Can Richmond hand over the ruck without making its forward line pay?
Richmond’s ruck succession carries a more uncomfortable question than whether another tall can be recruited: can the club transfer essential ruck work without asking the forward line to accommodate a player whose second role has not earned its place? The history makes that risk concrete. In 2017, Toby Nankervis became the principal ruck while Ivan Maric remained in the football environment, rather than requiring the selected attack to fit both. But a successful handover is not a universal blueprint, and treating every available pair as a partnership could turn succession into a selection habit. For Briggs and Nankervis, the unresolved issue is what the rest of the side might have to surrender or supply. In the full feature, we examine how Maric’s continued support around Nankervis differed from keeping a veteran in the selected side.
Richmond’s premiership history offers different arrangements, not one settled instruction. Nankervis took the principal role in 2017, with Shaun Grigg providing relief; in 2019, Nankervis and Ivan Soldo played together alongside Jack Riewoldt and Tom Lynch. Those examples raise separate questions: who carries the main responsibility, how is the workload covered, and what does the other ruck contribute when he is not contesting? The answers matter beyond the team sheet. A second ruck could ease one burden and create another if his forward work does not support the attack. The apparent choice between one or two recognised rucks conceals a harder test: whether each role strengthens the whole side. In our Members investigation, we trace the separate 1967 roles of emergency ruck Mike Patterson and developing player Michael Green.
When does a new ruckman become a successor?
Richmond’s record distinguishes having another ruck available from transferring responsibility to him. In the 1967 Grand Final, with Neville Crowe suspended, Mike Patterson took the principal ruck assignment; Michael Green was selected but stayed on the bench. Green’s later emergence should not be projected backwards as if he had carried that match. The immediate cover and the longer-term successor were different answers, on different timelines. That distinction complicates any claim that recruitment or selection alone completes a handover. A club may need someone for the next match while still developing the player it hopes will own the role later. For Briggs and Nankervis, which responsibility has actually moved—and what would show it? In the full feature, we test what Green’s 1973–74 goal returns establish about a genuine second role—and what they cannot prove.
The other test is what happens to the player not rucking. If he is selected as a forward, that place needs a football purpose, not merely a convenient address for a second tall. Richmond’s history includes Green returning in 1973 after retiring, then contributing both in the ruck and in attack: the club credits him with 30 goals that season and 23 in 1974. That is evidence of a second contribution, not proof that every ruck can fill the same role or that the arrangement had no cost. Nor can a premiership score reveal what an omitted forward might have produced. The useful question is what repeatable work the extra selection adds, and what work it displaces. In our Members investigation, we dissect the Lee–Roach exchange, including Lee’s 18 goals in three matches and its temporary limits.
What does a second role have to prove?
Green’s return is not the only tempting precedent. During Mark Lee’s injury interruptions in 1982, Francis Bourke used forward Michael Roach in the ruck; when Lee returned, Lee briefly played full-forward, kicking 18 goals over three matches, including nine against St Kilda. It is a striking exchange, but a short run is not evidence of a permanent handover. Lee later resumed his customary principal ruck role. The episode invites scrutiny of how each player’s skills answered a particular need, rather than an assumption that a successful experiment should become the standing arrangement. Richmond must also account for changed conditions: the league introduced interchange players in 1978, so older role allocations cannot simply be copied into today’s game. In the full feature, we look at how the 1978 introduction of interchange changes comparisons with earlier ruck rotations.
The lighter 2017 arrangement also had a cost to weigh. Grigg carried relief ruck duties, while Nankervis later described the load as physically taxing and said he felt it around mid-season; he credited the club’s physical performance support with helping him freshen. That history does not dictate whether Richmond should select another specialist now. It makes the trade-off harder to wave away: relief may preserve other qualities in the side while giving up something in the ruck contest, and an additional ruck may affect the attack. The practical question is not which structure sounds more responsible, but how Richmond can identify the burden, provide support and still keep its forwards useful. In our Members investigation, we examine Nankervis’s reported mid-season fatigue alongside Grigg’s relief role and its team-balance trade-off.
Which parts of Richmond’s history can guide the next choice?
Soldo’s 2019 finals opportunity presents another distinct test. An injury interruption gave him sustained senior football; after he performed well, Richmond retained him when Nankervis returned. The premiership side included both rucks with Riewoldt and Lynch, and its forwards produced across the finals campaign. That establishes a possibility worth examining, not a guarantee that any current pairing will fit or that the rucks caused the scoring. Nor does sharing a role prove that a successor can own it alone. Briggs and Nankervis could represent present-day coverage, a developing partnership, or a selection strain whose price falls elsewhere. What would Richmond need to see—in ruck responsibility and forward contribution—before calling the balance right? In the full feature, we follow Soldo’s injury-created opportunity, his finals retention beside Nankervis, and the forward-line evidence around them.
Not a member yet? Join RTSSG for the complete investigation and more Richmond research.
Richmond news by Richmond people, for Richmond people.
Comments