One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: tiga on December 19, 2008, 10:04:49 AM
-
Not knowing a huge amount about Vickery, I was wondering if those in the know can shed some light on how Vickery compares to Naitanui & Kruezer at the start of 2008? I know Kruezer was a standout and arguably chosen correctly at pick one (personally I'm happy we got Cotch), and Natanui is obviously 2009's version of Kruezer, but how do they all compare developmentally, skill levels and body wise? In another thread many are suggesting that Vickery will only get a handful of games near the end of the season and I'm expecting Naitanui will play almost as many games as Kruezer being Cox's protege but are Naitanui and Kruezer that far ahead of Vickery? Did Kruezer play more games than he should have because of Carlton's very average ruck compliment?
One would suggest Vickery is probably a season behind the other two given the conservative number of games people are suggesting he will play.
Discuss.....
-
I think that Carlton and WC have to play those kids mostly through necessity. Even though our ruck stocks are/have been low, with Patto and Graham we can afford to let Vickery develop more slowly (a luxury Patto didn't have). Of course just 1 injury and AG not cutting it, could change all that. Most people I have listened to seem to feel that slowly is better in the long run for players of this size.
-
I don't belive he is, he's ahead of Naitanui and not the far behind Kruezer. Have a look at the videos and you might agree that hes a chance of playing a couple of games this year. Love the way he just keep trying something.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf1Zl4f5Rks
www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8k1aOqe0dM
www.yellowandblack.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=9270&page=5
-
Vickery will not be ready body-wise to compete with the likes of Cox, Sandilands, Hille etc. He could be used like what Kruezer was last year as a 2nd ruckman come forward which is the role I suspect he will take next year.
Probably the difference though between Kruezer and Vickery though is no so much ability but more the teams they are going into. As you suggested Carlton have a weak ruck division and while Patto is no standout he makes Cloke and co look ordinary. In addition to the poor Carlton rucks they also have very few forward options other than Fev which was another reason Kruezer was played so much. So effectively Kruezer was played earlier than what would normally be expected for a ruckman through necessity.
One thing we do share with Carlton is a weak forwardline. Yes we have tall forwards such as Riewoldt, Hughes etc and Morton was the standout but no-one has cemented their spot to date. Vickery may spend time down here if the others do not set the world on fire.
So the fact that Vickery doesn't get a lot of game time next year would actually be better for him and the team because it would mean we have not had to resort to playing him too early.
Take it as a good thing
Stripes
-
At the pre-draft night, FJ said that due to the amount of time that Vickery had spent in the gym he was as advanced as say a second year player such as Putt in terms of physical development.
Personally, depending on match ups, weather etc, I think he will play somewhere between 6 - 10 games next year.
-
Definitely feel that the tankers had no choice but to play Kruezer given their ruck options of Cloke and I forget the other. I think they have become aware that they need to let Kruezer develop without bearing the major share of ruck duties and have recruited Warnock as their No.1 ruckman.
With NickNat WC are going to be placed in a bit of a position with him IMO. You can't afford to not play Cox as often as possible and as such NickNat may not get as much time in the middle as desired, as such we will probably play in the forward line a bit or if they really need to develop his ruck work he may need to play a lot in their feeder side.
With Vickery I think we can afford to let him develop and mature in Coburg firsts most of the year. Simmo obviously is our stand out ruck and very important to our sides structure and will be needed for our 09 finals or bust campaign.
-
I believe FF is not yet settled in the seniors...if Vickers were to show a bit and conversely Hughes struggled, he may get a chance...Id be happy enough to see him play most of the year at Coburg...I challenge the suggestion he has strength on his side...Looks to be every bit a junior to me amongst men....He'll be much closer to making an impact in 12 months time :gotigers
-
Interesting comments so far. Thanks guys! :thumbsup Now with that said, which clubs atm do you feel have the better Ruck stocks than us?
Obviously Cox and Seaby and maybe Taylor and Campbell for the Hawks but is there anyone else?? Put this way does anyone think that there is a club out there that has a backup ruckman that would be considered a first for us??
-
Problem we have is we have a number of potentially good ruck options but if Simmo was to go down our ruck division would look pretty young and untried. I would think on potential we would rank quite well against other teams but in reality, at this minute, we are still pretty weak.
-
Fuzzy Wuzzy wont make it.
He's stupid,put simply.
I remain unimpressed with his shi tty little show reel.
-
Definitely feel that the tankers had no choice but to play Kruezer given their ruck options of Cloke and I forget the other. I think they have become aware that they need to let Kruezer develop without bearing the major share of ruck duties and have recruited Warnock as their No.1 ruckman.
With NickNat WC are going to be placed in a bit of a position with him IMO. You can't afford to not play Cox as often as possible and as such NickNat may not get as much time in the middle as desired, as such we will probably play in the forward line a bit or if they really need to develop his ruck work he may need to play a lot in their feeder side.
With Vickery I think we can afford to let him develop and mature in Coburg firsts most of the year. Simmo obviously is our stand out ruck and very important to our sides structure and will be needed for our 09 finals or bust campaign.
Natanui was never a forward option so he may struggle in this role. Who is Fuzzy Wuzzy?? Is that Patto you are talking about?
Vickery may end up a much better forward option for us than ruck if Gus, Putt and/or our new giant rookie step up.
Stripes
-
I think Captain PP was referring to Natanui. If Nicknat isn't a forward then I suppose he will be off the bench resting Cox.
-
i reckon Big red who we nabbed in the rookie looks the goods , saw him at training and moves well , good skills, like what I see :shh
-
I think Captain PP was referring to Natanui. If Nicknat isn't a forward then I suppose he will be off the bench resting Cox.
In an interview after the draft NicNat didnt sound like he wanted to play a game this season.
-
i reckon Big red who we nabbed in the rookie looks the goods , saw him at training and moves well , good skills, like what I see :shh
Good call, looks like we put some thought into our draft this year and no ones talking about project players. All our picks could get a game but obviously a few have more chance than others.
-
It'll be up to Worsfold whether he sticks with Seaby as second ruck even though there's the possibility of Seaby might walk out at the end of year after wanting to be traded this year OR he goes with Cox/Naitanui who'll be a longer term ruck combo. Nat is a different player to Vickery and Kreuzer. The latter two doesn't have the athleticism and leap of Nat but they are both more natural footballers who are ruck/forwards and it's more a case of them bulking up so their bodies can cope with the battering against older, bigger and more experienced ruckmen in the AFL. The Blues will wreck Kreuzer if the use him too much in the ruck like Collingwood did with Josh Fraser. That's why they chased hard after Warnock. We don't have that issue with Simmo, Patto and Gus able to allow Vickery and Browne for that matter the opportunity to develop in their own time as ruckmen and in Vickery's case to play mainly forward in his development years.