Can Richmond Make Two Rucks Worth the Place They Take?
Richmond has publicly entertained pairing Kieren Briggs with Toby Nankervis, so the question is no longer whether the club wants another ruckman. Blair Hartley described a potential one-two combination and the opportunities created by five interchange players. But a second specialist still occupies one of 23 places, and the rest of the side must absorb that choice. The real test is not whether both can win hit-outs; it is what Richmond gains after the contest, and which alternative contribution it gives up. That makes the plan a selection proposition to examine, not a settled policy or a guaranteed improvement in practice. In the full feature, we trace Hartley's comments against the 23-player limit to distinguish an expressed pairing ambition from a confirmed match-day policy.
The cost may not be obvious on the team sheet. It could be a developing forward receiving fewer senior minutes, Mykelti Lefau losing opportunities to score and apply pressure, or a runner missing from the links between contests. There may be a return: Briggs could ease Nankervis's physical burden, strengthen stoppage work, or stop Richmond borrowing a key-position player for ruck duties. Those are possibilities, not established outcomes. The comparison has to follow the whole exchange: who is displaced, what role changes, and whether the partnership produces more useful football than the player or configuration left out in that match. In our Members investigation, we compare the second ruck's potential benefits with the specific forward, runner or midfield contribution Richmond might displace.
What did Richmond actually commit to?
The public comments establish genuine interest in using the pair together, while stopping short of a confirmed weekly selection policy. That distinction matters. Briggs is 26, has played 88 senior matches, ranked fifth in competition hit-outs in 2024, and averaged 12 disposals, 24 hit-outs and 3.4 tackles in 2026, according to the supplied investigation. Those details support his credentials as a contesting ruckman. They do not establish an equivalent record as a key forward. Nankervis, meanwhile, brings premiership experience, leadership and contested work. Assessing the pairing means separating what each has demonstrated from the secondary roles Richmond hopes to develop. In the full feature, we examine Briggs's career and 2026 figures alongside Nankervis's established work, separating proven roles from projected forward duties.
A five-player interchange gives coaches more room to manage specialists, but it does not create another place in the 23 or guarantee productive minutes away from the ruck. Richmond would need to decide how the pair share contests, what each does when the other rucks, and how their rotations affect midfield coverage and forward structure. The source illustrates the arithmetic with a hypothetical 70 per cent playing-time share for each; it explicitly does not present that as a proposed target. The useful evidence is therefore not a neat percentage, but whether the non-rucking minutes carry a real task without weakening another line. In our Members investigation, we test the five-interchange rationale through rotation arithmetic and the tasks each ruck must perform away from contests.
Can the five-player interchange make the minutes work?
The alternative is not simply choosing one ruck and leaving a vacancy. Richmond could pair one specialist with Lefau as a relief option, preserving another place for a runner or developing forward. Lefau's 2026 record—23 goals, 60 tackles, 25 marks inside 50 and 21 inside-50 tackles—shows why his forward contribution cannot be treated as interchangeable with a resting ruck. At the same time, his readiness and suitability for relief work must be assessed rather than assumed. Lynch's role adds another complication: an extra tall might draw a defender away, or crowd the space he needs. The attacking structure has to be tested, not imagined. In the full feature, we weigh Lefau's scoring and pressure record, his possible relief role, and the structural space Lynch needs inside 50.
The choice also reaches beyond the tall forwards. If two rucks, Lynch and another key forward occupy meaningful minutes, Richmond may have less room for ground-level pressure or an outside runner. Nathan O'Driscoll arrived as a wing option after playing a career-high 17 matches in 2026, making the connection between stoppage wins and movement away from them relevant. Meanwhile, Faull, Armstrong and Sims need development opportunities when ready, not automatic selection regardless of readiness. The source weighs these competing roles without claiming every cost occurs in every match. The question is which actual player and responsibility would be displaced in a particular side. In our Members investigation, we follow the selection trade-offs across developing key forwards, ground-level pressure and O'Driscoll's wing connection work.
What would the partnership have to prove?
Richmond can test the idea in match simulation and then judge it against different opponents, but no supplied evidence settles the 2027 selection outcome in advance. The source proposes watching the next possession after a ruck contest, the space created forward, defensive coverage after a failed entry, and what each specialist contributes away from the ball. It also treats the 2019 Nankervis–Soldo premiership pairing as precedent, not proof: personnel, rules and circumstances have changed. The consequential measure is whether the club can identify a repeatable benefit, name the opportunity cost, and adjust if the evidence points elsewhere. Recruitment creates options; selection remains accountable. In the full feature, we examine what match simulation, the 2019 precedent and changing evidence can—and cannot—establish about Richmond's choice.
Not a member yet? Join RTSSG for the complete investigation and more Richmond research.
Richmond news by Richmond people, for Richmond people.
Comments