set moronic position to take, MM is set in the mindset that the sub is an emergency player. At the weekend Port was getting away from us, almost 40 points up by halftime with no second chances left for us, so MM had no choice but to drag Casboult and activate Duigan. It paid off and we won, yet I suspect he will go back to a benched sub this week, will he ever learn that clubs like Dawkthorn and the Swans are using the sub tactically instead of as an emergency?
If Murphy and Simpson had bot had such a good game I would be more confident in Duigan keeping his place. Given Curnow had such a good game, Ellard and Duigan seem to be the only natural outs assuming Casboult stays in.
McInnes might not be safe, was struggling a bit and Waite did OK up forward which suggests Hendo can safely go back. In our previous games against Nthmond the tall backs haven't figured heavily. It has been our midfield and rucks that did the damage.
Maric would be too much for Kruezer IMO.....Warnock with his extra size was important last game in negating Maric...need to play the two rucks IMO plus Casboult as KP Forward...
That's what I'm thinking. I'm okay with dropping Warnock as long as Kreuzer can handle the opposition ruck but Maric is too good for him.
It was great to see Warnock get pissed off and hand out some of the treatment he cops week after week. Opposition rucks jump early and bury their feet or knees into his thighs and midriff, and they get away with it. Warnock returned the favor against Port a couple of times after half time, he got pinged for doing it twice, but it also stopped the opponents doing the same dead in their tracks.
As for Kreuzer, we should be bitching it up like Collingwood does whenever Cloke gets his arms chopped. I haven't seen an opponent make contact with the ball yet when Kreuzer jumps from in front!
We always do best with one and a back up. More often than not we're sh1t with 2. Doesn't add anything. Diminishes Kreuzer's affect as he is not good up forward. He suddenly becomes average if he's not first ruck. Collingwood and Richmond will be the same too. Hawthorn will go with 2 out of necessity with Buddy out, meaning Hale needs to spend more time forward. Hawthorn operate best with Hale, with back up from Roughhead. Not sure the Swans have been as good playing 2 rucks plus Tippett and White. Why would you do that when white and Tippett can ruck most proficiently. If you're looking to split between a bloke who can win a few taps and a bloke who can kick a couple of goals you'd go with the latter.
That is old fashioned thinking, Laj. The Swans go with all the big guys because it is their natural advantage and it works, there is no better game plan or team setup, just a winning team that plays to it's strengths.
Like it or not we have a significant ruck advantage over most clubs that we have greatly failed to capitalise on, it is my opinion that we need to engineer the game plan to suit our strengths. It is pointless playing a marking KPF game plan if we have no marking KPF or if we have to bastardise our backline to try and fashion one! I'd rather see two Amigos up forward with a tackling forward like Armfield or Robinson and a tall like Kreuzer or Casboult inside F50 bringing the ball to ground. In my opinion the best football we played this year was early in the season when we had a series of narrow losses to top four sides. All games had combinations of Kreuzer, Rowe, Hampson and Casboult playing bringing the ball to ground from long fast entries of the HBF by the likes of Walker, Tuohy and Gibbs. In addition opposition rucks were being dominated, and all that happened when our midfield was hopelessly out of form! If we added an in form Yarran running off the HBF to that mix I think it would be our most damaging combination.
I am with @EB1 we need both playing plus Casboult but Casboult's performance will be critical. If he puts in another one like the last two we are shot, he could be our most important player this week.
I would like to play 3 ruckmen but whenever we do we usually lose. We were getting smashed on Saturday until we subbed one off.
But Casboult is not a ruckmen, everyone keeps telling me that!
If he was a useful ruckmen, he would be much better value. Blokes like SpecialK and Warnock would not have to sprint the length of the ground to get to stoppages!
The top sides will set up ruck zones for the finals, especially Sydney and Geelong. Whoever takes the center bounce will either immediately zone off either forward or backwards as required by the game plan. They will not be required to traverse the full length of the ground to get to stoppages.
Finals are too fast, and under the current fast ball up rules rucks do not have the time to cover the ground. A single ruckmen would be cooked by quarter time.
