Only because of injuries, but that can happen for any position on the ground.
Fans seem oblivious to the risk of a single point of failure, which is the one ruck scenario, at least with Mids you have multiple points of failure so it's much easier to cover the loss of one.
We literally won game(s?) last year without a recognised ruck.
You, among others, have pointed out how pointless some ruck stats are.
You, amonth others, have pointed out that the around the ground work is more important than what happens in the ruck.
So why are you, among others, so fixated on the need for a second ruck in the side?
For the record, Harry did not attend a single ruck contest.
I'm not blaming forwards and have spent a lot of time pointing out the good that is often missed by them.
However, when we have 3 of them who had 4 tackles between them, and were lower half of the pressure acts each.....you gotta start asking some questions.
I think we pick a side this week based on who is left.
Taking out injured players who not up to standard players eliminates a large chunk of players - 16 Silvagni Docherty Cerra McGovern Saad Fogarty Motlop Cuningham Martin M. Carroll Mirkov Akeiu Monaghan Marchbank (?) Lemmey O'keefe
That leaves a team looking like this.... FB - Newman - Weitering - Boyd HB - Williams - Kemp - Cincotta W - O.Hollands - Cripps - Acres HF - Cottrell - Curnow - Fantasia FF - Owies - McKay - C. Durdin R - De Koning - Walsh - Hewett INT - Kennedy - E. Hollands - J. Carroll
....and pick 1 more interchange and 1 sub from the remaining players.... Pittonet - Best player not picked, but don't need 2 rucks. S. Durdin - Probably need a key back, but is he good enough Young - See Durdin above. Cowan - Could swap instead of Cincotta who i've brought into the team, but i wouldn't. Could play last spot on the bench, but i wouldn't. Moir - He may be injured too?? Wilson - untried, but fit Binns - Untried, but fit.
Just on the two- ruck situation. It’s not as cut and dried as some believe. The replacement of a ruck/tall with a small mid-field running player has to be viewed in terms of plusses and minuses. The gain of the running player must be seem in terms of the cost of what you lose by omitting the tall/ruck. There may be an advantage…but the gap may not be as huge as we may think. Pittonet gave us a bit especially early on…but yes, it may have cost us later in the game.
This is always the debate, and it is clearly not as difficult as some are trying to make out. TDK rucks for 75% game time when sole ruck. He played 75% game time when he has a backup ruck. He doesnt play more or less, just the position he played. Harry didn't get a chance to ruck and as a result, went missing for large parts of the game. Despite kicking more goals than normal, he had less influence on the game than more recent efforts. This is a knock on for playing that second ruck. I've already shown that a ruck took up a spot on the bench for 3/4's of the game. That 75% game time is a full time mid....on light duties - eg Walsh had 76% first game back, Cripps, Hewett, 79%, 80%. Pitto was off the ground a full quarter more than anyone else (besides injured/subbed players) and TDK was actually next for least amount of game time.
It puts more on the shoulders of others as a result, and the benefit we get from it is not worth it. Pitto had 6 clearances, only beaten by Walsh (8 ) and Cripps (7). He even kicked a goal. Put Cerra back in the side and he'd get the same amount of clearances (if not more), more possessions and is more likely to kick a goal most weeks as well. So what benefit did we get from Pitto? A few extra hitouts to advantage....most likely leading to clearances.....which could've been equalled by having another pure midfielder in the team. So what were the disadvantages....more gametime required by others, less run and pressure around the ball.....which is our strength.
Its nothing against Pitto, same could be said for TDK. Either play Pitto for the whole game, or play TDK for the whole game. No point playing both. There were 97 ruck contests yesterday. Including the ball hitting the deck and getting a clearance, each one of them probably takes about 10 seconds on average to work itself out. That equates to just over 16 minutes of game time. What benefit are we getting from the 2 rucks for the remaining 104 minutes of game time? Especially since they one of them are on the bench for 76minutes of that time.
The numbers just don't stack up.
The biggest plus is 'wearing the ruck down'. Which i get and i agree with. However, our midfield is so good, we can go in there with Jack Silvagni, Harry McKay, Lewis Young, and still draw level (or better) with the clearances. So how much benefit is 'wearing the ruck down' really giving us?
Round of applause to Sam "Mr Professional" Walsh coming back from a big lay off.
34 touches, 13 tackles, 8 clearances, 611m gained. all game high (for both clubs) and there was daylight between 2nd.
About the only thing he did wrong was not find a target in the dying seconds.
Fantasia and Durdin, choose 1, drop 1. Experiment is over.
Pitto being picked over Cincotta was a terrible move. Pitto did very well, better than TDK, but still shouldn't have played. Cincotta would've been handy both in the middle and as coverage for when Saad went down. Yes, hindsight is 20-20, but i said it before the game too.
8 more scoring shots, losing by 2 points. We were due. We needed a reality check. Better against a nobody team than a team we will be fighting for a position with in the 8 (or 4).
Injuries seem to be mounting up now. Kemp, with possible concussion. Saad, with a hamstring Gov, with a hamstring.
You do NOT need 2 rucks. It seems a few others are starting to come on board. I thought Pitto was better ruck today, but he still only played bang on 50% game time. TDK was exactly 75% game time.
So for 75% of the match, we had 1 ruck on the bench. That is 1 mid for 75% game time we lost.
Cottrell won't be getting dropped anytime soon, especially not for Cincotta. Cunners can play twos until he is fit, no more "straight in" for the likes of him, Marchbank or Martin. Nuffs enuff.
I read, but am losing interest in footy because of: - the hyperbole in everything eg 'Footy great involved in accident' Footy great played suburban footy, how great Gather round is and and every game sold out (apart from the heaps that didn't turn up) and 'how good are the suburban footy grounds?' fine for suburban footy, but not AFL. Here's the great {insert fellow commentator} - commentary - 'what a superb kick' 30 metre pass to a player 20m in the clear and other inane rubbish - the detail that media go to in order to get a story - a lot of trivial things are reported as breaking news and then talked about for days it is really tedious. - the media making up the news - using one example to push their agenda (this player is lazy or shouldn't have done that etc.) - the games themselves that I have seen haven't been that interesting to watch (only watched a couple) - 'Event' footy - Opening Round, Round 1, Good Friday, Gather Round, soon to be Anzac Eve & Day - where the footy is actually second to 'being at the event.
I find that I am only really watching Carlton, even then, I'm happy to turn off the TV if something else is on and watch it later. The blues are, however, the most exciting team when they get on a roll.
Sorry - vent over.
AFL has reached saturation levels.
They keep trying to force more of it at us, but we can't absorb anymore of it and are getting turned off as a result.
Similar with Formula 1. More rounds, more TV shows/coverage, more 'burnout' from audiences.
I don't watch anymore footy shows. I don't watch pre-game stuff or post game. I watch siren-to-siren and thats about as much as i can stomach at present.
Cincotta stiff not to get a look in as a sub at least. Elijah lucky to be in the 22. Carroll a bit lucky to hold his spot with Walsh coming in. His performances are starting to decrease and needs lift his game to compete with the big boys he is rubbing shoulders with currently.
Fantasia/Durdin need to start lifting their game because we can't carry both all year and we are getting the output of 1 small forward between them.
Motlop, Martin, Cuningham and Fogarty all deserve a spot in the F50 before those too IMO, yet none are available at the moment.
Pitto, would do what he needs to if given a game, but we don't need him. 1 ruck only. If you wanna play him, give TDK a rest.
Cowan on the emergencies....i reckon that we could permanently write his name there because i don't think he is good enough to be in the team unless we have 20 players injured at once.
It's not a coincidence Fogarty came into the side 17 games ago.
16, but who's counting.
Fogarty is 14-2 since coming into the side R14 vs Gold Coast which started our run. Cuningham also came into the side at the same time and has missed the odd game, but is 13-1 over that same time period (dropped for the prelim final!)
These blokes add pressure. Without them, we, yep, lack the same kind of pressure.
If I hear that we were 'lucky' again, I'll tear off my own ears! If you want to talk 'lucky', how about Freo getting 66% of their goals from frees... some there, some not. The end.
We've been 'lucky' in our last 7 games decided by 10 points or less: 7-0.
If each of them were genuinly 50-50 results (a toss of the coin) then for 7 tosses of the coin to go your way you are looking at odds of 1 in 128 or 0.78% chance of happening.
