Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet (Read 39057 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #600 –
Quote from: kruddler on
So please explain why you have failed to identify which games we have 1 ruck, 2 rucks etc. Which games a player was subbed out.
The numbers shown Here and Here are pretty much self explanatory, they don't need a commentary the figures are clear.

You do realise there are caps on rotations, 1 player on the bench only counts as 1 and 1 rotation only. The assertion you can't take that players allocation / accumulation and spread it across a group of others is a Furphy. Anyway, more often that not we finish games with rotations left regardless of who is in the ruck combination, we aren't even using the full allocation we've already have!

Which makes the bench time argument for one ruck a strawman, you are somehow trying to assert we run out of rotations when we do not even always use the rotations we are allocated.

I suppose Voss was getting it wrong when he subbed Jack Silvagni, I'll write Voss a letter and see if he'll invite you in to explain! ;D
The Force Awakens!

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #601 –
Good in the contest but another Barnaby French - doesn;t defend well and doesn't impact the score board. Very limited.

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #602 –
Quote from: LP on
The numbers shown Here and Here are pretty much self explanatory, they don't need a commentary the figures are clear.

You do realise there are caps on rotations, 1 player on the bench only counts as 1 and 1 rotation only. The assertion you can't take that players allocation / accumulation and spread it across a group of others is a Furphy. Anyway, more often that not we finish games with rotations left regardless of who is in the ruck combination, we aren't even using the full allocation we've already have!

Which makes the bench time argument for one ruck a strawman, you are somehow trying to assert we run out of rotations when we do not even always use the rotations we are allocated.

I suppose Voss was getting it wrong when he subbed Jack Silvagni, I'll write Voss a letter and see if he'll invite you in to explain! ;D
If you were a star wars character, you'd be a storm trooper. Firing off left right and centre, but never actually hitting anything.

1. The numbers are data. You put data together and you can get information.
You provided the data, i turned that into information.....which is quite clear.....yet you ignore.....as usual.

2. Caps on rotations, allocations left....its got literally nothing to do with this debate. All you need to realise is that a player can stay on the bench for longer, and get more of a rest when there is an extra seat available. No extra rotations used, just utilising the ones we have better and giving players more of a rest. The concept of rotations is not amount increasing the number of times people come on or off, but the amount of time they are off and resting.

3. No, its got nothing to do with rotations.....again.

4. Tell me you have lost the debate without telling me you have lost the debate.

Its as clear as day to anyone who can read. 2 rucks = more time on the bench for those rucks = less time on the bench for everyone else.
and
2 rucks in the team = less other players in the team, ie smaller running types.
That is it. You can try and deflect as much as you want, but you cannot get away from that point.
 

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #603 –
Personal opinion....
Most posts here are good reading but boy I am getting tired of the discussion around the ruck situation. It's about now I was wishing there was the option to silence this thread.
Imagine if we win the flag, with a particular ruck and midfield setup that dominates, then one of you can sit back and admit that the club made the right decision and we can put this to bed.
Go Blues

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #604 –
Quote from: kruddler on
Caps on rotations, allocations left....its got literally nothing to do with this debate. All you need to realise is that a player can stay on the bench for longer, and get more of a rest when there is an extra seat available. No extra rotations used, just utilising the ones we have better and giving players more of a rest. The concept of rotations is not amount increasing the number of times people come on or off, but the amount of time they are off and resting..
10 or 20 minutes less bench time for one player doesn't mean 10 or 20 more 1 minute rotations for the rest because rotations are capped and time is limited. When applying your assertions to the real world game you would quickly exhaust rotations or end up with a game needing to go 150 minutes to achieve the bench time, which clearly exposes that the assertions are a fallacy because games do not go 150 minutes and the rotation caps are usually not exhausted.

Rotation limits and time are not made of rubber, they can't be stretched or shrunk to fit an argument, both are limited resources, this is not an infinite sum game.

The sort of thinking you are trying to illicit is the very reason so many clubs got the rotation cap wrong in the early days.

On the more important side of the ledger we can consider ground covered, and I doubt you will find much success linking kilometres travelled or metres per minutes without making some rather glaring exclusions. Because no matter how much time you think you can shift or stretch into the ledger players can only run so fast.

Most of the time when players like Pitto, SoJ, Young or TDK are on the bench it's because of a coaching preference for speed across the whole surface, not and issue of aerobic endurance.
The Force Awakens!

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #605 –
Quote from: LP on
10 or 20 minutes less bench time for one player doesn't mean 10 or 20 more 1 minute rotations for the rest because rotations are capped and time is limited. When applying your assertions to the real world game you would quickly exhaust rotations or end up with a game needing to go 150 minutes to achieve the bench time, which clearly exposes that the assertions are a fallacy because games do not go 150 minutes and the rotation caps are usually not exhausted.

Stop talking about extra rotations. There are no extra rotations. I have not implied, asserted, stated or any other simile of such.

A player comes off the ground. Instead of being off for 2 minutes, he stays off for 3. Tada. Player is now less fatigued.

My 8yo can understand this simple concept. Why can't you?

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #606 –
Last game against the Dees with Pitto camped on the bench as part of the ruck duo consuming no rotations, we only used 68 of the available 75, how can that be, the more time contiguous time the rucks spend on the bench the more rotations there are for everybody else, maybe Melbourne doesn't run much! :o

Even worse for the assertion that Jack as 2nd ruck brings a benefit, when we first played and lost to Melbourne, with TDK and Jack as rucks, we only used 65 of 75 rotations. How can that be if the major benefit of having Jack rest is to make more rotations available for Mids? The truth is having Jack as 2nd ruck doesn't, because there is no a real world connection between the ruck configuration and rotations. Surely you are not asserting it all goes to Cripps or Walsh in a single rotation, that is having Jack play 2nd ruck means the likes of Cripps and Walsh spend more time off the field, good luck having the coach sell that to the board at contract time!
The Force Awakens!

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #607 –
Quote from: kruddler on
A player comes off the ground. Instead of being off for 2 minutes, he stays off for 3. Tada. Player is now less fatigued.

My 8yo can understand this simple concept. Why can't you?
There are consequences of your assertions you wilfully ignore, I can't do anything about that because that is up to you to think through it, the reality is exposed by the rotations.
The Force Awakens!

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #608 –
Quote from: kruddler on
Stop talking about extra rotations. There are no extra rotations. I have not implied, asserted, stated or any other simile of such.
The longer any one player spends on the bench in a continuous block, the less rotations they consume and the more remain for others to utilise.

It's not that hard to understand. ;)
The Force Awakens!

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #609 –
Quote from: deepbluesee on
Personal opinion....
Most posts here are good reading but boy I am getting tired of the discussion around the ruck situation. It's about now I was wishing there was the option to silence this thread.
Imagine if we win the flag, with a particular ruck and midfield setup that dominates, then one of you can sit back and admit that the club made the right decision and we can put this to bed.
Go Blues

The ruck discussion is fine by me ... provided that it stays in this thread and doesn't rear its head elsewhere.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #610 –
Quote from: LP on
The longer any one player spends on the bench in a continuous block, the less rotations they consume and the more remain for others to utilise.

It's not that hard to understand. ;)

No its not. You know what else is not hard to understand, one ruck takes up a spot on the bench for longer than anyone else. So if you limit the amount of time those 2 players spend on the bench, you can extend the time the others spend on the bench. It does NOT require extra rotations.

If there is 3 injured players on the bench, you have 1 spot to rotate through. If you want to get to your rotation numbers, it will be super short bench time because they all rotate through that one spot.
If you have 2 spots, they get longer breaks on the bench for the same rotations. 3 spots...and 3.5 spots is the same thing.

Same amount of rotations, spread across more spots for rotation = more time on the bench.

Of course, the other point you've missed is you've got 1 extra mid (at the expense of the second ruck) so players need less rotations as a result anyway.....not that they need to rotate less, but they could if they wanted too.

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #611 –
Best 2 rucks in the game, and Dees still can't fit them in their best 22.

Wonder why?

You simply don't need 2 #1 rucks in the same side....no matter how good they are.

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #612 –
Quote from: kruddler on
Best 2 rucks in the game, and Dees still can't fit them in their best 22.

Wonder why?

You simply don't need 2 #1 rucks in the same side....no matter how good they are.
Yes, they were so happy when Jackson left!

Of course as usual you ignore the statements made by many in this forum and also our coach, that it's not two rucks that matter, it's two complimentary rucks that make all the difference.
The Force Awakens!

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #613 –
Quote from: LP on
Yes, they were so happy when Jackson left!

Of course as usual you ignore the statements made by many in this forum and also our coach, that it's not two rucks that matter, it's two complimentary rucks that make all the difference.

I don't ignore anything apart from the nonsense you keep spouting. Every 'reason' you've posted, i've disproven, yet rather than suck it up and admit you are wrong, you just point off into the distance and spout....but what about that....all the time getting further and further away from any kind of logic.

In a last ditch effort to make you see some kind of logic, i'll remind you that i've freely admitted that the rucks compliment eachother. I'll point out that our ruck area is stronger with 2 rucks in it. I'll remind you again, that this was never in question....just the fact that, you, lods and plenty of others have highlighted (and i've agreed) the influence of a ruckman is limited.....so having 2 does not benefit the team as much as having a backup ruck playing another position does.

So do yourself a favour and let it go. I'm sick of it, and plenty of others are sick of it too.

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #614 –
Sigh, irrespective of what we think look what Collingwood have done with their talls tonight.  They've screwed their team balance and ended up with a ruck as the sub. 
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson