Carlton Supporters Club

Having Cripps at a rucks feet makes a huge difference, as did Judd.

That by the way is exposed by the stats, against Gawn, Pittonet's CA of 15% out of 35% wins is 5.25%, or just a bit better than 1 good result out of every 20 attempts! So for 65 RCs that is a grand total of about 3-1/2 contested hit outs to an advantage for a whole game.

I've always argued the rucking deficits of the likes of Phillips and Casboult are not related to the tap, but it's all about what happens next. Casboult has recently improved the rest of ruck play dramatically, so he has gone up in my opinion.

But the bloke who exposes the folly of these stats more than any other is Warnock, completely dominant in the tap but utterly worthless overall. They could call Warnock "The Tap King", and he'd go the same way, extinction! :D

He is also very good below the knees, dishing off rocket handballs in traffic and is a very strong mark around the ground. He looks loke the type who woould love to ruck all day but needs to be managed.

So glad someone else noticed this about Pitts. His ability to get and give is brilliant, and always sharp and right to the target - good footy brain and reflexes.

+ love his ferocity and mongrel. Big bloke with attitude is such a plus for us nicies.

In my mind, he has become our most important player.

For those pumping up Kreuzers tyres....
https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_compare?playerStatus1=A&tid1=4&playerStatus2=A&tid2=4&type=A&pid1=4077&pid2=2301&fid1=O&fid2=O

At the same age, Pittonet is averaging 1.6 more clearances a game.
A little less around the ground, but people saying Kreuzer should be used as a ruck rover need to rethink those opinions.

The CA% is essentially (hitouts to advantage / number of centre bounces attended). So it takes into account every single hitout that the ruck contested. Included every single one that he lost. How do i know this? I created the stat!

CA% - Contests to Advantage % - What percentage of ruck contests that you competed in, resulted in a hitout to advantage

Having Cripps at a rucks feet makes a huge difference, as did Judd.

Pittonet is reasonable in the center bounce, Phillips was very good in the bounce, Hampson was extraordinarily good at the center bounce, Kreuzer has never been a very good at the bounce, but he and Hampson had Judd. But all that is an assessment based on the effects of the tap and the tap alone, but it's not about the tap as the tap is only about 10 or 15% of the ruck's duty.

That by the way is exposed by the stats, against Gawn, Pittonet's CA of 15% out of 35% wins is 5.25%, or just a bit better than 1 good result out of every 20 attempts! So for 65 RCs that is a grand total of about 3-1/2 contested hit outs to an advantage for a whole game.

I've always argued the rucking deficits of the likes of Phillips and Casboult are not related to the tap, but it's all about what happens next. Casboult has recently improved the rest of ruck play dramatically, so he has gone up in my opinion.

Pittonet is OK but isn't a fraction of what Kreuzer offers around the ground, in possession chains, the positioning.

Another interesting tell is that only Kreuzer is talked about as a potential chop-out option for Cripps, that idea only exists because of everything other than the tap.

But the bloke who exposes the folly of these stats more than any other is Warnock, completely dominant in the tap but utterly worthless overall. They could call Warnock "The Tap King", and he'd go the same way, extinction! :D

If Pittonet's numbers start to approach those of English we can heave a sigh of relief for we will have found/developed a replacement for Kreuzer.  The King might have something to say about that though.

Pittonet by your own stats only wins 35% of hitouts,

if more than a 1/3rd of them(15%) are to advantage he isn't just the best Carlton ruckmen he is the greatest ruckmen of all time at any club that ever existed!

Well what you do to make up stats is a matter for you, but if you are going to make up stats, you best clearly define to and stick with it, because by your own earlier post you've redefined the stat. I'll know next time to cross check whatever you post in case more of it is made up!

Pittonet.....he is the greatest ruckmen of all time at any club that ever existed!

https://www.afl.com.au/stats/stats-pro#/Compare?playerIds=CD_I293957,CD_I298290&comparisonTab=h2h

Before anyone starts foaming at the mouth, I'm not expecting MP to be like Grundy. just comparing him to the current gold standard.

Select "season avg" and "advanced stats" to get a better picture.

Yes, but unless we're kicking 30 goals per game, or unless we become a stoppage obsessed team, most of the time he's on the ground he's not actually practicing the part of his craft that allows him to tap. So the other aspects of his game must also be taken into consideration.

I wasn't expecting anywhere near what he has delivered, but I wouldn't be going the early crow just yet.

So, injury-prone Phillips had a better game against English than Pittonet did.  Perhaps we should have kept Flip  :-\

Of course, I think that casting Flip adrift was a no-brainer and Pittonet is a much better long term option.  However, Flip's performance tonight highlights how far Pittonet has to go before he can be considered a genuine AFL first ruck, despite alleged hitouts to advantage.

English was BOG, Philips had a slight advantage in the hit out count but was slaughtered around the ground.
Scribes all said it was the best game English has played....

Thats what I though, I watched the game for a very short amount of time but I recall hearing the commentators saying he was dominating Phillips. Phillips is a VFL standard ruckman at best, he was no great loss. Pitto hasnt put a foot wrong so far which is more than I can say for Phillips about his time with us.

So, injury-prone Phillips had a better game against English than Pittonet did.  Perhaps we should have kept Flip  :-\

Of course, I think that casting Flip adrift was a no-brainer and Pittonet is a much better long term option.  However, Flip's performance tonight highlights how far Pittonet has to go before he can be considered a genuine AFL first ruck, despite alleged hitouts to advantage.

Now personally i never said he was the best ruckman of all time, but LP just said it, so there we have it.

Marc Pittonet - The greatest ruckman of all time at any club than ever existed!

Pfffttt a debate based on the complex number.

You've spent several pages defending stats you made up, which I suspect might in the eyes of many consign your opinion to the dungeons of irrelevance given the seemingly plastic nature of the definitions.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, I sued the numbers you delivered presuming them to be true, and I found them to be false, which you seem to have confirmed from your own keyboard!

How does anyone debate your "numerical facts", if we take what you post as legitimate and find a flaw in your conclusions you debunk those criticism effectively using a spirited defence of "That can't be true because I made the stats up, nah, nah nah nah!"

I suspect if we debunk your conclusions from your made up stats using real statistics, you'll probably defend your claims with a call of "That's not what I meant by the definition!"

Further rather than defend your claims with some hard evidence, you resort to petty verbal, which I'm sure you'll defend using reflection.

The irony for me is that I credited Pittonet with 3.5 hits to advantage a game, which you basically lauded as some sort of fraud or derision of Pittonet, then you offer a new/revised imaginary definition under what effectively is a defence of "I made it up, so that is not what I meant". In the wash up even the revised definition probably rates Pittonet for grand total of about +1/2 of a hit out to advantage more. Stats presented by yourself as a percentage to make it look like a bigger difference, but when +/- 1 hitout changes the percentage by +/- 4% or 5% do you expect readers to take you seriously?

Dunno,  pundits still rated Ladhams' game highly.  I've never seen a stat that accounts for "hurt factor" but what Ladhams did today really hurt us.   He started,  and seemed to be involved in, a lot of scoring chains.

22 year old Ladhams smashed Pittonet today, and no matter how creatively you cherrypick and spin the stats you'll struggle to find real positive from Pittonet's game.

Even if you a blind, deaf or just wilfully ignorant and didn't see the game, check out the head to head for today's game here;

https://finalsiren.com/PlayerCompare.asp?SeasonID=2020&SelectedPlayers=2915,2612,&Compare=Go

I think we can safely ignore the one stat Pittonet won, 4 to 2, and take notice of just about every other stat he lost like 18 less possessions!

Basically indicates that stats can be meaningless....because we all agree that in regards to influencing the result, Ladhams beat Pittonet.  It happens.

Pittonet did ok in the ruck duals but didnt dominate like he should have, Billy Idol got him around the ground though....I'm not blaming Pittonet, we probably didnt do much work on Ladhams in the coaches box and thought our man would be supreme.
Cripps had 21 possessions and so did Ladhams.......thats just way too many for a ruckman and was only two clearances shy of what Cripps had. Thats a coaching issue and not instructing Pittonet to pay more attention to his opponent, we just let another no name player sneak under the radar...

CA% - Contests to Advantage % - What percentage of ruck contests that you competed in, resulted in a hitout to advantage

The CA% is essentially (hitouts to advantage / number of centre bounces attended). So it takes into account every single hitout that the ruck contested. Included every single one that he lost. How do i know this? I created the stat!

Ruck stats from todays game.
Pittonet
44 ruck contests
20 hitouts
4 hitouts to advantage
9% CA - Hitouts to advantage from ruck contest. (4/44)

Ladhams
48 ruck contests
16 hitouts
2 hitouts to advantage
4% CA - Hitouts to advantage from ruck contest (2/48)

The CA% is essentially (hitouts to advantage / number of centre bounces attended).

I reckon that was possibly Ladhams first game as a #1 ruck....ever. Not sure how much homework could've been done on him.

I'd love to see a rematch though and see what we've learned.

Hmm, in your own words.

Part A
Part B
So we take every single hit out to advantage, from everywhere and anywhere on the ground, and divide it by the number of centre bounces contested, and that's a world beating stat we have to take note of, whatever it means i suppose it favours some players. 
4/44 or 4/48 ? :o

In a game with only 4 Qtrs and 18 goals we had at least 48 centre bounces it seems!

There are stats, then there are stats and then there are damn lies! ;D

Think the commentators mentioned that Ladhams for a ruckman gets a fair amount of ball....I know you like your stats..pre this game, averages 14.6 possies a game, 3 one percenters and 3-4 clearances...that would tell me that he needs to be given a bit more respect than he was today in terms of manning him up after the bounce/ball up.
Like I said he was often battling with our mids for the ball with his opponent ruckman not in the action. 21 possies@76%DE for a no name player is going to hurt when Pitto only had three disposals.
Its just the little things like this that make the difference IMO

I agree with you EB.

I'm not the coach though. ;)

I think Pitto's struggling a bit. He's a strong presence at the bounce as many have mentioned. He gets to plenty of contests around the game but the ball either falls out of his hands or he doesn't crash the pack. He crashes the pack late in today's game and the ball goes out of bounds. I love his attitude and reckon he'll grow to clean up on some of his short comings.

So many people have been raving about Pittonets efforts today.

Interesting to note that he actually had his worst day in the ruck, in ruck work that is.

However, he had one of his better games around the ground, which is the area he's needed to improve on.

FWIW, todays ruck stats.

Pittonet
72 ruck contests.
27 hitouts
2 hitouts to advantage
3% CA - hitouts to advantage from ruck contests competed in.

Goldstein
77 ruck contests
41 hitouts
6 hitouts to advantage
8% CA.

But as i mentioned...
Pitt - Gold - stat
11 - 8 - disposals
6 - 3 - clearances
3 - 0 - inside 50's
0 - 3 - clangers

Goldy had his way with Moore and put the ball wherever he wanted it when they were opposed in the ruck.  I would be interested in comparing the stats when Goldy was opposed to Pitto.

Just shows how meaningless the stats are when discussing ruck.

Be interesting to see if Pittonet gets an AFLCA vote.

So i've dug up this thread because i am a bit dumbfounded by all the hate re Pittonet vs Grundy.

I watched the match without looking at stats and thought, at worst, Pittonet drew level with Grundy. I was shocked when i saw the hitouts stats of 51 - 21. So i went digging into those stats.

Firstly, some comparison numbers from the night....
Stat - Pittonet - Gundy
Disposals - 8 - 16 (Contested 7 - 10)
Kicks - 7 - 7
Metres gained - 190 - 160
Clangers - 3 - 5
Turnovers - 1 - 2
Deff - 50 - 56.3
So Grundy got it more, but most of them were nothing handballs and Pittonet actually gained more ground despite having half as many touches. Disposal efficiency is a little bit deceptive. Since Pittonet had a higher kick to hb ratio and had more meters gained, it stands to reason his disposals were harder. Only 9 of Grundys 16 disposals were considered effective. He had 9 handballs. So that is like saying for every handball he had that was ineffective, he had 1 kick that was effective.
Marks - 3 - 3
Intercept marks - 2 - 2
Contested Marks - 2 - 1
So marks wise, they had the same, but Pittonet had more contested.
Clearances - 4 - 4
I50's - 3 - 1
Tackles - 2 - 6
Goal assists - 0 - 1
Goals.behinds - 1.1 - 0.0
Pittonet shaded only by tackles here. He managed to hit the scoreboard and pump it inside 50 more by comparison
Ruck contests - 81 - 85
Hitouts - 21 - 51
HO to Adv. - 10 - 18
HO to adv rate - 45.7 - 35.3
Yes, he was smashed in actual hitouts, but in terms of hitouts to advantage, almost half the time he touched it, it went down our throat. Compared with just over one third for Grundy. What does it mean? He is more talented when he gets his hand on the ball. This is the are he lost, but its not anywhere near as bad as the basic stats show.

TBH, i'm not sure why hitouts are still a stat. We should focus on hitouts to advantage.
Players don't get credited with how many times they paddle the ball along the ground, only significant touches count like handballs and kicks. Why don't we focus on the significant touches of the rucks instead of the nothing touches.


So.....tell me exactly why Pittonet is only a second string ruck and Grundy is the greatest thing since sliced bread?
Considering how well the pies mids played by comparison to ours, i'd say Pittonets stats would be half as good as Grundy, not the same or better.

Give the block some credit!

Hitouts to No advantage to either team a stat?....Hitouts to an advantage that result in a goal from the following chain of play a stat....?
Its all relative to what happens afterwards IMHO...

Hitouts to No advantage to either team a stat?....Hitouts to an advantage that result in a goal from the following chain of play a stat....?
Its all relative to what happens afterwards IMHO...

No
and
No.

Yes it is all relative, but thats why hitouts to advantage is a better stat than hitouts.

The more hitouts that you have that are NOT to advantage are more likely to be to your disadvantage.

What happens afterwards is key.

As a comparison, Casboult was in 9 rucks contests and got his hand to ZERO of them.
Cripps was in 3 rucks contests and got his hand to zero of them
Cox was in 8 and got his hand to 4.

Pittonet is getting zero help from anyone else and coming up against a million dollar a year player and holding his own.

We got badly whipped in the midfield so Grundy must have had some influence or we have a very ordinary midfield.

Pittonet is currently the least of our worries.

I agree, but there are plenty of people complaining about his game and how Grundy flogged him etc etc.

One stat......one stat is all that is based on. Looking deeper into that stat shows how ineffective that stat actually is in terms of the game.

Yes, Grundy got A LOT more hitouts.....but most of them went to a 50-50 (at best). Regardless of where they went, we still won the clearances. So you can ignore that stat. You look at the other stats and Pittonet had his measure. Not bad for a retread up against the million dollar man.

Maybe vs Collingwood you have to have a dominant ruckman, given they have a respectable midfield so your mids have it easier.
Cripps 21, Williams 20, Martin 12 possies...you would be struggling to beat most teams with those stats, thats three million dollar men who couldnt get it done for us with a break even ruck. Pendlebury has been a brilliant player but is old now and has slowed up and Adams is very good but wouldnt be AA anytime soon, Sidebottom see Pendlebury and then you get down to Sier and the Brown kids, Daicos etc who probably had a nil all draw with our second tier mids.
Crisp did spend some time in he middle and got a lot of ball but again not a qualified mid who you would back in vs million dollar a year top shelf draft pick mids to get the job done in a big game.

It just points to a big fail from our million dollar mids....

All 3 of those mids you mentioned spent time up forward.

Overall, they bat deeper in the midfield too, which was probably our biggest problem.

Either way, it was not Pittonets doing like same have made out.

Under the 2021 rules the ruck is critical, so ruck has been a big part of the problem in both our games.

In the past I didn't give much credence to tap work, for me it was all about 2nd efforts, tackles, blocks and smoothers. Pittonet has done OK in the non-tap part of the gig in the past but not at the moment, and now the 2021 rules have made clean taps more critical than ever before for a double whammy!

The problem is the stats are only as good as the words that define them, I think some of the stats used in AFL are quite rubbery, they aren't black and white like say an injection count or a death.

Some are even ambiguous, like the Contested Marking stat, a Contested Mark is Contested Mark even if there is no physical contact, some of the ruck stats are equally ambiguous. So to me that means they can be taken many ways, in both analysis and assignment, which makes them useless in isolation.

Context is everything, it's no like Moneyball, that's a Hollywood Fantasy.

The old saying of Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics definitely applies here. It comes down to the eye test and Pitonett was poor at centre bounces, Grundy got a lot of clean ball, which he hit away from the immediate area rather than at his hip.

Why does this matter? Well it takes Cripps out of the game. Cripps like to work in a phone booth, on that 1-2 square meters of space where he can use his size and strength to either get hands on the ball or tackle his opponent. What Grundy did by hitting it to space, gave the quicker and better drilled Collingwood mids space to run on to the ball, making Cripps near redundant as he doesn't have speed or explosiveness off the mark.

On a side note, in out two games we have had two periods where we have been dominant in play around the ground. Against Richmond it was the third quarter where we kicked all the points, but Richmond could barely get their hands on the ball. The other was the third/fourth quarter against Collingwood where we came right back and got to 7 points. Both times Cripps was up forward for most of the times, not in the midfield. This allowed our mids to match the opposition in speed and nullified their rucks hitting the ball out to space.

Problem is though Paulie, we all know De Koning is going to command big money in this upcoming contract renewal.

The two years for DeKoning is perfect for both player and club.
We'll know his real worth by then. ;)
Silvagni should never ruck again, we have other jobs for him.

Has that been made official yet?

@ElwoodBlues1 But the Handbaggers also had as backups Ceglar, Neale, Hawkins and Ratugolea rucking at various times in various zones, all of them stitch up our SoJ who is our backup for Pitto and TDK.

I'll just leave this here for you to think about ......

2016 Draft
#47 Harrison Macreadie => #48 Darcy Cameron

^^

Not to mention that Benjamin Button Pendlebury shows no sign of slowing down.  To think him Daisy and Murphy all went same draft.

If SOS wasn't so fixated on recycling GWS players, we could have snagged Cameron for nix in the draft.

Yawn.

....and the other 16 AFL clubs? What reason did they have for not picking him?

That was also SOS’s fault.

So Cameron was picked up by GWS as an under ager in 2010, how is that anyones fault when it was a concession they received? Hard to compete agains that.

(i think) we are talking about the collingwood one, and I'm taking the piss by blaming everything on sos

(i think) we are talking about the collingwood one, and I'm taking the piss by blaming everything on sos

I’m trying to work out how trading in package deals of GWS players - most of which paid dividends - stopped us drafting someone that nobody wanted 🤔

Okay then ............

SOS drafted Macreadie at #47, the Pies drafted Cameron with the next pick at #48.

Macreadie played 8 games in four seasons whilst Cameron is nearing 60-games and is an integral apart of their push for the flag.

If Macreadie was considered decent, GWS would have matched the bid but they didn't.

This all comes back to my point in another thread that we need to improve our hit-rate at the draft, yes, its hindsight revisionism but it is one that sticks out like a sore thumb.

On the ruckman discussion. Jed Brereton played in a VFL practice match this year to good reports, but doesn't appear to have played VFL matches. Are we interested in him as an AFL prospect?
Ab

After last nite's debacle, I'm well & truly back on this subject (amongst others).

TDK is just a very dumb footballer, does all of the hard work on the goal-line to touch the ball before going through only to punch it straight back into play to a Crows player who kicks the simple goal. Why didn't he do the team orientated & disciplined thing and just get a touch on it and force it through for a point so we can reset from the kick-in ??

You can argue about having or not having ability but the big difference is between the ears and sadly, Tom is not going to get any better than what we are seeing now.  

Put the contract extension off till the end of the season and then take him to the trade table and extract maximum value whilst we can.

As Brother Elwood pointed out, you don't need to pick up serviceable ruckmen with first rounders so there is bound to another good replacement somewhere in the mix.

Tom's biggest problem is that he never rucks to his strengths, always to his weaknesses. He has a very good leap, but you rarely see it. Opposition rucks know they can out-bustle him, so that's the way they play. Tom needs to make the contests on his terms, rather than allowing the opposition to determine how the ruck duels will be fought. if he doesn't, then he'll never be the ruckman we need to take us to the premiership.

I'm not paying big money for TDK if he can't compete with the likes of O'Brien and needs Pittonet to hold his hand vs the push and shove merchants.
O'Brien is an ok ruckman but isn't one of the top shelf variety and that's concerning...

I'm not paying big money for TDK if he can't compete with the likes of O'Brien and needs Pittonet to hold his hand vs the push and shove merchants.
O'Brien is an ok ruckman but isn't one of the top shelf variety and that's concerning...

I'm not paying big money for TDK if he can't compete with the likes of O'Brien and needs Pittonet to hold his hand vs the push and shove merchants.
O'Brien is an ok ruckman but isn't one of the top shelf variety and that's concerning...

Marc is the bash and crash ruckman, but he isn't the strongest bull out there and he isn't in the same sort of form he was to start last year. He'll be better next season, as his knee recovery becomes a part of history. But that still leaves us with now. What do we do with Pittonet not there?
I'd be tempted to play Mirkov next week, even though he probably isn't ready. He has that extra height and might just be able to use it. We couldn't be any worse, that is for certain, as Jack is not the solution to our ruck issues.

TDK is still a ruck child, he needs another 2 or 3 years, he knows that and his manager knows that.

Last night pretty much everyone in our squad looked lightweight, is The Weapon on the job at Crowland, how on earth do blokes get so much heavier and yet remain so much faster?...............

Darren Burgess.

Pitto might not have helped last night, like Cripps he can be a liability if the ball can't be locked in.

They bullied TDK last, but TDK is a mighty oak compared to Mirkov!

Mirkov could be our Mason Cox, just has to get to contests, compete and make it hard for other ruckman to dominate.
I'd be giving him a go and see what he has to offer. Cox went to another level when he  was given more responsibility and maybe Mirkov can give us a different look.

Mirkov could be our Mason Cox, just has to get to contests, compete and make it hard for other ruckman to dominate.
I'd be giving him a go and see what he has to offer. Cox went to another level when he  was given more responsibility and maybe Mirkov can give us a different look.

Is it my imagination or does TDK seem to have gone backwards this year? I realise young ruck form can fluctuate, but TDK isn't quite what he was last year, or is it expectation that he would improve? Noticeably.

Mason Cox wouldn't get a game at Carlton, as a ruck I'd even have him behind SoJ, and there is stuff all chance he would displace BigH or Charlie!

TDK is still light relative to other rucks, but so was Peter Moore.

I read TDK put on 9kgs this pre-season compared to last pre-season, that is a lot from a low base, if you do this stuff too quickly you end up breaking them like we broke SpecialK.

The big blokes have to grow into their frame, do it too artificially and they end up buggered. Like it or not, that means peak performance around 27 years of age, usually we have kyboshed them by that stage!

But the main problem last night wasn't TDK but the ruck umpiring was horrendous. Earlier this season if TDK did what O'Brien did last night TDK would be penalised for blocking. Then last night TDK jumps as the AFL are supposed to want them to do, and O'Brien stands flat footed and straight arms TDK away from the fall of the ball without penalty. It's bullsh1t adjudication, the kid can't win. Then he tried to jump over O'Brien and the umpires pinged TDK for making high contact!

TDK is still light relative to other rucks, but so was Peter Moore.

I read TDK put on 9kgs this pre-season compared to last pre-season, that is a lot from a low base, if you do this stuff too quickly you end up breaking them like we broke SpecialK.

The big blokes have to grow into their frame, do it too artificially and they end up buggered. Like it or not, that means peak performance around 27 years of age, usually we have kyboshed them by that stage!

But the main problem last night wasn't TDK but the ruck umpiring was horrendous. Earlier this season if TDK did what O'Brien did last night TDK would be penalised for blocking. Then last night TDK jumps as the AFL are supposed to want them to do, and O'Brien stands flat footed and straight arms TDK away from the fall of the ball without penalty. It's bullsh1t adjudication, the kid can't win. Then he tried to jump over O'Brien and the umpires pinged TDK for making high contact!

When we drafted Tom he was 89kg.  He is now 102kg, 1kg more than he was last season.  Mirkov was 104kg when he was rookied and is the same now ... but I suspect there's more muscle.  For completeness, Pitto is 104kg, the same as he was at Hawthorn.

Free kicks in ruck contests are a bit like chooklotto  ::)   De Koning has been schooled well but the umpires clearly need to spend some time with Matty K.

Mirkov's ruckwork is often quite different.  He often seems to psyche his opponent out of the contest and at other times he doesn't contest but roves the other ruck's taps.  It will be interesting to see if he can do that against the better AFL rucks.

Also possible that all of the media talk around the big $$$ and 7 year deals for TDK are effecting him mentally too....not the first time a young bloke has his form taper off after big speculation about deals being tossed around.

To be honest, I really worry about our ruck unit.
[1] Pittonet is well down on how he started last year. He isn't getting the taps, and our midfield need him getting taps.
Granted that one of his issues is coming back from long term injury. He'll be better next year, but he is the old bull ruckman we have.
[2] Tom de Koning isn't a smart ruckman. His has some athleticism, a very nice leap and a fine set of hands, but he doesn't direct his taps to our mids' advantage. The best that could be said is that the opposition isn't getting it either.
Tom is much stronger now than when we recruited him, he is 13+ kgs heavier, for starters. But he isn't a bull. Jumping at the ball is his thing, and he isn't doing it. He tries to wrestle now all of the time.
Not sure what he can do to fix his problems, but he needs to get the contest on his terms. If he is going to play to is weaknesses instead of his strengths, he's in trouble.
[3] I'm becoming a lot less confident about Mirkov. The guys has some real advantages, and 210 cm is just the start. he can actually move and run pretty well, for example. However, he doesn't get much of the ball and we don't kick it to him. That was really noticeable in the 2nds; he doesn't make great position, but we don't kick it to him when he does.
He is learning to wrestle, but it isn't a natural part of his game. His ruck taps are a thousand times better when he jumps at the ball.
Like Tom de Koning, he doesn't ruck to his strengths, but to his weaknesses.
When he gets taps, they can be really significant. In fact, he can really pound it sometimes. However, our mids don't seem to be aware of a lot of the time. The Richmond mids were reading his ruckwork almost as well as ours were. There is clearly a communications problem there somewhere, which we need to fix if Mirkov is ever going to be any good.

[4] Because our rucks are not getting good taps, our mids are struggling. We get no advantage from our taps. On the other hand, the opposition rucks deliver the ball to their mids' advantage and our mids don't have the speed to run them down. Even with 3 Hussain Bolts, we couldn't run them down because we're out of position. That we need to fix and soon.

To be honest, I really worry about our ruck unit.
[1] Pittonet is well down on how he started last year. He isn't getting the taps, and our midfield need him getting taps.
Granted that one of his issues is coming back from long term injury. He'll be better next year, but he is the old bull ruckman we have.
[2] Tom de Koning isn't a smart ruckman. His has some athleticism, a very nice leap and a fine set of hands, but he doesn't direct his taps to our mids' advantage. The best that could be said is that the opposition isn't getting it either.
Tom is much stronger now than when we recruited him, he is 13+ kgs heavier, for starters. But he isn't a bull. Jumping at the ball is his thing, and he isn't doing it. He tries to wrestle now all of the time.
Not sure what he can do to fix his problems, but he needs to get the contest on his terms. If he is going to play to is weaknesses instead of his strengths, he's in trouble.
[3] I'm becoming a lot less confident about Mirkov. The guys has some real advantages, and 210 cm is just the start. he can actually move and run pretty well, for example. However, he doesn't get much of the ball and we don't kick it to him. That was really noticeable in the 2nds; he doesn't make great position, but we don't kick it to him when he does.
He is learning to wrestle, but it isn't a natural part of his game. His ruck taps are a thousand times better when he jumps at the ball.
Like Tom de Koning, he doesn't ruck to his strengths, but to his weaknesses.
When he gets taps, they can be really significant. In fact, he can really pound it sometimes. However, our mids don't seem to be aware of a lot of the time. The Richmond mids were reading his ruckwork almost as well as ours were. There is clearly a communications problem there somewhere, which we need to fix if Mirkov is ever going to be any good.

[4] Because our rucks are not getting good taps, our mids are struggling. We get no advantage from our taps. On the other hand, the opposition rucks deliver the ball to their mids' advantage and our mids don't have the speed to run them down. Even with 3 Hussain Bolts, we couldn't run them down because we're out of position. That we need to fix and soon.

I didn't think Mirkov was too bad the other night.

He was pretty good, but he doesn't read the ball in the air that well at night. I liked that he got off the ground and really all over the top of his opponents, he didn't just wrestle. I just wish I could see more of it, as he really does have a great reach.

I didn't think Mirkov was too bad the other night.

Mirkov had a lazy 51 hitouts in the VFL on the weekend.

How many were to advantage? That's the only stat that matters.
He can have a 100, but if they are all to the opposition, or at best a 50-50 contest, it's all for nothing.

https://www.carltonfc.com.au/matches/5127#player-stats

Hitouts to advantage aren’t the be all and end all.  Neutralising the opposition ruckman, bringing the ball to ground and gaining territory before the next stoppage are also important ruck markers.  And then there’s clean possessions in the ruck; Mirkov managed that many times with a kick downfield or a handball to a teammate.

As for hitouts to advantage, there’s a simple reason why Dow racks up possessions in the magoos.

Id give Mirkov a go, nothing ventured...nothing gained. Its not like TDK, Pitto and JSOS have been hitting it out of the park ruck wise so trying something very different in small doses to start with might give us an edge vs some teams.

You want your rucks to be involved in the game. I have always found Brodie Grundy very passive. He is not a player who has got involved in games. When he is around the ball he is good but the rest of the time he is a bit of a statue. Silvagni, whom is more of a follower than a ruck gets into the packs, tackles and shepherds, but it would be good if his kicking improved. TDK and Pittonett do involve themselves but I think Pitto is still struggling with his knee a bit. I think TDK should be using his pace more and should make himself more of a marking option around the ground. A lot of the problem with the rucks gets back to our midfield lacking pace and not being clean with their hands so when we don't get the ball we can't get it back and when we do get the ball we are not being effective with it.

Grundy had one, maybe 2 seasons where he was really involved. In those seasons he was probably the best ruckman going around. He hasn't really been able to reproduce that form. Not sure he has ever wanted it enough, to be honest.
Gawn is the one who is always involved in the game. It is one of his real strengths.

Tom de Koning has the tools to be really good, but I wonder sometimes if he has the smarts. Against Sydney last year, he played the sort of game we want him to play. He did his best in the ruck, but it was around the grounds that he really made a difference. He got into good spots and held his marks. He has never quite been able to reproduce that. If he can, at least some of our problems will go away.
Pitto has not been able to outbody his opponents like he did last year. The reason is obvious; his knee. He will get better at it, but that is probably going to be next year, assuming no further issues with it. He has always been a competitor and has been a contributor around the packs. But it would be nice if he could find some real form.

So TDK and Pittos ruck stats are at the low end of league totals for HO, HO Win % (HOW%) and HO To Adv% (HOA%)

Pitto 73 HO 50.3% HOW% 37% HTA%
SOS 8 HO 17% HOW%  37.5% HTA%
TDK 91 HO 38% HOW%  26.4% HTA%

To give you an idea, leading the pack with HO and HOW% is
Sean Darcy 204 HO 62% HOW%  27.5% HTA%
Leading the pack of recognised ruckman for HTA% is
Todd Goldstien 122 HO 42.2% HOW%  39.3% HTA%

We should be targeting a decent ruck NOW.

Statistically at least, our rucks right now are way off the mark.

Make him full time ruck then, when he gets tired Motlop can pinch hit.

@djc
Someone, maybe Northern blue? Has pointed out that the hitout to advantage stat is about if it reaches the target. Not if the player gets it.
That is, if the player fumbles, is bumped off the ball or $h!t5 a brick in the process.
By the same token, if a ruck hits it to a 50-50, and cripps dominates Nd gets the ball and clearance, it's still not a hitout to advantage.

It's a pure stat.

The ball has to reach the intended target.  That relies on the ruckman directing the ball accurately and the intended target moving to where the ball is hit.  If the intended target slips, is blocked, is too slow, misjudges the ball’s trajectory, or is beaten to the ball, the ruckman’s efforts are in vain and it’s not a hitout to advantage. 

Alternatively, a ruckman can hit the ball randomly and his midfielder picks the flight and gets to the ball.  That’s a hitout to advantage due solely to the midfielder’s skill/effort/luck.

The ball has to reach the intended target.  That relies on the ruckman directing the ball accurately and the intended target moving to where the ball is hit.  If the intended target slips, is blocked, is too slow, misjudges the ball’s trajectory, or is beaten to the ball, the ruckman’s efforts are in vain and it’s not a hitout to advantage. 

Alternatively, a ruckman can hit the ball randomly and his midfielder picks the flight and gets to the ball.  That’s a hitout to advantage due solely to the midfielder’s skill/effort/luck.

The problem for the stats people is that all the games can be replayed, you can do so at 1/2 speed if you like, and the discrepancies between what you see and what they record is astounding, it really exposes the subjectivity of the data process.

Plus you have the official source which uses AFL definitions, and competing sources that use definitions more closely based in language.

For example, the biggest most obvious contradiction you can find is "contested", the official stat requires no physical contact at all, in fact you only have to be within a step or so away yet not within arms reach to be contesting! So a defender who is done cold by the leading forward is contesting, and the forwards mark 100% free of physical contact is contested.

Is there a ruck stat for conceding hit outs to advantage or clearances?

That is your interpretation of it and not the official statistical definition of it.

It's like people talking about the theory of relativity. It's 'only a theory'.
Different contexts, different interpretations.


....but for the sake of argument, let's go with what you think.
Would pitto, tdk and soj not be hitting to the same.midfielders anyway. So that variation on how good the midfielders are is balanced out amongst our own players.

If you actually notice that hitouts to advantage are not available in real time. Generally only available after the game.
This is due to the scrutiny that certain stats require.

Your example is exactly as I was saying, a statically definition vs a layman's understanding.

Just to recap, we have one of the best clearance players in the comp who was labelled the extractor.  You could ruck a crap ruckman to him, provided the ball hits him, and Cripps gets the clearance, then that's a tap to advantage correct?  Add Walsh, and im not sure it says much about any of our rucks capabilities over the last little while. 

I know what I see on game day, and against North, it was Goldstein monstoring us.  Against Adelaide it was O'Reilly. 

For all this debate going round in circles, our rucks dont dominate, they put in a respectable performance.

That goes for TDK, Pitto, or JSOS, but Pitto at this stage is the one that probably plays best on my subjective viewing of football. 

THERE< screw what the stats show.

THERE< screw what the stats show.

Yet the commentators cite hitout to advantage stats during the commentary  :-\

I suspect that the stats just aren't available to the punters.

If you ignore the tap stats and watch everything else they do, you'll come to the very same conclusion. ;)

That is a tell about the value of tap stats! ;D

Just watched the Voss presser. Said Tom De Koning was ill earlier in the week and couldn't train.

I agree with all of that.

I didn't want Jack in the ruck. He's too small and too slow to bring any x factor in there.

Been a few days and not a single person has gone into bat for TDK.

Perhaps people are starting to see what i see in terms of ruck balance, output, importance?

If rumours of TDK being out on the sauce are anything to go by, i fear the lad may never 'see the light' until its too late.

I was someone who went in to bat for TDK, and still would... but... what he has served up in 2023, to be as polite as I can be, has been very disappointing.

He's probably worth more to us persisting for two seasons than trying to trade him.
A lot will depend on counter offers....and he'll end up where he wants to end up.

The thing is...while big guys do take time, he is five years into the system, he'll be 24 by seasons end, how much longer before he starts to realise some of  his potential.

I was someone who went in to bat for TDK, and still would... but... what he has served up in 2023, to be as polite as I can be, has been very disappointing.

He may turn out to be no good, my point is that it is too early to tell.

..................

You could run TDK as a Blicsav's type ruck, and give him the task to tackle ahead of winning tap work, ideally you want both, but rarely is that actually possible.

I can see the similarity and I can see the potential for De Koning to develop into a Blicavs type ruck man, but we need patience. You don’t need to look back too far to see that Blicavs was labelled a spud by all and sundry. And now regarded as one of their most important players.

Id be a bit inventive and give TDK a start at CHB and give Young a run in the ruck depending on the opposition.....both have been down of late and Id be trying to challenge them in a new role but just on a short term basis then return them to their normal roles if their form improves. One thing I like about McRae's coaching is he doesnt let things ride during games and moves his players around and likes to challenge his players in different roles to get a lift all be it forced in some cases by injuries but a lot of the time to change momentum and initiate those fightbacks we see.

I would like to see us do a lot more of this. It was one of the things both Parkin and Barassi did with effect. If someone was having a bad day, move them into another role and see what happened. Some of those moves have entered folklore! I want to see more of that in a our present team.

Yes and no.
The game in “the old days” was more about individuals, today it’s more about team.
If you don’t position where your teammates expect you to be you will be exposing them to being opened up and exposed.
Flooding, pressing etc, I don’t think it’s as easy to swing the magnets as it was, not that it cannot be done but there may be more robbing of Peter to pay Paul.

Really disappointed in TDK but he is still a young ruck and many are perhaps getting impatient, rightly so.

Not sure whether his current output can be put down to form or ability.

If its form you keep if its ability you trade. I don't see what coaches see on training track.

When you break the clubs drinking policy when you are rehabbing or resting, you play in the 2s.

Is that what happened?  :o  :o

He was rested, the club said he had been ill and sore. He was seen (and photographed) drinking in Geel with this his brother and Geelong players. The club was allegedly made aware of this, it is likely to be a breach of rehab rules/standards for players. He isn't playing ones so its pretty easy to join the dots, to me at least. As I said, if true, I know the bloke is young but he's an idiot.

He was rested, the club said he had been ill and sore. He was seen (and photographed) drinking in Geel with this his brother and Geelong players. The club was allegedly made aware of this, it is likely to be a breach of rehab rules/standards for players. He isn't playing ones so its pretty easy to join the dots, to me at least. As I said, if true, I know the bloke is young but he's an idiot.

So whats Geelongs first pick in this years draft?

Doesn't matter. We'll take this years and next years. That'd do it.

For who, ............... the bloke you claim is over-rated?

So what is it, is he worth two 1st Round picks or not?

I suspect most fans want TDK out because the long term alternative is too shocking to think about for them, after all most fans are in fact that, fans.

It stands out on here as the thing never mentioned!

Watching him run around in the twos today, I'd say he isn't worth the steam of my crap.

Watching him run around in the twos today, I'd say he isn't worth the steam of my crap.

For who, ............... the bloke you claim is over-rated?

So what is it, is he worth two 1st Round picks or not?

I suspect most fans want TDK out because the long term alternative is too shocking to think about for them, after all most fans are in fact that, fans.

It stands out on here as the thing never mentioned!

The story here, if true, is that a number of Geelong players including SDK were out drinking. :o

The big question is.  Why is Tom the only one in strife?

The big question is.  Why is Tom the only one in strife?

two firsts with a future second going the other way isn't completely out of the realms of possibility.
As clubs will pay big on potential and list need.

Question answered ;D
Efficient Pittonet ;)

https://www.zerohanger.com/carlton-tall-ranks-no-1-as-afls-most-efficient-among-top-ruckmen-136328/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Zero%20Hanger&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3munbRMQBWSsNjHp4nYTH8jtqABEq7AZ4RUF3u7rGRpqK451SwLS193VE#Echobox=1682998648

Question answered ;D
Efficient Pittonet ;)

https://www.zerohanger.com/carlton-tall-ranks-no-1-as-afls-most-efficient-among-top-ruckmen-136328/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Zero%20Hanger&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3munbRMQBWSsNjHp4nYTH8jtqABEq7AZ4RUF3u7rGRpqK451SwLS193VE#Echobox=1682998648

I've been saying it for years and basically invented that stat. Nobody had ever seen it before, and people couldn't understand its significance.

This guy comes in and does literally the exact same thing and people start to take notice? LMAO.

Up until recently, people were wanting TDK as our #1 ruck.
Now people are starting to see the value of Pittonet. Overall he is very much above average and usually falls into the elite category for rucks (top 10% IIRC). His last 2 weeks with 18 and 11 hitouts to advantage are through the roof.

I'd be curious to see how an outfit like Champion Data rates Pittonet. If you head over to Footywire and compare him to other rucks (I compared him to Sean Darcy, Tim English, and Blicavs using career averages) his limitations are fairly obvious IMO.

I have no inherent issue with Pittonet, but I remain unconvinced that any tyre pumping is really justified. A one trick pony, and limited beyond that IMO.

Without revisiting the flaws of the hitouts to advantage statistic, it’s worth noting that Pitto loses more ruck contests than he wins.

While those hitouts may not all result in opposition clearances, there’s a good chance that, with a decent midfield, many of them will.

With cripps, bam bam, cerra, hewett and walsh at your feet anyone would have good tap stats.

The ability of our rucks to nullify an opposing ruck is somewhat statistically biased.  You can only compare them to each other as a consequence, so if the stats are a bit all over the shop odds are it's because we have the best clearance player in the comp.

Agree.

Ruckman are not just there for hitouts to advantage they need to provide something valuable once the tap work has finished. Pit is ok as a block or big body in the contest but that’s where it ends. He takes little to no marks around the ground is a clumsy forward that gets in the way of our big marking forwards and then even if the ball luckily lands in his hands he can’t kick for goal with any accuracy. Also as the dump long kick out target again he is below par.

Agree he’s tap work is good but that’s when it ends sadly. His bloody clumsy in contests and I’m not sure how he ranks against others but seems to give away too many frees with dumb holds or pushes.

Needs to improve dramatically around the ground for me to rate him against the better ruckman in the comp.

With cripps, bam bam, cerra, hewett and walsh at your feet anyone would have good tap stats.

The ability of our rucks to nullify an opposing ruck is somewhat statistically biased.  You can only compare them to each other as a consequence, so if the stats are a bit all over the shop odds are it's because we have the best clearance player in the comp.

Without revisiting the flaws of the hitouts to advantage statistic, it’s worth noting that Pitto loses more ruck contests than he wins.

While those hitouts may not all result in opposition clearances, there’s a good chance that, with a decent midfield, many of them will.

Let's debate a simple question, what is a tap to advantage?

 - Does the tap have to hit a team-mate on the full?
 - Is a tap into the path of a team-mate enough?
 - Is a tap into clear space to be collect by someone other than a Mid a tap to advantage?

The HtA stats are equally bogus.

You can assess the ruck taps very very easily, like counting cards, and ignoring what happen next;
Tap Win = +1
Tap Loss = -1
Nil = 0 (The most frequent event)

Do this and you find ruck tap work is highly over-rated.

"A hit-out that reaches an intended teammate."

Doesn't have to be on the full.

Its the same as kicking. Kick it to your teammates advantage. Kick it to him directly, or into his path. A spot that is to you and your teams benefit, not to the opposition or a 50-50 contest.

How many times in a game does a ruckman tap the ball to one of his players and that player is immediately tackled.
Sometimes it results in putting your player under pressure and ends in a free kick the other way.
So the only real worth of a 'hit-out to advantage' stat would be if that stat also included some territory gained, or a clearance from that hitout.

It's the same with a hospital handpass...It's an 'effective disposal' but actually disdavantages the side.

The best judgement is to watch the game to see effectiveness....not the stat sheet.
Stats have a place but only as part of a much bigger picture.

So in summary, the statisticians have no idea who the ruck was tapping it to, but a team-mate got it.

The odd shaped oval ball can bounce sideways, or zig zag like a slinky on cocaine, and it's advantage.

The sweeper can do as the name says and clean the pill from a stumbling team-mate, and it's a win.

All to the great credit of the rucks, I never realised the statisticians were mind readers!

I'm sorry Kruddler, I realise you've invested a lot of time and effort in and based on the Hitout to Advantage stuff, but it's largely a stat invented by someone who has no fecking idea of ruck play or stoppages. We can rename it "The Mystery Stat" or perhaps "The Houdini", because nobody has any idea what happened!

Pit gives effort but tonight proved again he has no idea at all.  Gives away dumb frees is so clumsy and once the tap is over we are playing a man down as the bloke has no clue He wouldn’t get a game in any of the top 8 teams.

Pit gives effort but tonight proved again he has no idea at all.  Gives away dumb frees is so clumsy and once the tap is over we are playing a man down as the bloke has no clue He wouldn’t get a game in any of the top 8 teams.

I think it proves the umps had no idea.

I think they felt bad for Pittonet whipping Big O so badly. Another 15 hitouts to advantage from his 48 hitouts.
TBH, i was surprised it was that many tonight.

Yep I watched the ruck very closely last night on TV and Pittonet didnt have any impact, his opponent did. The ruck stats are meaningless.

AFL Fantasy points
Pitto 87
OMac 85
Pitto was probably one of the few who could hold his head up high.

Supercoach which is a far better measure.

Omac 110
Pitt 78

Supercoach which is a far better measure.

Omac 110
Pitt 78

He was smashed

He tries hard pitto no doubt but head is empty and as I said after the tap work is over we play a man down as he does sfa around the ground.

Any big man has to be useful around the ground which as the ruck craft is slowly dying it’s more important then even to be able to be a danger resting forward be able to be a kick out target or fill a defensive hole when needed. Pitto is not able to do any of that hence why all the hype on a player like TDK as he has that potential but as yet hasn’t fully come on. Still a lot more upside with tdk imo.

Watch Pitto around the ground. No, he doesn't go forward, that is by design. We are super tall already with Charlie, Harry, Jack (TDK when he is playing) we don't need Pitto bringing the oppositions tallest player down there as well.

Instead, he plays more in the defensive half. He took a couple big grabs last night - 2 contested marks. =2nd most on the ground, =1st for Carlton.
His positioning forces oppositions to kick away from him though, which is important, but overlooked.

I've already conceded he didn't play his best game as was surprised of his domination in the ruck, but people consistently overlook his efforts.

Like I said he wouldn’t be first ruck in any of the better teams

If I had missed watching the game and then saw only the last quarter replay I would have said Pittonet did a reasonable job, due no doubt to the fact that the match had already been lost, Brisbane relaxed and just put in the effort required to win.

However, I watched the whole game and for three quarters Pittonet did not get a look in.  He was taken apart at centre bounces as McInerney gave his mids an armchair ride.

He is an honest battler but not of the standard required if we are serious about being a top eight side.

Yep, English is the best Ruck in the comp. 
He will give Libba and Bont first use all night.

Yep, English is the best Ruck in the comp. 
He will give Libba and Bont first use all night.

Pittonet vs English - Stats for year of 2023
53.7 vs 74.9 - Ruck contests (avg)
26.1 vs 29.1 - hitouts (avg)
10.1 vs 9.5 - hitouts to advantage (avg)
48.7 vs 38.9 - hitout win (%)
38.8 vs 32.6 - hitout to advantage (%)
18.9 vs 12.7 - ruck contest to advantage (%)

....and clearances for the complete Stoppage view.
Pittonet vs English - Stats for year of 2023
1.0 vs 0.6 - Centre clearances (avg)
1.7 vs 1.9 - Stoppage clearance (avg)
2.7 vs 2.5 - Total clearance (avg)
5.1 vs 3.3 - Ruck contest to Individual clearance (%)

The blue is the true numbers for like to like comparisons that adjusts for total ruck contests.

Short version of the above is this.
English has been in 223 more ruck contests than Pittonet has this year and has just 5 more hitouts to advantage to show for it. and just 1 more clearance

Pittonet will get a hitout to advantage from (just under) 1 in 5 stoppages.
English will get a hitout to advantage from (just over) 1 in 8 stoppages
Pittonet will get his own clearance from 1 in 20 stoppages.
English from 1 in 30.

FWIW
Above average
Average
Below Average

So....Thats not what the numbers say.

Around the ground is a different story and not as easy to compare numbers wise (due to minutes played etc)

Dribble. English is an AA ruckman this years. Our guy is a plodder. End of story.

Supercoach average score

1. Tim English 130.12

20. Marc Pittonet 73.57
21. Tom De Koning 73.40

Pretty tough to rebut your detailed analysis…
🙄

Supercoach average score

1. Tim English 130.12

20. Marc Pittonet 73.57
21. Tom De Koning 73.40

Dribble. English is an AA ruckman this years. Our guy is a plodder. End of story.

Yep, English is the best Ruck in the comp. 
He will give Libba and Bont first use all night.

How many marks did he take?

According to the AFL website, Pittonet took zero marks. Whilst I have no skin in this game, we may as well get the numbers right.

Pittonet vs English - STAT
83 - 85 - Ruck contests
48 - 30 - Hitouts
18 - 6 - Hitouts to advantage
22% - 7% - Ruck contest - hitout to advantage %

Pittonet was 3 times more likely to get the ball to a teammate from the ruck contest than 'AA' English that 'will give Libba and Bont first use all night'.

Pittonet also got 5 clearances to English 1.
He is dominating the ruck each week, and people still do not see it. He did all the above, and still only played 78% game time to English 86%

EDIT: I think MBB had tackles written there initially....which is what i researched.

Pittonet was one of our better players and one of the few who won his position imho.
Cox is slaughtering the Giants rucks and marking everything, we may need the extra ruck this week...

2 years ago, when there was some chance he was getting booted by the Pies, I thought we should look at him as a Ruckman. Many didn't like my idea. Pies played him basically forward. Who'd have thought a 7ft player was more suited in the ruck. He can ruck pretty well but take a mark around the ground and obviously can kick a goal resting forward,

Agree totally. Over the night, Pittonet gave English a lesson on how to be a decent ruckman. English had no answers. Alas, English got a couple of taps in the last few minutes that were crucial. But on the night, Pitto gave him a bath!
English usually take a lot of marks around the ground, last night he took only 2 and they were not pack marks.
English got a few more possessions that Pitto did, but he provided no clearances were worrying about. Pitto did his best: his clearances weren't that great; he was under pressure, but he got them. Pitto was one of our most effective players.

Yet we still lost. Imagine if we had a young athletic ruckman to relieve Pitt instead of giving them a break.

Someone like Lobb?

Silvagni vs Lobb - STAT
21 vs 19 - Ruck contests
5 vs 7 - hitouts
1 vs 1 - hitouts to advantage
4.8% vs 5.3% - Ruck contests -> hitouts to advantage %.
2 vs 1 - Clearances
12 vs 8 - Disposals
3 vs 1 - Tackles
5 vs 4 - Marks
0.2 vs 2.0 - Goals.Behinds

As usual. Jack held his own as 2nd ruck and nullified the much more athletic, fancied ruck.
Only difference was accuracy in front of goal.

What would TDK have brought that Jack didn't?

Except we lost Jack up forward. You and it seems our coaches are too focused on matching the opposition.  If you want to win a flag you need to make them match you up.

At the moment I'd consider dropping Harry and playing TDK in his absence. 

2022/2023

TDK alone: 8 wins 6 losses and a draw
Pittonet alone: 2 wins 5 losses
TDK and Pitt: 6 wins and 3* losses

*One of those losses Pittonet was injured in the first quarter.

At the moment I'd consider dropping Harry and playing TDK in his absence.

Sounds ally good until it actually happens and goes crap because TDK would struggle more forward. I'm more inclined to give Harry time in the ruck. He'd help around the ground. Nothing like a nice gallop around the ground free of the restraints of a defender to get a bit confidence.

Interesting to say but we miss Levi. May have been a jack of all trades, master of none, but having a 2nd ruck, who can ruck competently, mark around the ground and hit the scoreboard will be handy. Harry is probably the one who could play a similar role, part of it an upgrade (Levi might have been a better actual ruck, hence "part").

Levi's played some good footy the last 2 years, possibly his best footy, and free from the jinx of having a navy blue jumper on him (haha), kicking way better at goal.

Sounds ally good until it actually happens and goes crap because TDK would struggle more forward. I'm more inclined to give Harry time in the ruck. He'd help around the ground. Nothing like a nice gallop around the ground free of the restraints of a defender to get a bit confidence.

Interesting to say but we miss Levi. May have been a jack of all trades, master of none, but having a 2nd ruck, who can ruck competently, mark around the ground and hit the scoreboard will be handy. Harry is probably the one who could play a similar role, part of it an upgrade (Levi might have been a better actual ruck, hence "part").

Levi's played some good footy the last 2 years, possibly his best footy, and free from the jinx of having a navy blue jumper on him (haha), kicking way better at goal.

Sounds ally good until it actually happens and goes crap because TDK would struggle more forward. I'm more inclined to give Harry time in the ruck. He'd help around the ground. Nothing like a nice gallop around the ground free of the restraints of a defender to get a bit confidence.

Interesting to say but we miss Levi. May have been a jack of all trades, master of none, but having a 2nd ruck, who can ruck competently, mark around the ground and hit the scoreboard will be handy. Harry is probably the one who could play a similar role, part of it an upgrade (Levi might have been a better actual ruck, hence "part").

Levi's played some good footy the last 2 years, possibly his best footy, and free from the jinx of having a navy blue jumper on him (haha), kicking way better at goal.
[/quoted]
Said this before, Harry getting some warm up time in the ruck isn't a bad idea.
Sending him back to the twos won't do much imho, he will kick goals on kids from the burbs and find it too easy and will learn nothing.

Sounds ally good until it actually happens and goes crap because TDK would struggle more forward. I'm more inclined to give Harry time in the ruck. He'd help around the ground. Nothing like a nice gallop around the ground free of the restraints of a defender to get a bit confidence.

Interesting to say but we miss Levi. May have been a jack of all trades, master of none, but having a 2nd ruck, who can ruck competently, mark around the ground and hit the scoreboard will be handy. Harry is probably the one who could play a similar role, part of it an upgrade (Levi might have been a better actual ruck, hence "part").

Levi's played some good footy the last 2 years, possibly his best footy, and free from the jinx of having a navy blue jumper on him (haha), kicking way better at goal.

He's too fragile otherwise he would already be doing it.

@Lods the only negative to putting him in the VFL is the impact it may have to Charlie and him being worn like a glove.  It might change the mindset of everyone though and allow others to start chipping in more in his absence, and will likely sort out his own form.  I dont see the point putting him elsewhere on the park unrehearsed, its likely to cause more issues than it solves.  The one thing that I can see, is that the yips seem to be spreading where everyone is kicking like Harry did, and maybe that will send him a message better than anything else can.  Watching Motlop and Cripps do what he did might snap him out of it.  Its a pity we have to throw important games away in the process. 

For mine, we dont respect the VFL enough and thats another reason to send him there. 

We had a discussion like this just a few weeks back and the next week Charlie kicks 9 goals.

Id leave Harry closer to goal and have Charlie drag the other defenders away and I reckon Harry will get it done.

If we could be confident of other avenues to goal the concentration on Charlie mightn't be a bad thing.

For the life of me I can't see how our already monolithic focus on the KPFs will somehow be improved by removing one leaving the other as the sole point of focus!

If we want one out SoJ might be the logical choice given the Filth have not much in ruck stocks at the moment, leave Harry and Charlie  as is, and Young, Harry and Cripps doing the zone work.

Our big problem this week is going to be the Filth's Mosquito fleet forward setup, not the KPPs.

For the life of me I can't see how our already monolithic focus on the KPFs will somehow be improved by removing one leaving the other as the sole point of focus!

If we want one out SoJ might be the logical choice given the Filth have not much in ruck stocks at the moment, leave Harry and Charlie  as is, and Young, Harry and Cripps doing the zone work.

Our big problem this week is going to be the Filth's Mosquito fleet forward setup, not the KPPs.

Aside from the West Coast game what we're doing just isn't working at the moment.
The forward line is dysfunctional and actually an asset to the opposition.
We need to do something different.
Maybe even something radical and unexpected
 e.g Swap Harry and Young,

Aside from the West Coast game what we're doing just isn't working at the moment.
The forward line is dysfunctional and actually an asset to the opposition.

I wouldnt even count the West Coast game.....it probably did more harm than good and if we had a grinding 5 point win we might have got more out of it rather than doing it easy and giving everyone a false sense of where we are at...

We can find B-Grade ruck options, they are a dime a dozen, we already have and are using more than one at the moment, we got some in reserve, perhaps they are ranked C-Grade.

A-Grade KPFs are like a needle in a haystack. Why the feck would we want to feck up BigH's knees by exposing him to a bastardry of flogging him as ruck option against the likes of a Nankervis, Witts, Goldstein or Darcy?

Are we going to stupidly allow an elite KPP be smashed in the ruck, then complain about it after the fact like Scott has complained about Blicsavs being pulverised? Leave Scott sending his elite runner in for a bruising, it's good for every other club that happens, we do not have to follow that trend!

Leave our duds rucking and get our Mids effectively roving to the losing ruck, given how good some claim Pitto to be it seems our opposition find it easy to rove to their own losing ruck. Unless of course Pitto isn't quite as good as some claim! ;)

He's too fragile otherwise he would already be doing it.

It's not Charlie and McKay that are the problem though, between them they'd kicked 18 goals over the 3 rounds before Wet Toast, 10-4-4, then 11 in the Wet Toast game, not sure fans can realistically expect more on average? :o

It's not the KPFs that are the problem, in those rounds from 4 through to 7 it was the absence of an effective small forward that hurt us, Owies was out Rnd 4 to 9 inclusive, Motlop and Durdin kept going with the status quo, but the lost goals of Owies were never covered!

It's a bit to easy to "remember" things differently to what they are, and come to a one size fits all conclusion that is actually wrong!

In any case, last weekend was the odd game out, we had all that dominance and couldn't score at all, when actually this season our scoring efficiency from F50s has been quite good but we just haven't been going in enough, too many unforced turnovers from the last kick approaching F50 has been the typical error.

Harry has also kicked some amazing deep pocket goals, for whatever reason, confidence, injury, he's off the boil, but that doesn't mean he isn't contributing.

For me, no Harry means Charlie always gets the top KPD, that isn't the case at the moment, because they rotate through the positions. It's a bit of fan naivety to think you can remove Harry and have no impact on Charlie.

I can't take it seriously, fans want someone to blame and they come up with the obvious because of it's appearance, but Charlie and SoJ have also missed pudding shots with conventional drop punts from 25m almost directly in front.

We can win this game providing we dont do the old Carlton trick of picking the wrong team and beating ourselves...

If they pick Honey or Fisher this week, disappointing would be putting It mildly.

I think Fisher will be picked this week...Collingwood rotate so many through the middle I think Voss will want an army of mids to do the same and try and have some fresh legs in the last quarter.
Dont see Honey being picked but I reckon they will go with Martin hoping he can give us a quarter or two and hit the scoreboard.
He can go ok first up from a spell when his calves have had no work and are rested and its getting to desperation territory now and the Pies are ready to drop a game and might take us and Martin lightly so I can see the MC taking the punt.

Tend to agree...dropping Harry is just going to heap more pressure on Charlie. I like the two tall forwards together and they are our ace in the pack. Its not like TDK has kicked a bag, Jack is kicking the ball about as reliably as Harry and that leaves Owies and Charlie to kick us a score as our mids give us nothing either.
Ours twos got knocked over by high school kids so I dont see any standout replacements for Harry from that lot...Im happy to play TDK this week and mix and match depending on how we are going and have some options but dropping Harry has a flow on effect that leaves us less potent and its odd we would do that in a game where the oppositions most glaring and only weakness is lack of size down back. We can win this game providing we dont do the old Carlton trick of picking the wrong team and beating ourselves...

Harry has also kicked some amazing deep pocket goals, for whatever reason, confidence, injury, he's off the boil, but that doesn't mean he isn't contributing.

For me, no Harry means Charlie always gets the top KPD, that isn't the case at the moment, because they rotate through the positions. It's a bit of fan naivety to think you can remove Harry and have no impact on Charlie.

I can't take it seriously, fans want someone to blame and they come up with the obvious because of it's appearance, but Charlie and SoJ have also missed pudding shots with conventional drop punts from 25m almost directly in front.

Martin? Against Coll? I'd rather Honey at that's saying something, at least he won't get injured. Martin is cooked I'm afraid.

Desperation might make selectors take the chance with Martin imho..

Are we talking about the ruck division here ??

Look, I get it, we are a bit unsure of whats happening and dropping a key forward wont help or what not, but have a look at how we lined up for what I fondly remember as the best days at the footy I have had in a very long time and this was against a side that played in the big dance last year.


Carlton 15.12.105 vs Sydney 13.9 87.

You know who didnt play?  Harry McKay.  You know who else was a notable absentee?  Marc Pittonet.

https://afltables.com/afl/stats/games/2022/031620220520.html

Aside from the West Coast game what we're doing just isn't working at the moment.
The forward line is dysfunctional and actually an asset to the opposition.
We need to do something different.
Maybe even something radical and unexpected
 e.g Swap Harry and Young,

We were playing well enough to beat anyone at that stage, and often did with half a side of injuries. Give Harry a run in the ruck. Running around the ground, doing what he likes will help his confidence.

We have had 16 wins under Voss. TDK has played in 14 of them.

He missed the West Coast game this year and the Port game early last year.

We have had 16 wins under Voss. TDK has played in 14 of them.

He missed the West Coast game this year and the Port game early last year.

Here we go again....cause and correlation.

You know who else has played in 14 of them.
Lachie O'brien.... but we don't hear anyone calling for his return do we.

Lachie O'brien.... but we don't hear anyone calling for his return do we.

For those interested, Dermott Brereton's opinion on the top 10 ruck men currently.

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2023/05/18/breretons-top-10-ruckmen-in-the-game-so-far-in-2023/

By what measure are we better with Pittonet rucking alone?

It's a fairly obvious list, and it's a tell.

Our blokes just aren't having any effective impact on the result, even last week with all the taps from Pitto it appeared English was more influential in just a handful of game moments. That's because measuring the ruck by taps alone, regardless of effectiveness, is way over-rated.

For me Pitto lacks the same impact in defensive positioning, that's his go and when he does that we get more from McGovern and Weiters. In F50 TDK draws defenders, he's a significant risk and can't be ignored, also when TDK rucks in F50 that allows Harry, Charlie, Cripps and SoJ get to rove and they are all above average mobile for KPPs / Talls.

Firstly, he is not rucking alone.

Depending on the day, he has either Young, Harry or Jack or a combination of them rucking with him.

Secondly, that leads into why we are better, because team balance allows us to play smaller by comparison.
We are basically too tall even when we play 1 ruck.
Harry, Charlie and Jack up forward
Weitering, Young and McGovern down back......and we wanna play Kemp in there somewhere as well.
Pitto in the ruck.
Thats at least 7 talls in the side....and you want to add an 8th in TDK.
The more talls you have, the less smalls you have.
The less smalls you have, the more work they are required to do.
The more work they are required to do, the more fatigued they get.
The more fatigued they get, the more we fall in a hole and get overrun......and lose.

Our team is not lacking in ruck work with Pitto there.
It is not lacking in tall, marking targets to kick long too.
So why do we need to add another ruck into the side? What actual benefit does it give us?

TDK is more athletic and is more likely to take a hangar. But over the course of a game, how much does he actually offer the team in terms of output?
Look, if he was a true ruck/forward and kicking goals and getting 20+ touches around the ground, we'd find a spot for him. But he doesn't and isn't.

I've already shown that our results this year are not dependent on how many rucks we play, but the strength of our opposition.
0-3 against top 6
1-1-1 against middle 6
3-0 against bottom 6.

Thats about as definitive as you can get as to why we are winning or losing....not because we are playing 1 ruck or 2....or LOB...or Plowman or anyone else.

So, by what measure are we better with 2 rucks?

Show the other 22 games.

Just out of curiosity who was the sole ruck for those wins against the top 6 sides last year?

Just out of curiosity who was the sole ruck for those wins against the top 6 sides last year?

We also beat the 7th and 8th teams last year with both rucks playing for those at home who might have been misled by the middle 6 argument.

The results show we have hardly won when it's your Pitt/SOS dream team but you won't accept it.

4 wins against top 8 teams last year and 1 this year, TDK played in all of them.

So did Fisher.......and LOB

Yep. We definitely need more run in the side.

Which is what i'm saying.

....and you are saying we need 2 rucks.

I think a fair bit of time and energy gets wasted on statistics.
Ruck contests seem to attract a lot of attention but all statistics should be handled with care.
The problem with raw statistics is there are too many variables that affect them.
Was it windy, was it raining, who was the opposition, did the ball go to a Carlton player in a disposal who was immediately tackled or did it result in a clean clearance from the contest, what ground were we playing on, what injury did the player carry into the game, how often were they moved to a different opponent, were they being used in a decoy role, were they there to fill a tagging/nullifying role, was there a full moon....and that's just a sample.

So many important statistics aren't recorded as far as I know.
Tackles broken by the opposition is one that's significant!
Didn't chase is another!
I can think of a few of our 'good' players who would show up rather poorly if these were emphasised.

Stats are important in giving a bit of an indication, some are more significant than others.
But they're something that should be used as just an indicator, not necessarily as 'proof of the pudding'.

my favourite stat is scores from turnover.

Unless you win the clearance and then score pretty much every score comes from a turnover.

RUCK
Alex Mirkov
Hudson O’Keeffe
Jack Silvagni
Marc Pittonet
Tom De Koning

Overview : Five players yet nothing of real substance presently. De Koning is an out of control wrecking ball, Pittonet is VFL standard only, O’Keeffe & Mirkov having learner plates on and Silvagni is a ‘hail mary’ at best.  

Recommendation : the Silvagni experiment has run its course and there is no other real place on the field for him given he is slow, his kicking for goal is 50/50 and he is prone to making costly errors, trade him the Saints so he can be with his Dad (don’t care about “heart & soul”, means nothing if you can do the basics). Work hard to fast-track the development of Mirkov & O’Keeffe so they can hopefully graduate sooner & trade TDK whilst he still has maximum trade value. 

TDK to CHB for me for the rest of the season.....I dont mind Okeefe and Lemmey as players and would give them a taste of senior footy if the season gets away from us.
The hope is Markov can do a Mason Cox and move on from being a lampost and give us something like the big American.
I dont mind Pittonet and reckon he has been ok, he competes well at stoppages and while he wont ever be a major threat around the ground or up forward he is still our best bet as No 1 ruckman unless Mirkov emerges and becomes a player.
Id be more inclined to experiment with Young in the ruck rather than JSOS and felt he would have matched up better with Cameron in those 2nd ruck battles.

The season would be seriously shot for us to play this O'Keeffe kid based on his performance against Williamstown. He was seriously out of his depth and I honestly believe he did not get a kick. Well I didn't see it. He was useless. Lemney wasn't much better but at least he kicked a goal. It may have been his only kick! 17 yr old Caddy showed more.

The season would be seriously shot for us to play this O'Keeffe kid based on his performance against Williamstown. He was seriously out of his depth and I honestly believe he did not get a kick. Well I didn't see it. He was useless. Lemney wasn't much better but at least he kicked a goal. It may have been his only kick! 17 yr old Caddy showed more.

Mirkov, as raw as he is, would have to be the back up if needed.

He's just not physical enough for AFL, play him now and it'll end his career, the wrong opponent will make him look like a goose and he might never recover from it!

he would be fine.

Agree...he is a huge lump of a man@ 210cm and 105kg, he just has to stand there like Cox does and be a nuisance.
Its like sticking a lampost in the middle of the MCG and asking everyone to drive around it...

It would be quite a coaching coup if Voss, Kreuzer and co could get Pittonet to be more involved in games. I'm not sure if it's even possible. Maybe they could try and improve his agility / mobility by finding a sweet spot with his bulk and weight, so he can become more mobile without losing too much strength. Maybe more tough stuff around the stoppages - throw his weight around a little, put blocks on for our mids, who, given their relative lack of speed, need more time than most.

Clearly the club has taken an overall view and has decided he's worth a 4 year deal. Good luck to him. But it would be certainly be a big bonus IMO if he could get more involved.

This is why to me, tactically, the one two punch of Pitto and TDK in the ruck is an advantage as it give the oppo a different look at every contest especially for team who go with one recognised ruckman. One is a workhorse who just cracks in and where his opponent down whilst being able to tap it to our advantage whilst the other is the athletic young buck who will jump all over you and take you to places you can't go aerobically (assuming he is fit enough).

Yes I agree. I think the Pittonet / De Koning partnership is the best ruck setup given our current list.

I just unfortunate that Tommy prefers the surf coast lifestyle with this brother.

2022/2023

TDK alone: 8 wins 6 losses and a draw
Pittonet alone: 2 wins 6 losses
TDK and Pitt: 6 wins and 3* losses

*One of those losses Pittonet was injured in the first quarter.

We beat 4 top 8 teams last year with TDK.

TDK has played in 14 of our last 16 wins.

How are we better balanced with Pitt/ SOS when we have won only 2 games under Voss with that combo?

Let's debate the real issue here, the performance and future of SoJ in the ruck?

If we play Kemp (or even McGovern) and he can cover for Young.....then Young is my tip for the ruck.

Yes Young looks to be a better ruck option than SoJ, but I can't say Young looks as willing to give it a crack as SoJ. None of them are in the same class as Pitto or TDK, which leaves us conceding the ruck almost 40% of the time!

If we have Young as a ruck option then SoJ's primary role in the team is cooked, because as a F50 marking target he's roughly equal to Cripps, Acres or Kennedy, and that is at best.

Is SoJ a better wing option than Acres?

Our match day coaching panel does not even believe SoJ is the best option, we've been using both Harry and Cripps as F50 rucks ahead of SoJ, so what role are we going to invent for SoJ to keep him in the team?

The inclusion of TDK doesn't slow down the team or reduce run if SoJ isn't there, a MC it's called selection for team balance, not picking favourites.

They are your thoughts and opinions, but the stats doesn't back that up.

Look at the games when we play 2 rucks and look at the TOG for those 2 rucks.
Now compare that to when we play 1 ruck and compare the TOG of that ruck and whichever alternative ruck we are going with, be that SOJ, Harry or Young.

The latter 3 always play 85+ TOG....and the ruck is 80% or more as well. - So we are basically taking up about 15% + 20% TOG between our rucks on the bench - 35%
When we play 2 rucks, they are both at about 60% TOG.....with 1 basically on the bench for almost half a game. So that is 40% + 40% TOG missing, which is taken up by a ruck on the bench - 80%

The first scenario allows our bigger blokes/rucks to spend more time on ground....and has 1 less big bloke there to begin with.....so little blokes get the bench and higher rotations
The second scenario has bigger blokes/rucks taking up 1 spot on the bench for 80% of the game...and makes us bigger overall.....so less smaller blokes to choose from.....and even less rotations as well.

2nd scenario is playing 2 rucks, it puts more pressure on an already struggling midfield given them less people rotating as well as less rotations through the bench. THIS is my whole issue. Team balance is thrown out by playing 2 rucks and forcing little blokes to struggle more.
If TDK (or Pitto) could hold down a key spot.....then all this magically goes away. But neither can, which is why its an issue.
So if we can choose one of our 'other' big blokes to give us a chop out in the ruck, then we don't get handicapped by playing 2 rucks who can't do anything else. The only 'issue' with that is how much we suffer by playing a part time ruckman in those instances.
Now, as i showed, SOJ is our most effective ruckman (compared to Harry, Young, Cripps) in terms of winning hitouts to advantage....and he is only slightly behind TDK in that area. SOJ is also much better at clearances and kicking goals as well.

So THAT is why SOJ is my preference to play the 2nd ruck role. Not because of the number on his back, the name on his locker and/or birth certificate. If someone else can do the same thing. Be my guest. More than happy for them to have it. Nobody else is doing that role as well as he has. Clearly the MC have come to similar conclusions as they've been doing it for a couple years now. Perhaps your issue is with them?

I thought Collingwood got a clear advantage in the ruck especially when Jack was matched up on Cameron as the two second stringers and looked very slow. Maybe thats just one game and the Pies are slicker than most teams and made Jack look bad but for me it has to be horses for courses when Jack plays ruck. ie I dont want him rucking vs Gawn/Grundy at the MCG but maybe vs Sydney who will only have Hickey and some young kid whose name escapes me he will be better suited.

I thought Jack battled hard and his second efforts were good as usual.  However, he got absolutely hammered both in the physical contests and the outcomes by the Collingwood rucks, and the Bulldog rucks the week before.  And he doesn't get to choose when the opposition second stringer gives the first ruck a spell.  Pitto was off the ground for longish periods leaving Jack to compete against the first rucks.  Apart from handing the opposition rucks and mids an advantage, rucking Jack affects his work as a third tall.

Young is a much better option as back up ruck, provided we're prepared to let his work in defence suffer and have cover from Kemp (or Jack).

I agree with a horses for courses approach but playing two genuine rucks can cause problems for the opposition ... but not if we continually rest one ruckman on the bench.

Agree with all that, if we play two genuine ruckman then they do need to be used to advantage better than we have .
Im interested in seeing how TDK could work out at CHB and how Young could be used as a second ruckman.
I feel we have played Jack out of form and he has become ineffective as a forward as a result...this whole Shaun Grigg tactic worked one year for Hardwick but I havent seen it work for Richmond or anyone else since and it was based on Grigg rucking vs the opposition part timer but now clubs are smarter and wait for the opportunity to run their prime ruckman vs your part timer and I think that tactic is null and void now unless its genuine part timers vs genuine part timers.

If any of you saw Young playing ruck for the Dogs when they were plagued by injury would not be suggesting he be used as a second ruckman at all.

Player C (On more $ than A+B combined)

8 disposals
4 marks
0 ruck contests
0 hitouts
0 hitouts to advantage
1 tackles
0 clearances
0.3 goal.behind
94% TOG

Maybe they're all rubbish and we're playing in the electrical noise zone stats-wise below the threshold of a meaningful response.

I am happy to discuss the merits of Pittonet's contract extension and the potential effect it has on TDK's onfield role etc.

But for now, I'd rather focus on whether TDK is actually going to become the bone-fide ruck-forward most are/were hoping for.

He was quite poor last night (how many marks did he juggle & drop ??) and I am seriously wondering if he is worth retaining like some others are suggesting we should.

De Koning is a little ungainly and awkward at the moment. But he has some good assets, and should be persisted with and developed properly. His mobility and athleticism on their own are very handy IMO

I thought a banged up Hickey came on the ground after we initially controlled the ruck duels with Pittonet vs the beanpole kid McAndrew and did ok for the Swans in the ruck.
We didnt get much advantage by playing two rucks imho.

We got zero advantage. As i predicted.

That being said, i'd be playing TDK again next week. What have we got to lose?
We can only hope that something clicks with the kid.

We weren't smashed in the ruck when TDK was in the centre or around stoppages, as much as some might like to ignore that fact, it made a difference.

Cynics would claim we actually lost momentum when Pitto was rucking, but that would be unfair on Pitto because we were already riddle with injuries by that stage of the game. Prior to that we had ascendency and couldn't kick straight, the ruck wasn't our problem this week like it was in the Filth game.

Losing Hewett hurt us, as the game wore on our midfield became less and less effective.

The first step to winning is the break even, and build on it to improve from there.

Yet it wasn't when TDK was in the ruck that we lost momentum, so how can that be with the HTA Genius aka Pitto in charge, doesn't HTA mean something?

Simply explained, HTA is a crock of shizen, possibly the worst most useless stat in the AFL and a total waste of time when measuring individual ruck effectiveness.

Fork me dead you guys have argued for so long it's not even clear what your contention is anymore.

Pittonet - good, elite even
TDK - bad
Jack - average

Without pittonet not one person on this forum would go with Jack as our first ruck as an example.  TDK is the one.

2022/2023

TDK alone: 8 wins 6 losses and a draw
Pittonet alone: 2 wins 6 losses
TDK and Pitt: 6 wins and 4* losses

*One of those losses Pittonet was injured in the first quarter.

I updated it.

We seem to have gone quiet on the ruck stuff, I thought for sure there would be discussion on last Friday's figures! :o

(https://www.carltonsc.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6337.0;attach=1349)

Really, I'm not sure what to make of it.

Pittonet clearly would have sorted Gawn and Grundy out.

If Pittonet had played, we would have won the ruck and restricted Gawn's influence around the ground ... provided we had a plan for utilising the resting ruckman that didn't involve sitting on the bench.

Really? Like the last time he played on Gawn?

Sorry I misread your post.

Pittonet struggled with one hand but he battled hard and gave TDK the chop out he needed which allowed him to star.

Personally, i don't think Pittonet was anywhere near ready. Vossy basically ruled him out on Thursday.
But, he was picked. I thought for sure a late out.
But, he played. He was not quite ready though.

A bit rusty early on, and a few shocking 50-50 ruck frees paid against him early didn't help, but he did what he always did and battled his butt off. I guess because we've got the bye coming up we could afford to 'risk it' a little bit.
Thankfully it came off.
Witts is up there with the hardest rucks to play against given his size and strength and we nullified him pretty well.

Forget about hitouts, hitouts to advantage was 13 (Witts) vs 12 to us (6+6 for our 2 rucks).

And TDK went forward too and clunked a few marks and kicked a couple of goals.....that's worth more than the hitouts alone.

He needs a Pittonet soaking up the body contests from the other ruckman so he can use his athletic prowess later on as the other rucks tire so he needs to be marking the ball forward and being a target.

"A hitout to advantage is a hitout that reaches an intended teammate.

Yes, this player must have the opportunity to dispose of the ball, treat this like an umpire deciding ‘prior opportunity’ if they were going to pay holding the ball."

Hitouts sharked are indeed the opposite, it’s a hitout going directly to the opposition, who again must have had time to dispose of the ball.

"I have attached a spreadsheet with hitout stats for 2023 of the top 50 ruckmen for average ruck contests attended – but I will stress this is a one off, it’s not something we do."

For mine this year English is best, followed by Oscar mcinerney and I'd have lycett in that conversation with gawn and Grundy. 

It's a bit of a small sample size and the percentage thing reeks of using stats to justify a point rather than prove it.

56.6% of ruck contests are a draw not pointless.  Surrendering it will change how the stat works.

For mine this year English is best, followed by Oscar mcinerney and I'd have lycett in that conversation with gawn and Grundy. 

It's a bit of a small sample size and the percentage thing reeks of using stats to justify a point rather than prove it.

56.6% of ruck contests are a draw not pointless.  Surrendering it will change how the stat works.

I suspect clubs see Tom De Koning as a Blicavs type player, or at least the possibility to evolve into that, and I suspect that's part of the reason why he is in demand.

Perhaps I'm the only one who sees the similarities between Robert Warnock and Pittonet. Both fine tap ruck men, but some fans and media critical of their around the ground work.

Big difference between Warnock/Pittonet is strength.
Warnock was about the weakest bloke to ever compete in a ruck contest. He got away with using his height, which was greater than all else. Pittonet is about average height for a ruck (202cm) so he has to rely on his body work and strength....as we know he isn't a great jumper either.

Both could do more around the ground....but that could be said about half of the rucks on an AFL list.

Yes no doubt Warnock was a beanpole. I thought he was treated a little harshly by Carlton fans. Constantly injured and found it hard to get any kind of consistency or momentum going.

Pittonet has never played a game as good as TDK's yesterday.

Pittonet has never played a game as good as TDK's yesterday.

Very subjective. Can't be proven right or wrong.

But as an option.
2021 vs Gold Coast - 57 hitouts, 20 to advantage, 5 clearances (3 CC's), 3 R50's and 5 score involvements......in an 11 point win. Fair influence on that game ;)

They both have strengths and weaknesses, and if the club is doing the right thing, they will played in a complimentary way, so that each helps the other to be a better player, in a way that makes a better team. That's the end game, and ultimately all that really matters IMO.

True, however if money and lifestyle means more to Tom than camaraderie and loyalty to mates you've forged a bond with, whether we are doing the right thing or not is academic.

The fact one will likely get $800k per season and the other is on $400k says it all.

Pit tries and is a decent tap ruckman but next to nothing output around the ground. TDK is still developing yet is already a more effective footballer can go forward and kick goals and has a much higher ceiling.

TDK isnt worth 800k a season....you pay that to players who win you games consistently, reckon he will take a bit less than the top market offers from the Saints and Bombers and join his brother at the Cattery.
Ceglar will retire/get flicked, Stanley will become the new Ceglar as backup and TDK will ruck with Blicavs and fit straight into their game plan as that mobile ruckman.
A new Ford Ranger every season along with some other perks will make up the money....Cats are very good at looking after their players and making them comfortable.

All well and good but they need to satisfy us.

I just seem to remember Geelong screwing us over in trades.....nothing good has ever come up the highway to us.
They dont have any decent first rounders either I would have thought after their spending spree....picks 18 and 92 I think I read and this is the draft we want to pick from being a good one.

The fact one will likely get $800k per season and the other is on $400k says it all.

Pit tries and is a decent tap ruckman but next to nothing output around the ground. TDK is still developing yet is already a more effective footballer can go forward and kick goals and has a much higher ceiling.

I just seem to remember Geelong screwing us over in trades.....nothing good has ever come up the highway to us.
They dont have any decent first rounders either I would have thought after their spending spree....picks 18 and 92 I think I read and this is the draft we want to pick from being a good one.

Says plenty, clubs over pay for potential....and we should cash in.

Look at all the 'million dollar men' over the past decade. How many have earned that?

TDK isnt worth 800k a season....you pay that to players who win you games consistently, reckon he will take a bit less than the top market offers from the Saints and Bombers and join his brother at the Cattery.
Ceglar will retire/get flicked, Stanley will become the new Ceglar as backup and TDK will ruck with Blicavs and fit straight into their game plan as that mobile ruckman.
A new Ford Ranger every season along with some other perks will make up the money....Cats are very good at looking after their players and making them comfortable.

Word is Tom knows they can't satisfy us and will sign a 2 year deal taking him to FA.

Do we want a player who is just hanging around for 2 years?, until the big pay day who has his mind somewhere else and wont be fully committed who we put more devlopment time into then fecks off and we get some crap compo pick in a weak draft knowing our luck. Id rather trade him out now to the highest bidder and develop the next TDK than waste time getting him cherry ripe for Geelong. He can go to Essendon or Stkilda and they can pay us properly....

Do we want a player who is just hanging around for 2 years?, until the big pay day who has his mind somewhere else and wont be fully committed who we put more devlopment time into then fecks off and we get some crap compo pick in a weak draft knowing our luck. Id rather trade him out now to the highest bidder and develop the next TDK than waste time getting him cherry ripe for Geelong. He can go to Essendon or Stkilda and they can pay us properly....

Forget word on the street for a moment, my own mail is that he loves the club and prefers to stay, it's up to to the club. What I read into that is that they are looking at trading him now (which he knows) rather than losing him to FA now (which they dont know for sure that he will go, he may choose to stay long term). Its all a bit of a mess if you ask me. My preference would be to try and keep him for 2 and hopefully we fire up and he stays longer. If he has to leave, his preference is Geel for obvious reasons and its here that I feel Curly's Boy will cave in and we will end up with dregs off Geel (again).

My own preference if we have to trade his is to Syd involving Papley or Heeney.

Forget word on the street for a moment, my own mail is that he loves the club and prefers to stay, it's up to to the club. What I read into that is that they are looking at trading him now (which he knows) rather than losing him to FA now (which they dont know for sure that he will go, he may choose to stay long term). Its all a bit of a mess if you ask me. My preference would be to try and keep him for 2 and hopefully we fire up and he stays longer. If he has to leave, his preference is Geel for obvious reasons and its here that I feel Curly's Boy will cave in and we will end up with dregs off Geel (again).

My own preference if we have to trade his is to Syd involving Papley or Heeney.

re: Darcy.....form has declined since Jacksons arrival, was better when he had Lobb who was more of a 75/25 Forward in the main.
Jackson has really fecked up Freo and its shows how bringing in high paid players to positions you already have covered can ruin your game plan and method.
Tim English on the other hand has had a blinder of a year....doesnt have to play forward much like he did last year and now enter Lobb who has allowed him to ruck most of the game.
The strange aspect is that Lobb as a ruckman is a spud who would struggle against most other rucks but his role is just to give the main ruckman a short rest each quarter and then go forward where he probably does his best work.
Finding that specialist Forward/Ruck is the key imho.......for mine TDK is more of a ruckman than a forward and we dont still have the right mix.

 

Freo Contested possession differential

With Darcy: +14.4
Without Darcy: -17.7

"When Pittonet attends a ruck contest, Carlton wins the clearance seven per cent more often than their opposition. When De Koning attends a ruck contest, they lose the clearance seven per cent more often than their opposition."

- Daniel Hoyne 27/6/23

Pittonet is a pure ruckman and has the edge over De Koning in this space. De Koning is better around the ground. I'm really not sure why we have to compare them, or what there is to be gained by doing so. It's not apples and oranges, but they're not the same type of player, and I'm sure the club knows that. De Koning is also 4 years younger.

Pittonet is a pure ruckman and has the edge over De Koning in this space. De Koning is better around the ground. I'm really not sure why we have to compare them, or what there is to be gained by doing so. It's not apples and oranges, but they're not the same type of player, and I'm sure the club knows that. De Koning is also 4 years younger.

Yes most of us get that the Mid rotations play just as big of a part, the Mids you pair the rucks with matters, and we don't accept pure concession is ever a viable option.

We can't allow names to interfere with our list management.

Something doesn't add up. The players in this conversation are Pittonet, De Koning, Jack Silvagni, and arguably Lewis Young. Pittonet signed a four year deal, De Koning has a contract in front of him from us, as well as suitors such as Geelong, Sydney and St Kilda, all offering what is supposedly good money. If he's not that great, then why the interest ? Have Stephen Wells and Kinnear Beatson suddenly lost their mojo ? If Jack Silvagni or Lewis Young can do as good or a better job, then why are we and other clubs even bothering with De Koning ?

Its nonsense to think De Koning is no good. Does it come down to whether he is worth more to us as a player or in trade value?

And that is the $64 question.

If TDK does go for the loot, what do we get in return? Is a 1st round draft pick, which would eventually become around pick 20 or so, enough?

Its nonsense to think De Koning is no good. Does it come down to whether he is worth more to us as a player or in trade value?

Can't be paying DeKoning 800k a year when Pittonet is on half that but expected to carry the brunt of the ruck work and take all the lumps and bruises.
TDK can have his big money deal when he starts delivering match winning games and making Pittonet redundant.

I doubt Pitto is even on $400K

Just in case somebody really believes those nasty FinalSiren stats.

We better get them put in their place with the lovely unbiased purely analytical AFL CD data that has the good old HTA as well!
(https://www.carltonsc.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5066.0;attach=1355)
Psssst .............. "Don't talk about the War!" :o

Something doesn't add up. The players in this conversation are Pittonet, De Koning, Jack Silvagni, and arguably Lewis Young. Pittonet signed a four year deal, De Koning has a contract in front of him from us, as well as suitors such as Geelong, Sydney and St Kilda, all offering what is supposedly good money. If he's not that great, then why the interest ? Have Stephen Wells and Kinnear Beatson suddenly lost their mojo ? If Jack Silvagni or Lewis Young can do as good or a better job, then why are we and other clubs even bothering with De Koning ?

Team Balance.

Not sure how many times i need to say the same thing before it starts to sink in.

People (read LP) think this is about some kind of favouritism towards Jack Silvagni. Which is spin and deflection and clouding his own judgement. Ignore Jack from this debate.

The reason we as a team don't require a dedicated 2nd ruck is because of a couple things.
1. Our #1 rucks ability is elite in terms of ruckwork and can ruck a full game (80-90%) with minimal help.
2. Our team is very top heavy with a-grade talent (key forwards and key back(s)), we also have some taller '3rd tall' types at both ends. Too much tall talent
3. Our options for 2nd ruck (be that TDK, Mirkov or whoever) can not play another position effectively....and must be 'carried' or benched.

Would i play TDK if Harry got injured? Absolutely.
Would i play TDK if Pittonet stopped performing? Absolutely.
Would i play TDK if we had an extended interchange bench? Absolutely.

Now.....would i play TDK if i was another team who didn't have the same team dynamics as us? Absolutely.

I said it in the pre-season and have stood by it all year. Based on team balance, we cannot afford a 2nd ruck who cannot play another position (or is providing the output TDK is while playing another position).

If i was another club like the ones being mentioned, i would absolutely trade for TDK.

Put simply, he is a luxury for us that we cannot afford.

Pittonet can't play any other position.

I dont think he has done anything special to warrant the hype other than take the odd speccy(he drops more than he takes too) and look flashy on occasions regardless of team dynamics. To be honest is he any better than Levi Casboult as a ruck/forward package?and I think some of the hype around him is based on his brothers achievements at Geelong.
He needs Pittonet to hold his hand in the ruck vs the mean hombres who want to push him around and his stats after 50 games are nothing outstanding...10 disposals, 2 marks, 0.32 goals and 0.12 goal assists, 16 hitouts......
The output doesnt add up to the hype, promise or money being offered by other clubs which in turn adds pressure to our list management. Bailey Williams the fill in ruck for WC has similar stats and he would be the lowest benchmark ruckman in the comp.
For me its an easy decision...we trade TDK while his market value his high and get a decent trade return we can use on something more vital and then look for another cheaper 2nd ruckman/forward.
If other clubs want to pay 800k a year based on promise and 50 games of joe average stats then be my guest...

Pittonet can't play any other position.

I like Pittonet, but he is what he is, and nothing more.

I like Pittonet, but he is what he is, and nothing more.

Tom De Koning is a quality project player, who still needs time. You know what's going to happen -  he'll leave and in a couple of years will be a superstar. I can just see it. Tall, athletic, mobile players don't grow on trees.

The money being talked about is not right IMO. If he went to Geelong on 800K he would be just south of Dangerfield and Jeremy Cameron, and that ain't happening.

Correct. But he can play ruck a lot better than TDK. Until that changes, nothing changes.

Geel dont pay big money, they have scales of pay and you fit into one of them. Stevie J explained in on radio recently. Thats what you get, nothing more nothing less. Thats how they have managed to keep groups together and attract big name players via their success and chances of more. Talk of them rorting the system and paying outside the salary cap is utter nonsense. They have been one of the best at setting up for sustained success and we should aspire to be the same.

Herald Sun had Dangerfield and Cameron in the top ten best paid players in the comp that was around 850-950k this year.
Geelong relaxed their 500k max rule when they got Dangerfield from memory and I think Scott even went to the players and asked them if it was ok for the club to sign Danger on more money than anyone else...

I guess you could understand exceptions for players like Dangerfield and Cameron, my point is more about bewilderment around the money we pay for donkeys (by comparison) like Martin, Williams, McGovern etc. They wouldn't do that in a million years.

Fair points........Cameron actually took a pay cut to go to Geelong, not sure if thats a reflection on Geelong being an attractive club to play for or GWS being the opposite.

After the tap he is about as useful as a stuffed dummy hence why we can't win when rucks alone.

You still on about rucking alone?

Do I need to show you the opposition ladder position stats to show you your stat is bogus again?

2 wins in 2 years. Spin it any way you like, Pittonet can't do it on his own. Actually our best two wins this year against Geelong and Gold Coast, TDK was first ruck with Pitt supporting him.

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2023/06/28/the-second-biggest-gap-on-record-the-stark-gap-between-carltons-ruckmen/

Personally, I think it's quite wrong to think of this as 1st / 2nd ruck, it's old fashioned thinking.

Positions in modern football are more role based than having "a leader", no matter who does it they have to be capable in the role, and it's pointless trying to make some weird claim that TDK isn't capable relative to SoJ! :o

As I see in classic social media mnemonics the current situation looks like this for ruck options;
Pitto / TDK >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mirkov >>> SoJ / Young

Now in context of the above, most VFL watchers will tell you Mirkov isn't ready for AFL:! ;)

As much as I like Silvagni's passion and endeavour, he's not a ruckman and we're far more competitive with Pitto and Tom rucking in tandem.

Mirkov's heart condition takes him out of contention but I'd have Young level pegging with a healthy Mirkov, O'Keeffe next in line, followed by Lemmey with Jack bringing up the rear.

Fans fear for SoJ so they are creating scenarios to try and give him a way forward, in actual fact that's destroying the blokes career because it's plain as day he's failing at it, he is never going to be a bull like Pitto and he is not athletic like TDK.

I think SoJ would be fine if people stopped talking him up as a ruck option and we just let him play the roles he is suited to play.

The problem with those analyses, forgetting the somewhat flaky data, is that the context is ignored; if our midfielders are down, clearances will be down. 

I took another look at the Gold Coast game and there was a stark change in the number of clearances we won when our midfield got on top.  It had little to do with hitouts won or hitouts to advantage.

Before looking at the numbers, there's no reason not to consider this game.  Pittonet was passed fit, he rarely uses his left hand in ruck contests and he took part in more ruck contests than De Koning; 52 to 43.

2 wins in 2 years. Spin it any way you like, Pittonet can't do it on his own. Actually our best two wins this year against Geelong and Gold Coast, TDK was first ruck with Pitt supporting him.

By what measure is our "team balance" as you call it better with just Pittonet? That's all I want to know.

How many times do i need to say the same thing?

Go have a look at how much time they spend on the bench when there is 2 of them playing. The first 3 games they played together, they averaged about 60-65% game time each. So that means that we have 1 ruck on the bench for 70-80% of the game.
Essentially meaning we are playing 1 down on the bench for 3/4's of a game.
So because we have basically 1 spot on the bench held up by a resting ruck, all our other players are having to play more game time than we'd like to cover.

Maybe it's just me but from what I've seen of him, despite his size, Harry is not really a very physical player. He comes off second best quite often in the physical clashes and in the process often looks to get hurt and takes a while to recover? I also get the distinct impression that he does not relish ruck work and consequently we seem to minimize the time he spends there. I don't mean to have a go at him but that's just the impression he creates for me.

Agreed, it stands out when guys like Young and Harry are forced to ruck, they go into their shell.

The last thing we need is to put a Coleman medallist to the sword just to save 10% bench time for a single role. The 10% saving gets distributed across all the other interchanges, delivering on average about 10 extra seconds a piece, so I'd assert the impact to the bench and rotations  of running one or two rucks is greatly over-stated!

I'm not sure how you end up with 10%, or 10 seconds.
I call BS

Maybe it's just me but from what I've seen of him, despite his size, Harry is not really a very physical player. He comes off second best quite often in the physical clashes and in the process often looks to get hurt and takes a while to recover? I also get the distinct impression that he does not relish ruck work and consequently we seem to minimize the time he spends there. I don't mean to have a go at him but that's just the impression he creates for me.

You're not think straight, do the math the available bench minutes do not change whether we run 1 or 2 rucks, the small percentage of extra time 1 ruck might stay on the field doesn't make much difference to the rest of the bench at all, it's a smokescreen, a misdirection, because the rucks are resting in the pockets, they come off the ground when they finish a rotation no matter who does it! :o

The only gain is that perhaps the solo ruck spends less time on the bench, and that few minutes of less time on the bench get added to the allocation for all other players. It doesn't necessarily mean there will be more rotations available either, because we would need to the ruck to stay on the ground when the ruck rotation ends for that to happen, and they don't!

There is always 4 on the bench, if you make a 10% change in ground time of one player the reduced bench time gets distributed across all other rotations. How many a game, 70 rotations on average?

The deception in your assertion is to imply when we have Pitto solo the others who have a part in 2nd ruck rotations won't come off the ground, it's a furphy!

I'd much rather Pitto and TDK resting on the bench and coming in fresh, than have Young, Harry or SoJ coming into the ruck rested and delivering a B Grade result, maybe even a D Grade result.

In any case, Pitto is the player who mostly single role, TDK can ruck before rotating forward to give Harry or Charlie a chop out, and then come off.

I don't need to do the math. The math is already done. You are not looking at it correctly.

When 2 rucks play, their individual TOG decreases. Thus, more time on the bench.
When a part time ruck plays, the minutes they play do not decrease, be that Jack or Young. They are all 80-90%+ TOG or more whether they ruck of not. Because THEY can rest in the pocket while they play backup ruck rather than on the bench.

Why not just rest TDK in the pocket and no need SoJ or Young at all, 100% saving! ;D

No matter how you spin this, the Pitto  / TDK duality trumps the whoever you chose 1st with those 3rd, 4th or even 5th choice option, find another job for the likes of SoJ and Young that they won't feck up, don't spread their pain across other critical roles just to create a spot!

The good thing is whoever should be highly motivated, because I'd assert that a bad outcome this weekend will be just about the nail in the coffin for whoever 2nd rucks, SoJ Boosters should be careful about what they ask for!

PS; This has nothing to do with TDK staying or going, even if he goes SoJ or Young are still not the answer, they live and die by other outcomes.

We have tried to rest TDK forward, and ball gets cleared pretty easily because the opposition have 4 blokes from the backline streaming forward and we have Harry, Charlie and TDK standing around looking at eachother wondering what they are supposed to do.