I think for the next 2 or 3 seasons we will be fine with what we have.
Certainly would be keeping an eye open for a upcoming ruckman in the next couple of years that can play 2nd string to Clarke when Sandi makes that move forward.

I think that's because ruck stocks are low across the competition. Some teams don't even have one competent ruckman and have a game plan to cover for that fact.

My theory is you need three ruckmen. A good ruckman (Sandilands), a crap ruckman (Kepler) and a young under developed ruckman (Clarke).

It's a delicate balancing act which I reckon Fremantle have got spot on at the moment.

You need your crap ruckman to be competent enough to fill in for the good ruckman at the end of quarters and such and possible the occasional game. ]He has to be good enough to be competitive in the ruck, He has to be completely different to the good ruckman - so he can use the element of confusion on the opposition main ruckman, who has focussed his attention on beating the main ruckman.; and he has to be crap enough that no one is going to poach him for their number 1 spot.

Ideally the crap ruckman can play another position so you can justify their selection every week - because the week you don't play them your good ruckman will do his ankle at the opening bounce.

The young under developed ruckman can never appear to be ready to play seniors. They always have to be just on the cusp of playing.

The minute you start playing your young ruckman with your good ruckman regularly, you're asking for trouble. The football accountants in the sky will want to balance the ledger and will cripple your good ruckman, or else your young ruckman will get full of himself and leave for another club - for more opportunity.

The minute your good ruckman breaks down or retires, despite initial doubts, the young ruckman immediately becomes the good ruckman and most people will start to suggest he was better than the last bloke.

And the cycle continues.

That's an axiom worthy of a PhD.

Let's not forget that there's Johno who has done the job on more than one occasion. Often the '3rd man up' (Mundy or Tazza) has thrown up a curve ball for opposition teams to deal with. Then there has been the Gilly 'ruck/rove' thing which worked beautifully a number of times in the past.

Pardon me picking nits Svenny, but if its an axiom it would be taken to be true, so you wouldn't need a PhD to prove it. On the other hand, if its a theory, there's plenty of research potential in it.

Shane, I thought for a minute that you were talking down Kepler. But it emerges from your analysis that he is an excellent crap ruckman. We'll have to be careful in case he gets poached by clubs in need of a key crap ruckman.

In my opinion he is a backup ruckman who sometimes isn't quite as crap as he looks, and that's a useful weapon.

And your other scenario about overplaying the emerging ruckman is familiar. Can't recall where...

I seem to remember that a few years back - in the age before the Sandi dynasty - ruckmen were regarded as a dying breed.

crapness is relative.

You wouldn't want to go into too many games with Kepler Bradley as your only ruckman, by the same token you wouldn't want Michael Johnson filling in for Sandilands at the end of the quarter every week.

It's a niche position but an important one. Gilmore was too crap but Simmonds wasn't crap enough.

The Eagles seem to be working within the boundaries of the formula. With Cox, Natanui and Tony Knott as the young under developed ruckman.

JLo is the right man to comment on this issue, he held the #1 ruck spot pretty well solo for years and ground his knees to shreds, years before he should have. I hope the club look after sandi better.

Freoboy49, I'm not sure I agree with your hypothesis.

It is interesting if you look at the players listed, by club, as ruckmen in the Dream Team squads there are three teams that only have three ruckmen.

Freo, Kangas and OOFTITS but according to the article we are the only ones with a problem.

And if you look at other teams, among a few their players listed as ruckmen, there are quite a few who haven't played a game yet.

Some of them could become crap ruckmen.

Good point, Freoboy, nitpick away.. Although the theory is so sound, we could warrant it perhaps as theorem. Anyways, have seen less well constructed arguments in PhDs, so I reckon we give him one nonetheless.

As for "crapness is relative".. There's a tenure position for that one.