Carlton Supporters Club

It was interesting to hear Nathan Buckley’s opinion of Tom De Koning:

Rivalling Max Gawn in ruck craft and marking and rivalling Brodie Grundy in second efforts and impact around the ground.  On track to be the best ruckman for the next 7-8 years.

At the same time, there’s a lot of love for Marc Pittonet.

Personally, I think the debate is dead already, has been for most of this season.

Pretty much everything Voss has done this season is working perfectly. When we needed two rucks he picked two and we dominated the stoppages and midfield, when we could go with one he went with one and it's worked equally as well.

The irrelevance of the tap and the HtA, and the importance of Ruck 2nd efforts has never been clearer, again obvious. Not weird statistical correlations or complicated assertions of causality needed. Just the basics, see ball get ball, don't stand and watch. We don't need to blame a depleted backline or misfiring forwards on the Ruck setup, all have their own responsibilities.

I probably see this thread as more a place to discuss not only the "one or two ruck" argument but all aspects of our ruckmen including their progress, but tactics, strengths and weaknesses etc....

It'll soon drift down the board if we don't use it but it will keep the ruck discussions out of multiple threads, which some folk find a distraction.

Now the problem I have with that line of argument is that it assumes that DeKoning is as impactful as he is ever going to be in that second ruck position.
It assumes no improvement...in either impact or consistency... that it will always be the case that if Pittonet plays Tom will be the second fiddle with a largely reduced influence.

Tom's improved as the solo ruck, would it be possible he's also improved as a part of a ruck duo.

The balance question will always be this....
If we play two rucks is the advantage greater than if we play one ruck and add an extra runner?

And it's not a clear cut answer...because what you "win on the swings you lose on the see-saw."

There's another factor that comes into play in this decision and it works for both sides of the argument
That's the state of the list at any one time in terms of injury, fitness and ability to run out games.

As Kruddler points out if Harry was out injured there is little argument about playing both Pitto and TDK

If we have a full list to choose from including players like Cerra and Cottrell we may have trouble squeezing Pittonet in (I'm assuming Tom's there to stay now)

But if it's a choice for the last spot between Pittonet and a Carroll or Binns you have to ask which player is likely to have a greater impact on the game.

The 'rest' for the other runners comes into play to some extent but that would be well spread...and do we want players like Walsh and Cripps off the ground for any extra time.
The rest would be minimal spread through the mids and flankers.

And I'm just scratching the surface in terms of variables
If you think this is a simple 'one or the other'....think again

No, there is no assumption made there.

You assume that the only development TDK can do is in the 1's.

I assume it will be better in the 1's because it's those players we want Tom to develop an understanding and cohesion with. It's a non-event now anyway...I doubt he'll play VFL again.

We could potentially fast track him as a forward option (if thats the way you want to go) by playing him full time in that role in the VFL. Play him as the #1 guy and go through him every chance you get.
That will likely get him up to speed in forward craft quicker than playing 3rd fiddle to 2 coleman medalists and perhaps only getting targetted a handful of time in a game.

I don't see him as only a forward but more a ruck- rover /utility type when he's not rucking-(forward and back). He can also do that Silvagni role now but probably better if we're playing two rucks.

You can have a philosophical debate on whats best, but there will never be a consesus on how to best develop a player.

re the balance...
This is where a combination of stats and eyeballs can help show a few trends.
1. Our pressure factor is much higher when we are smaller and play more runners.
This is not exclusive to just rucks, but backs and forwards as well. (tall and small)
Its dangerous pointing to one instance and proclaiming a trend but as an example...
Prelim vs Lions
Harry + Charlie
Pitto + TDK
Weitering + Marchbank + McGovern
....we also had Kennedy (slow) as the sub.
We lacked run and pressure and ended up subbing off Fogarty.....which made it worse.
The turnaround the club had was when we (re)introduced run and carry into the side at the expense of taller (rucks+Silvagni).....even to the point we were winning without a recognised ruck at all.
Pressure = wins
This is one stat that seems to be one of the best predictors of a win.
No real debate required on who will provide more pressure a ruck of a small forward/mid.

In looking at things like wins and pressure ratings have you taken into account the quality of the opposition.
Where was the opposition on the ladder when we played two rucks and lost or played none and won?
What was our pressure ratings when comparing high ladder and low ladder opposition

2. The balance thing ties into the importance of a rucks influence over games too.
This is where Silvagni entered the debate.
Around the ground, last year (no data this year), Silvagni was offering more as a 3rd tall / backup ruck than anyone else playing that role. Look at any stats including scoreboard impact and it was clear as day he was the best option.
But, robbing peter to pay paul meant you were losing some 'influence' in the actual ruck / hitout side of things.
This is where people are split....
Group A - Ruck hitouts are useless stats and the mids have more influence.
Group B - Rucks do matter and can make a big difference, HTA stats and clearance stats are relevent.

First lets look at Group A.
If the rucks don't matter and the stats are useless.....why play 2 rucks? Pretty simple. 1 ruck for 80% of the game, and a backup filling space for the rest of it. Silvagni filled that role, especially when paired with his around the ground superiority by comparison. I use Silvagni, because he was our 3rd option last year. Same could be said this year for Harry....and even Cripps/Kennedy.

Next we look at Group B.
Rucks make a different and we need a recognised backup ruck rather than a fill in.
Which is a fine stance to take. However, when you deep dive into the stats, the difference between TDK and SOJ in the ruck in terms of hitouts was about the same as the gap from Pitto to TDK.....and TDK was an 'average' ruck at best.
But....TDK is still better.
Then.....you include the other stats like clearances and tackles (which increase as a ruck vs as a forward) and SOJ was far superior to TDK.
Ultimately, if you drew out the stats on are we more likely to get a clearance with TDK in the ruck vs Silvagni in the ruck, they actually showed that Silvagni would get more clearances (compared to TDK) than TDK would get 'hitouts to advantage + TDK clearances'. In short, we were more likely to get a clearance with Silvagni in the ruck than TDK...even if we sacrificed the hitout by comparison.
Add that to SOJ doing more around the ground......and IMO it was a simple choice.

That was 'then' would it still be the case that Silvagni offered more. I'm not sure there's a place for Jack other than on the bench

So Group A and Group B argued different points, but both pointed to having Silvagni over TDK (or Pitto) as the backup ruck.


Now, the only legitimate debate that is nothing but opinion goes back to what we started talking about......Development.

Do you 'take a hit' in performance now by playing someone who is not up to the output of an alternative? Using the logic of doing so for developmental reasons, is fair and opinion is divided. Its one thing that can't be tested one way or another as you can never do it both ways at once.
Some will use TDK as an example that it works.
I might use Dow or Obrien as an example that it doesn't.
Truth is, its all anecdotal evidence that can prove nothing one way or another.

Throughout all this i've been accused of being pro pittonet and silvagni and anti tdk.
My comments were made with my head, not my heart.
Stats showed it was an easy decision, but heart meant others couldn't accept it.

I think i've been consistent in my comments through the years.
TDK has (finally) produced what we are believed he had in him and is very much deserving of the #1 ruck. He holds it down without question and i'm as happy as anyone......but it was never about that.

I assume it will be better in the 1's because it's those players we want Tom to develop an understanding and cohesion with. It's a non-event now anyway...I doubt he'll play VFL again.

I don't see him as only a forward but more a ruck- rover /utility type when he's not rucking-(forward and back). He can also do that Silvagni role now but probably better if we're playing two rucks.

In looking at things like wins and pressure ratings have you taken into account the quality of the opposition.
Where was the opposition on the ladder when we played two rucks and lost or played none and won?
What was our pressure ratings when comparing high ladder and low ladder opposition

R16 - 2023 -
Carlton vs Hawthorn
No Pittonet. No De Koning.
Young, Silvagni, McKay used in the ruck.

Hitouts
Hawthorn - 61
Carlton - 27

Result - Carlton wins by 60 points.

R17 - 2023
Carlton vs Fremantle (@Fremantle)
No Pittonet. No De Koning.
Young, Silvagni, McKay used in the ruck

"We are going to get monstered by Darcy and get spanked"

Hitouts
Fremantle - 70 (Darcy 58!)
Carlton - 18

Result - Carlton wins by 53.

Tell me again why we need 2 rucks to cover for the 1 ruck on the off-chance he gets injured.

We don't even need 1 ruck. In fact we have an average winning margin of over 9 goals when we don't have a ruck.
Just because Geelong lost by the same amount last night and didn't have one doesn't prove anything other than Geelong are crap right now.

So to go back to your quote....
"Heeding the warning of the potentially devastating result of not having a ruck is unequivocal."
The only devastating results i see is on the scoreboard when we demolish the opposition!

That was 'then' would it still be the case that Silvagni offered more. I'm not sure there's a place for Jack other than on the bench

You can get cohesion on the training track though. You want to put that into practice in games, being the #1 target in VFL would get more practice than 3rd banana in the 1's.
I've done a million different analysis of these, a lot of it will be littered through these threads. Some of it you can still find the stats and work through the logic of it, some of it are really only relevant at the time.
For instance, pressure ratings are very difficult to find. However, in the moment there is often graphs, stats, trends and discussions around them which can be found highlighting these exact things. I'm sure you could try and find a lot of the analysis from trawling through old footy shows and pre-shows if you had the time.

In terms of opposition and talent you are up against, that is easier to check. I actually did a recent analysis for LP (which he ignored)
All of your debates above are coming from the 'now' whereas i am summarising from the 'then'.

Thats the thing, its a moving goal post.

Maybe Jack improves? Maybe TDK goes backwards? Maybe we recruit a better 3rd tall forward option or repurpose someone we already have?
What any of that will do to our team balance depends on what our team balance is at the time.

Again, i'm not playing any favourites. If Jack doesn't play again. So be it. If TDK plays the next 200 games straight, so be it.
Whatever is best for the team is best for me.

It's funny because I often feel you're looking at the 'now' rather than the possibilities of what might be. ;D
Stats certainly are a measure of the 'past'...as soon as they occur.

Just on those two games you mention

No rucks yep
But at the time we played them we were beginning our charge.
The other sides were going backwards or not progressing.

Rnd 16 v Hawthorn
Hawthorn were 16th
They stayed 16th

Rnd 17 v Freo
Freo were 11th.
They fell to 14th were they stayed until the end of the year.

So the quality of the opposition matters.

Personally, I think the debate is dead already, has been for most of this season.

Voss has made one mistake this season.
He said the "ladder doesn't lie." ;)
It does!
Does anyone seriously believe that Brisbane are the tenth best side in the competition, despite where they sit at the moment.
The only ladder that counts is the one at the end of the year...and even that can change after finals.
That's the one that tells you the true standing of a team.

And the fact is that Fremantle and Hawthorn were the 14th and 16th best sides in 2023, and Carlton were no 5 at the end of H&A and equal 3rd after the finals.

Voss has made one mistake this season.
He said the "ladder doesn't lie." ;)
It does!
Does anyone seriously believe that Brisbane are the tenth best side in the competition, despite where they sit at the moment.
The only ladder that counts is the one at the end of the year...and even that can change after finals.
That's the one that tells you the true standing of a team.

And the fact is that Fremantle and Hawthorn were the 14th and 16th best sides in 2023, and Carlton were no 5 at the end of H&A and equal 3rd after the finals.

Is the ruck thread seriously going off track?

No he was right.  The ladder doesn't lie, it's a measure of the past and how teams have travelled to now.

Not what a side is capable of nor where a side should be ranked in the comp.

Kreuzer probably deserves some kudos because he has two AFL standard ruckmen under his charge.

Kreuzer was an excellent ruck but he was undersized and that means he can't teach how to use that size mirkov posesses to advantage.

@djc, mirkov has no idea how to use his height to his advantage.  He should be running and jumping in ruck contests rather than worrying about his frame.  Matt can't help him with this.  Kreuzer was an excellent ruck but he was undersized and that means he can't teach how to use that size mirkov posesses to advantage.  You would think a volleyball convert would have the vertical leap to really own the aerial component of the ruck battle, and could jump all over an opponent.  Mirkov might learn more from tdk about that than he will from kreuzer.  His strength was not dominating the air but the follow up work after the contest.

I suppose it's possible Mirkov has lost a lot of aerobic capacity, strength and condition from his health issues, so it might take time to regain that.

He looked to have enough to persist with before his health issues, probably deserves another run at it if he wants it.

Mirkov is Robert Warnock revisited......watched him vs the Northern Bullants and he didnt take a mark and the opposition was very suburban and thats being kind. Has no physical presence much like Warnock and even though he usually wins the hitout count its never enough to impact the game and we got slaughtered at the stoppages..
As I said on the other thread its time to end the experiment unless Matt Kreuzer can get some change in gamestyle between now and seasons end.

The ladder is a fairly neat encapsulation of the body of work a team has produced thus far, but not necessarily a fair representation of where a team is in the moment. The Lions play the Demons tomorrow, and despite the ladder saying the Demons are 9th and the Lions 10th, the form line suggests that these teams are miles apart and seemingly headed in different directions. I would not be at all surprised to see Brisbane win by 10 goals.

What were you saying about the difference between these teams?

Like it or not, we were bottom 4 basically this time last year and were playing like it. Hawks and Freo may have even been favourites. I don't know where to find historical odds to check.

What were you saying about the difference between these teams?

Like it or not, we were bottom 4 basically this time last year and were playing like it. Hawks and Freo may have even been favourites. I don't know where to find historical odds to check.

The ladder most definitely lies from from time to time, but not last night. My opinion was pretty much in keeping with the consensus view. Nobody gave Melbourne a chance.

With all due respect lods, your take on last season is tainted by current performances and flat out wrong.

You are saying that you can't look at mid season form and need to look at end of season finishing position. What is the difference? Both are some arbitrary number of games plucked out of a hat. If the season went 5 more rounds for some reason  you'd get a different top 8 and potentially a different premier.
So which is the true indication of actual talent?

Vossy says the ladder doesn't lie.
You are saying it lied then.

All the media speculation about sacking vossy, for months, has been quickly forgotten. We were a rabble. Had it been previous head hinchos in charge we would have another coach currently.

Your dismissal of our team performance (with no rucks) against very much our peers at the time and against a top 3 ruck at the time in Darcy is twisting history to suit your argument.
The fact that we not only on won, but won by 9 goals, in the west, is monumental effort.
The train of thought that we need a backup ruck in case our #1 ruck gets injured is for an emergency scenario that may never exist.....and even when it did, it didn't matter.

Do you think that had we had 2 rucks playing in that game against freo that we would've performed better than a 9 goal win? You're dreaming.

In the Hawks post match, Voss said both De Koning and Pittonet are a chance to be available for this game, but he seemed a little equivocal. One or preferably both will be essential IMO. Jack Silvagni was good this week, but I don't believe that level of output is sustainable. Freo are a little hit and miss, but certainly a step up from the Hawks. I'd expect the betting odds to be pretty close. A very 50/50 game for mine

.....

Yes. The bye is recent enough for him to still be fresh. But Darcy and Jackson are a whole other level, and close to the best ruck combination going around, and if neither De Koning nor Pittonet play, Silvagni will be spent by half time IMO. Darcy in particular will crash and bash with glee.

The ruck discrepancy is significant enough to wonder whether there's anything to be gained by even contesting them. I'd be tempted to contest a small number and for Silvagni and Young to be deployed somewhere more useful. Hopefully our mids have trained wearing purple

I can see the appeal of that type of thinking. Work on the basis that they will end up with the ball first. Make the Freo mids the hunted, lots of close checking and body work, once they have the ball, then try to force the turnover. Easier said than done of course, but so is everything

At the end of the year you've played every side at least once.

They weren't our peers when we played them....we'd gone past them at the rate of knots
The ladder lied.
Matches either side of those two games against GC and Port showed just how much we'd gone past those other two sides...and how our ladder position was no longer relevant in comparison.

Wrong.

See Paul's quote as an actual snapshot in time.

https://www.carltonsc.com/index.php?topic=6480.60
You yourself made no predictions or comments on the relative strengths of the side

People take some time to adjust to the reality of what is happening in a teams performance.
At that point of time we were all probably a bit gun shy.
Was the turnaround sustainable...or just a flash in the pan.
Anyone thinking top 6 was probably considered a supreme optimist.

We had a bottom 4 mentality as supporters....but our team had already gone past that.
We weren't on a par with Hawthorn and Freo any longer.
We were better, much better.
And with one of our ruckman back the following week we didn't just beat the 14th or 16th side by 50 points
We beat the 'second' placed side by 50 points.

OK, so the ladder is wrong.
Which makes Vossy wrong.
I am wrong.
PaulP was wrong.
The bookies were wrong.

You were right.

Yeah, nah.

At that point in time, everyone was right......and you didn't voice an opinion.

I wasn't right...I was careful.
As you say I probably didn't voice an opinion.
I'll tell you who probably did think the ladder didn't reflect our true ability...the players ;)  :D  ;)  :D

Poor example.
Name me 2 teams that the players think there ladder position reflects their true ability.
Sydney is one....
Everyone else thinks they are better than their ladder position reflects.

Even IF we take your side of the debate, what we did with no rucks would not have been expected by you, or anyone else in the AFL....certainly nowhere near the margin it is.

Did we know Geelong were not going to play any rucks?
Did we practice for that eventuality?
Why didn't they catch us by suprise?

Simple. We are not Geelong. Geelong are not us.

I've argued what is best for OUR team. Not what is best for Geelong, or Freo and Port Melbourne....

You say i'm looking for long term.
Lods says i'm looking at the now.

I'm looking at both.

Its always been about our team balance. Who we have available and how they are performing......and how we are performing as a team and if we are fighting for a flag.

I'm always talking about drafting for the future.
I'm always talking about picking a team based on how players are currently playing....and nobody is safe.

Before Pittonet got injured, he was in career best form.
TDK is currently in career best form.

Despite this, we simply do not need them both in the team.

The team is working with Harry, Charlie and Kenendy playing backup ruck for 20% of the time, which translates to about 25 ruck contests, which translates to about 5 centre bounces......which is something that is VERY manageable and gives us an element of surprise as well.

Honestly, the focus that people are putting into this 2nd ruck position far outweighs the benefits to the team.

IMO, we should spend more time focussing on our forward setup, specifically small forwards/half forwards.....and the long term goals in this regard.

Owies/Durdin/Fantasia/Motlop/Williams/Moir
and
Cottrell/Martin/Fogarty/Cuningham/Cincotta/Kennedy

There is way too many unknowns from that group. Way too many variables there. Way too many questions need to be answered there.

I think you confuse short term and long term, it's why you keep arguing for long term change based on short term statistics.

Short term changes, forced or planned, come with a benefit, they aren't predicted or prepared for by opposition. Like playing a bunch of kids or when a caretaker coach is put in place. They can bring some success but that is not certain, they can also fail dismally. A great example of success is the 1970 Grand Final and the birth of modern football, unplanned and an unequivocal success back then, ground-breaking, but now a predictable and planned for tactic that wouldn't even rate a special comment.

But those short term results are quite different from the long term, when opponents have the time to study and prepare. Some tactics built around no rucks or placeholder rucks might work here or there occasionally, but they are unlikely to succeed once opponents have opportunity to plan and leverage the inherent weakness that such a setup brings.

Actually, the most recent Geelong game is another great example of that, how much easier it would have been for SDK and Blicavs if we only had SoJ or Young as ruck, or if TDK had gone down early leaving BigH, Cripps or Kennedy as our Ruck. It's no longer shock and awe, they've seen it before!

Not to mention how strong your mids are.  I'd like to see how pittonet and tdk would fare without cripps, Kennedy and Walsh on.  Oh hang on, we same both of thems truggle vs Sydney and it wasn't because there was two rucks, it was because the Sydney midfield smashed us.

Nice work getting the thread back on topic LP 🙂

I’ve taken a low level interest in this discussion. I’m not really invested in one solution. I’m happy for the MC to make a call based on their superior knowledge of all things football. If that means 0,1,2 or 10 rucks, I’ll back them in.

I wonder if Voss and co may be looking at Fremantle’s ruck setup. Darcy is the anchor, like a better version of Pittonet, and Jackson is the mobile, athletic one, like Tom De Koning. I’m safely assuming (hoping) the MC will leave nothing to chance and will continue to thoroughly explore all options, even if that means a variable, horses for courses approach, based on the best solution for the opposition.

I wonder if Voss and co may be looking at Fremantle’s ruck setup. Darcy is the anchor, like a better version of Pittonet, and Jackson is the mobile, athletic one, like Tom De Koning. I’m safely assuming (hoping) the MC will leave nothing to chance and will continue to thoroughly explore all options, even if that means a variable, horses for courses approach, based on the best solution for the opposition.

14.14 to 15.9.  On paper freo won, but in practice did they win easily?  I haven't seen any of it, so I don't know, the stats can lie.

Not to mention how strong your mids are.  I'd like to see how pittonet and tdk would fare without cripps, Kennedy and Walsh on.  Oh hang on, we same both of thems truggle vs Sydney and it wasn't because there was two rucks, it was because the Sydney midfield smashed us.

But does that not filter down if we use a backup ruck as well? If our mids are doing all the work??

I wonder if Voss and co may be looking at Fremantle’s ruck setup. Darcy is the anchor, like a better version of Pittonet, and Jackson is the mobile, athletic one, like Tom De Koning. I’m safely assuming (hoping) the MC will leave  nothing to chance and will continue to thoroughly explore all options, even if that means a variable, horses for courses approach, based on the best solution for the opposition.

our lack of leg speed is a bigger issue than the ruck combo is a big point, but my next question is interesting. 

If we play a shock value ruck for longer how well does that work?  Like you've stated it comes back to the mean right?  My recollection of playing jack in the ruck was the more it happened the worse it looked over time. 

That's not to say don't do it, but as we play two rucks how would that look over time?  Better worse same?  Depends on the bigger picture.  Players available, not.  Etc.  Harry wasn't kicking as well last year as he does this year.  Would that change the debate entirely just by him improving? 

Perhaps.

The issues of run and carry having one or two rucks are vastly overstated by opponents of the two rucks, it's really not an issue.

When you run two rucks there are three main scenarios;
A:- One Ruck on the Ground, One on the Bench
B:- Two Rucks on the Ground
C:- Both Rucks on the Bench

A is the most common, but it's not 100% of the time. B happens more than people realise and C rarely happens but it does happen.

Time on the bench isn't necessarily causing a lack of run, a significant portion of the reported bench time happens when players take set shots for goal, most using the full 30s plus some, then there is the obligatory Ad after every goal not just set shots. It a flaw of stats that bench time isn't just measured against Time On, a rather uncomfortably large chuck of time is standing or sitting there waiting for the red light to flash!

The time a ruck occupies can obviously vary, but it's an interval largely distributed across the rest of the team. I heard one of our players(McGovern or Hewett if I recall correctly) described playing the second ruck reduced bench time for the rest of players by about 60-90s per player for the entire game. That is because it's a distribution, whether it's proportional to run or distributed evenly is really an MC issue.

Of course opponents of playing the two rucks like to make it sound bad, they like to talk totals, he spent 18 minutes on the bench, he spent 22 minutes on the bench, but of course that 18 or 22 minutes is distributed across 21 team-mates. If we use bench time averages and report it as our players spent 65s or 83s less on the bench across the whole game, it barely registers as a concern.

If that really made no difference you wouldn’t see the guns on the pine.

If that really made no difference you wouldn’t see the guns on the pine.

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

I think that you can safely assume that our MC aren't wedded to a single approach and will play Tom, Pitto or both of them as appropriate.  One thing I think that we can be sure of is that, unlike Melbourne, they won't throw their hands in the air and give up on two rucks.

Pittonet not playing in the twos, wonder if there might be a late change today.

Thought we handled the ruck situation pretty well yesterday, and if we are mostly going with one ruck it may be the blueprint for going forward.
Now assuming we take Voss at his word, DeKoning had some 'general soreness'.
So by giving him a break we were also able to get some senior game time into Pittonet as he comes back from injury.
Win-win.

Now if DeKoning was generally sore that also indicates that his workload will need to be managed so that one or both of them are ready to go come finals.
One of the key concerns with just one ruck is the toll it would take over a season for a solo ruckman.

Playing it the way we did yesterday means that some weeks we play only one ruck, others we alternate the rucks depending on the opposition, and some weeks maybe both play.
We are pretty lucky, and probably one of the few teams who have two ruckmen able to handle the solo role, if need be.

Now if DeKoning was generally sore that also indicates that his workload will need to be managed so that one or both of them are ready to go come finals.
One of the key concerns with just one ruck is the toll it would take over a season for a solo ruckman.

The nerd discussing stats won't ever understand this, and much of the media coverage is a stats nerd sitting in front of a PC waiting for their preferred / predicted numbers to appear, or at least waiting for something to appear that supports their preferred scenario, no matter how selective the data turns out to be if a supporting case it will be found and broadcast to all who wish to follow.

But the solo ruck problem exists in the real world not on a spreadsheet, and it's never about one game or one quarter, it's about a season long strategy.

Thought i'd come back to this after seeing the ins/outs for this week.

Hewett has been ommitted (as has Pittonet) for this week. In is Cottrell (and TDK).

Now the reason i bring this up is someone of Hewetts talent can't get a game right now because of how good our team is going.
Imagine we played a 2nd ruck.
I don't think Hewett has missed a game this year, and i don't think anyone would say he's done anything wrong, or is terribly out of form.  Excluding his 2 games where he started as sub, he has averaged 25 touches this year and 5.2 tackles.

So the question is, who else would you drop in order to play that 2nd ruck this week?
.....and how could you justify that?

The benifit provided by that 2nd ruck surely doesn't even come close to the output of someone like Hewett (or better) who would also need to make way.

That's easy; Ollie Hollands.

A second ruck in reasonable form, like Pitto, would provide greater output than Ollie has over recent weeks.  Cottrell covers Ollie's role and De Koning going forward means we don't miss Cottrell as a high half forward.

The two ruck combination worked well last time we played GWS.
I'd have no problems if we used it again this week.
We've been playing ducks and drakes with our line ups after initial selection (TDK last week) so it may  pay to see how we actually line up.
We've also been managing our players game time and it may be  the Hewett move is part of that strategy.
Will Kennedy  play...I suspect he won't.
I suspect he shouldn't
... and in comes Hewett.

Don't site on the fence. Who comes out?

Potentially the nerd talking about stats has covered this before and talked about a rotation policy as well. Which, when you think about it, actually provides us with fresher rucks than if we played 2 every week.

I'm invested in us winning.

So you want to play our least mobile player in place of one of our best runners and think that's a good idea?
In form or not, hollands running power benefits the team and losing that has a follow on effect.

Hollands is covered by the inclusion of Cottrell so we’ve actually got more running power.

The inclusion of a second ruck would effectively be at the expense of Hewett and we have ample midfield cover, particularly with De Koning playing forward in bursts.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/carlton-blues/afl-2024-carlton-blues-loss-to-gws-giants-reactions-response-mark-robinson-says-carlton-has-achieved-nothing-analysis-latest-news/news-story/60c03d8bdc3d6062b0edf75461db90f4

David King advocating for playing both De Koning and Pittonet, at least in the lead up to finals.

Dual premiership Kangaroo David King meanwhile believes the Blues need to bring Marc Pittonet back into the team to support Tom De Koning in the ruck.

King suggested Voss needed to at least get another look at the dual-ruck setup in the remaining seven home and away rounds to ensure he has his optimal mix for September.

“Pittonet is in this team for me because the ruck rule has changed ... do you go with two ruckmen or one?,” he said on The First Crack.

“They need Pittonet in there. Because if De Koning can’t get it done at clearance in terms of tapwork, they’re a different team.

“You’ve got (seven) weeks to have a look.”

Hollands is covered by the inclusion of Cottrell so we’ve actually got more running power.

The inclusion of a second ruck would effectively be at the expense of Hewett and we have ample midfield cover, particularly with De Koning playing forward in bursts.

It's interesting discussion, I know that the media continue to cherrypick events to either support or oppose a perspective.

For example in much of the recent rock throwing there is almost zero discussion of the injuries to TDK and Weitering. They will roll out the usual, "They went back on so they are fit", but it's hardly reality. The media want to paint the failure as "The Team", while most fans would assert the failure was probably an imbalance starting at MC, leaving the squad on the day without any cover, partial or total, for events around unexpected injuries.

For me the solo ruck might deliver the best chance of being competitive in expected circumstances "on the day", but the "on the day" part is massively dependant "on the circumstance", and as we have just seen it wasn't valid for "any or every circumstance".

Many in the AFL will assert you need "a bit of luck", and last weekend we had very little, but I think an astute MC is and must be task at minimising the contribution of luck. Still we nearly got across the line, with an unexpected reserve of last quarter run, but is that valid for GF Day?

I think it's pretty obvious, there will be days when we run one ruck, and other days when we run two rucks, and it depends as much on the opponent as it does on our own process. TDK was a good match up for Briggs when TDK is 100% fit, but the moment TDK was injured and the contest became a wrestle, Pitto would have been the much better choice but he wasn't there. The same could be applied to the ruck in the absence of injury, if GWS change ruck/stoppage tactics.

It's somewhat naivé of fans to think opponents will simply allow TDK to continue jumping over them or running off them without reacting.

"If you take the field you're fit" is one of those ridiculous football cliches.

It's the same as "We're taking it one week at a time" or "Injuries are no excuse."
If a club is taking it one game at a time their 'forward planning' is pretty "crap.
And injuries can cripple a sides season...we know that better than most.

I reckon we probably had half a dozen players on the weekend who were injured to some extent before they took the field and that hampered their performances. We don't know of course but we had three players roll ankles the week before and there is some talk Charlie rolled his pre-game.

Were GWS that good/ were we that bad.
Bit of both...but at different stages of the game.

GWS were awful in the first term.
They were excellent in the second and third, but struggled in the last.

Their 'dominant' period was just a little better than ours, lasted a little longer, and our worst was much worse than theirs.
And those momentum changes probably related to a fair extent to our injuries.

I wouldn't be getting over excited if I was a Giants fan.
I have a feeling they'll come back to earth pretty quickly.

On the rucks...
One of my main issues with the debate is the way we sometimes talk in "absolutes"...sometimes on both sides of the debate.

"We lose balance"
"We lose run"
"We lose clearances"
"If a solo ruck goes down we have nothing left"

The truth is we don't.
We don't lose these things.
They're not lost.
Not completely.
They change, sometimes dramatically and sometimes very subtly.

A player replacing a ruckman who goes down in the first ten minutes may not have the same influence, indeed it may be considerably less, but it doesn't disappear completely.
Not playing an extra runner doesn't mean you have no run at all.

With an advantage gained in one area, there is always a sacrifice in other areas.
The other thing is that things like balance and run are very hard to measure because there are numerous factors that can affect those things...including injury, loss of form, a poor game, weather
You can pick a side on paper...but the expectations won't always much the onfield performance.

Close your mind to options and you close your mind to opportunities to explore different structure and tactics.
You become one dimensional in that aspect of the game...and that makes you predictable.

We actually decreased our advantage in that regard to try strengthen a weakness when we have no hope of beating them with speed.  So smash them inside so they can't use the outside is that tactic to employ against these sides.  Could be argued we tried this vs Sydney and lost badly...

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/carlton-blues/afl-2024-carlton-blues-loss-to-gws-giants-reactions-response-mark-robinson-says-carlton-has-achieved-nothing-analysis-latest-news/news-story/60c03d8bdc3d6062b0edf75461db90f4

David King advocating for playing both De Koning and Pittonet, at least in the lead up to finals.

Dual premiership Kangaroo David King meanwhile believes the Blues need to bring Marc Pittonet back into the team to support Tom De Koning in the ruck.

King suggested Voss needed to at least get another look at the dual-ruck setup in the remaining seven home and away rounds to ensure he has his optimal mix for September.

“Pittonet is in this team for me because the ruck rule has changed ... do you go with two ruckmen or one?,” he said on The First Crack.

“They need Pittonet in there. Because if De Koning can’t get it done at clearance in terms of tapwork, they’re a different team.

“You’ve got (seven) weeks to have a look.”

“Little reality check for them, might have just got ahead of themselves,” Saints legend Leigh Montagna said on Fox Footy’s The First Crack.

“I’m not too concerned, I think their game is in great shape.

“Maybe just a good little reminder, if you take the foot off the gas ever so slightly, anyone can trounce you.”

TDK did not better or no worse than the majority of his games in the ruck this year.

The only reason its an issue this week is because we lost.
Where was this message from David King the last 5 weeks?

FWIW, we've played 4th, 5th, 6th, 12th and 18th over the past 5 weeks, won them all by at least 4 goals and have an average winning margin of over 7 goals in that time.

So, first of all, lets forget about all this sky is falling stuff Kingy.
Yes, ruck had some issues......but so did almost everyone. It was a bad game for most. Luck was not in our favour. Why change everything on whim?

Thankfully not everyone is as alarmist as King is. Lets look at Leigh Montagnas take in the same article....
I like this approach a lot better.

I think a lot of fans viewed GWS at home as a danger game much like the Swans are hard yakka at the SCG and its unlikely we would beat either if both were having reasonable seasons.
GWS match up well and have players who can counter our best so the result was no real surprise and no need to panic and drop half the team.
The ruck debate is an easy one for me...horses for courses, Briggs and Riccardi only required one specialist ruck and some relief workers in McKay and Kennedy. TDK was ok around the ground but Briggs had a day out and that can happen vs any team and I wouldnt be rushing Pittonet back in unless TDK is carrying an injury or too sore to play 100 mins.

Nathan Buckley made some good points this week about the ruck. Showed that the sides that have had the most hit outs have only won 49% of games.

Any stat presented in isolation is not worthless but it often has less worth, tackles stats are the prime example.

Tackles can be up because you team is second to the footy, or it can be a deliberate tactic like the Dogs against us last weekend that produces the same number.

Hitout stats are THE prime example.
They do not take into account in any fashion if they help or hurt the team. But they are included in any basic stat sheet and have done so for decades.

Tackle stats do not tell a complete story, but it is still a benefit to your team if you get a tackle (overall).

One of the first questions I ask myself when Pitto takes the number one mantle, is who misses out and what happens to TDK? A difficult predicament.

Much is the same for HtA, Pitto had almost his best game for the season, almost +50% on his season average.

But HtA doesn't mean much if the Dogs are deliberately surrendering the front position, and most of us have been making that point for a long long time.

Virtually all stats presented in isolation are diminished in value, presenting stats in isolation it's often just cherrypicking facts to suit a debate, in other words a deliberately introduced selection bias in the analysis, or a confirmation bias after the events.

Cats used to give up the clearance, and get the ball back on the rebound. Those clearance numbers against them might have been inflated, sure, but they were accurate.

Its like keeping a stat on knocking the ball forward/out of a pack. Could go to you, could go to the opposition. What does that stat tell us? Nothing.
If you had a stat of knocking the ball forward/out of a pack to your teams advantage, then it at least gives you some idea of cohesion amongst your midfielders in a pack.

Sure is a fascinating subject, this!

Seems to me that the 'modern era' ruckman, at best, is also a tall midfielder. Grundy and Gawn are good examples. How much better do the Fluffy Ducks look with possibly the recruit of the year, Grundy? It's almost as if hit outs and hit outs to advantage are no longer the primary function, the first being contest. Then getting in and amongst the mids to provide another option is the next important facet to their game.

Grundy and Gawn both are active around the ground, in the air and on the grass. I see TDK being more like those two than Pitto. One of the first questions I ask myself when Pitto takes the number one mantle, is who misses out and what happens to TDK? A difficult predicament.

Sure is a fascinating subject, this!

Seems to me that the 'modern era' ruckman, at best, is also a tall midfielder. Grundy and Gawn are good examples. How much better do the Fluffy Ducks look with possibly the recruit of the year, Grundy? It's almost as if hit outs and hit outs to advantage are no longer the primary function, the first being contest. Then getting in and amongst the mids to provide another option is the next important facet to their game.

Grundy and Gawn both are active around the ground, in the air and on the grass. I see TDK being more like those two than Pitto. One of the first questions I ask myself when Pitto takes the number one mantle, is who misses out and what happens to TDK? A difficult predicament.

We won clearances last weekend and lost the game, yet another stat that in isolation tells us nothing, just like HtA, just like HO, 1%ers, et. al., (insert stat name here).

Again, the problem is visible here in the definition, because you can't determine what was deliberately knock on to advantage and a otherwise lucky fumble. A player might be credited with many knock ons to advantage, that result in no scores, but another player who picks up the foot cleanly and hits a target never gets credit for a knock on while creating many score assists.

It reminds be of the NRL knock on, possibly random due to the nature of an oval football or a clear assessment of clean ball handling? In isolation it means nothing.

I can't recall everything that Buckley said but he mentioned Gawn and that it's aerial work that makes him so good not his tap work. He said opposition players train to shark the ball off of opposing rucks.

I tend to agree Baggers. If we had 2 Tom De Konings, would this discussion be occurring? Perhaps the issue is a slow, more lumbering type ruckman as you suggest, rather than 2 ruckmen per se ? It's hard to know from the outside. I'd like to see Pittonet played as a ruck plus marking target around the ground and De Koning as a big bodied mid plus extra forward target, just to see how it goes. Against North would be as good a time as any IMO.

The problem with that scenario is Pitto’s inability to take marks.  If he was a marking ruckman, we wouldn’t be having this debate and Pitto and Tom would be dominating opposition rucks.

The problem with that scenario is Pitto’s inability to take marks.  If he was a marking ruckman, we wouldn’t be having this debate and Pitto and Tom would be dominating opposition rucks.

The problem with that scenario is Pitto’s inability to take marks.  If he was a marking ruckman, we wouldn’t be having this debate and Pitto and Tom would be dominating opposition rucks.

...The ideal of course would be for the two of them to develop into a winning combination, but at this moment that still looks like a work in progress.

Tom has the follow up ability to virtually be another midfielder at the contest.

Inability is a bit harsh.

Keeping in mind TDK has played games as a key forward and been targetted a lot more than Pitto as a result. Other 'sole ruck types'

Average marks 2024
Pitto - 1.38
TDK - 3.44

Contested marks average 2024
Pitto - 0.63
TDK - 0.88

As a comparison some other rucks averages 2024...
Player - avg Ms - avg CMs)
Darcy - 1.33 -  0.33
Grundy - 2.41 - 0.59
Gawn - 5.25 - 1.81
Witts - 2.18 - 0.55
Nankervis - 3.06 - 0.94
Goldstein - 1.92 - 0.46

A good example of how averages can be misleading. The median (midpoint of the data set) and mode (most frequent result) are more informative:

Median: Pitto = 1.5, Tom = 4

Mode: Pitto = 2, Tom = 5

The raw data is:

 Pitto: 0 marks per game X 2, 1 mark X 2, 2 marks X 3 and 3 marks X 1

Tom: 0 marks per game X 0, 1 mark per game X 3, 2 marks X 3, 3 marks X 1, 4 marks X 3, 5 marks X 5 and 6 marks X 1

When we have played Pitto and Tom, the latter has played limited minutes as a key forward and he isn't targeted anywhere near as often as Charlie, Harry and Owies.  Tom also rarely gets involved in transferring play and doesn't rack up meaningless uncontested marks.

Ideally you'd run the pair of them on and off the interchange... but that aint practical. Another conundrum.

When we play both TOMs minutes has suffered?
Go back and check your data on that one.
If you want to go head to head, its hard for the reasons we've both outlined.
So thats why i included some other of the best 'solo' rucks for comparison.
For someone with an inability to take a mark, he stacks up pretty well with some of the best.
I suggest if you normalise that out, you'll find that he is even better than those averages suggest.

All i'm saying is you are selling Pittonet short.

Tom's time on the ground doesn't fluctuate that much, regardless of whether he's rucking solo or in tandem with Pitto, and it generally hovers between 78-80%.  His lowest was 68% against the Swans when Pitto had 78%.  He had 80% TOG against the Giants in round 6 and Pitto had 68%.  Pitto's time on the ground is less and fluctuates quite a bit; 50-78%.

It's not so much time on the ground that matters when playing two ruckmen, it's the impact they have when "resting".  When Tom is is playing as a tall forward, he gets up the ground like Harry does, impacts contests and takes some ruck contests, leaving Pitto behind the ball.  When Pitto is "resting", he's more likely to be on the pine because he isn't able to impact contests to the same extent as Tom.

The crux of the two rucks scenario is having two ruckmen who are complementary and can have an impact when not rucking.  We've had a couple of games this season where our two rucks worked very well and a couple where one or the other didn't do much.  Melbourne couldn't get it to work when they had arguably the two best ruckmen in the competition in their 22 but they weren't all that complementary.  Our two are very much a work in progress and it's getting more impact from Pitto when he's not in ruck contests that needs more work.

That's not how it works now, that claim is used by the anti-ruck duo brigade to cast doubt.

The reality is TDK is generally in a complex rotation with Charlie and Harry, but it's no more complex than the D50 or Midfield rotations. Pitto shares bench time mostly from Harry, Charlie, TDK bench time. Technically it won't matter who we have as the 3rd tall in that rotation, the impact on the bench is the same, whether it's a ruck or another KPP like SoJ, Young or Durdin. What changes from the choice of who is in the squad is how they can be used on the field and who they can substitute for in a crisis!

It quite foolish to think you can have an "All In" approach and leave one significant segment of the zones without a viable back plan. For me it's not viable for Harry to be our ruck backup plan, in fact it's disastrous to withdraw Harry from F50 if our solo ruck goes down, the flow on impact to Charlie and the F50 as well as the diminished ruck / midfield presence is almost impossible to overcome against a well organised opponent. Our F50 strength is the Twin Towers, when we go solo ruck, even without unexpected injuries, we actively degrade one of our key strengths.

Then you have the absurdity of the claim that when we solo ruck a Mid like Cripps get extra bench time, it's both worthless and meaningless claim. In reality when we solo ruck it's Cripps who ends up doing some of the part-time ruck role, if anything his load goes up when we solo ruck, he's not fresher at all!

I used to be pro 2 rucks but have changed camps.

I would play TDK alone unless one of Charlie or Harry are missing.

The camp seems to be getting bigger.

That's not how it works now, that claim is used by the anti-ruck duo brigade to cast doubt.

The reality is TDK is generally in a complex rotation with Charlie and Harry, but it's no more complex than the D50 or Midfield rotations. Pitto shares bench time mostly from Harry, Charlie, TDK bench time. Technically it won't matter who we have as the 3rd tall in that rotation, the impact on the bench is the same, whether it's a ruck or another KPP like SoJ, Young or Durdin. What changes from the choice of who is in the squad is how they can be used on the field and who they can substitute for in a crisis!

It quite foolish to think you can have an "All In" approach and leave one significant segment of the zones without a viable back plan. For me it's not viable for Harry to be our ruck backup plan, in fact it's disastrous to withdraw Harry from F50 if our solo ruck goes down, the flow on impact to Charlie and the F50 as well as the diminished ruck / midfield presence is almost impossible to overcome against a well organised opponent. Our F50 strength is the Twin Towers, when we go solo ruck, even without unexpected injuries, we actively degrade one of our key strengths.

Then you have the absurdity of the claim that when we solo ruck a Mid like Cripps get extra bench time, it's both worthless and meaningless claim. In reality when we solo ruck it's Cripps who ends up doing some of the part-time ruck role, if anything his load goes up when we solo ruck, he's not fresher at all!

Are you arguing with me or trying to summarise everything i've been saying over the years?

I've done analysis on TOG% for both before.

Short version equates to basically this.
In a game where you have 2 genuine rucks, a ruck is taking up a spot on the bench for a full quarter MORE than if you have 1 ruck.
So that means there is 1/4 worth of time LESS rotation for others to share. (30 minutes more time others play apread across them).

When you go one step further and realise that an extra small would take place of the ruck on top of that (in the 1 ruck model) you basically get a whole extra player/rotation to add to that, so basically 75% game time from the extra mid.

So you have an extra mid for the whole game more rotation wise
vs
A genuine ruck over a backup ruck for 25% of the game and largely hiding them for the other 75% or hoping they can fit in.

....and people also try and debate how pointless the ruck stats are.....but still want the 2nd ruck over an additional mid.

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

There’s no hard and fast rules about one or two rucks.  It depends on the opposition, whether the rucks can do more than take part in ruck contests, game plans, and the other players in the 22.........................................

I’m not arguing, just providing some data … but you’re wrong about two rucks meaning more time on the pine.  Tom and Pitto’s TOG shows that. 

There’s no hard and fast rules about one or two rucks.  It depends on the opposition, whether the rucks can do more than take part in ruck contests, game plans, and the other players in the 22.

I would definitely play Tom and Pitto against Xerri and Teakle.

Not just rucks, but any selection decision for game day has to be horses for courses. Whatever resources are at the club's disposal have to be marshaled as and when required. Anything else is formulaic, dogmatic thinking.

Tom and Pittos TOG shows exactly that.

I've shown my workings on this previously but simplisticly....

75% TOG when 1 ruck. - 25% game time on bench
75% and 75% TOG when 2 rucks. - 25% + 25% game time on bench = 50%
Thats an extra 25% of the game that a ruck is on the bench, or a full quarter EXTRA a ruck holds up a bench spot.

Reality is actually more the other way, with 1 ruck going at 80% and 2 rucks 75+70%.....depending on which years you want to use for your data.

Not just rucks, but any selection decision for game day has to be horses for courses. Whatever resources are at the club's disposal have to be marshaled as and when required. Anything else is formulaic, dogmatic thinking.

This article is from 3 months ago. Hoyne looks at the ruck question through the lens of turnover v contest.

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2024/04/16/how-carltons-turnover-game-directly-links-to-their-ruck-selection-calls/

“I want to more talk about the structure of the team on the weekend and moving forward.

“It surprised me to see Marc Pittonet back in the team and playing the two rucks together.

“If you look at every team heading into the year, there was an area of improvement for every team in 2024 and clearly that was the turnover game for Carlton.

“That needed to get better for them to compete – and across the first four weeks of the year, they’re the best turnover team in the competition. It’s been fantastic and through forward-half pressure.

“Then Pittonet comes back into the team and for the first time for the year they lose the turnover game, but their stoppage game comes back – and they dominate stoppage and score 14 times, but they lose the most important aspect of the game.

“So, over the last couple of years, when it’s just been De Koning, Carlton has won the turnover game 60 per cent of the time. They win it by seven points per game. That profile is going to take you a long way.

“When they play both rucks, they’ve won the turnover game 6 of 14 times and that’s not going to take you to a finals campaign.

“When it’s just Pittonet alone, they’ve won 1 of 5 in the turnover game.

“The previous three weeks they were +98 in the turnover game. They lose it for the first time.

What the figures show is that TOG is largely independent of whether we play one or two rucks.

For example, round 20 of 2023 against the Pies, Tom was 85% and Pitto was 76%.  In the elimination final against the Swans, Tom was 71% and Pitto was 61%.  In round 18, Tom, as the sole ruckman, was 78%.  In round 9, as sole ruckman, Pitto was 78%.

This season, in round 1, Tom was 77% as sole ruckman.  In round 16, Pitto was 75% as sole ruckman.  In round 9, it was close to your figures with Tom on 74% and Pitto on 73%.  Excluding Cerra and Hewett, we had seven other players whose TOG ranged from 72 to 79%.  Mitch McGovern and Matt Kennedy combined to spend the equivalent of half a game for one player on the bench. 

In round 20 of 2023, excluding Cerra and Dow, we had nine players spend more or roughly the same time on the pine than our ruck duo.  That must be unsustainable ... or is having players on the bench for a quarter of the game only a problem when they're ruckmen.

Time spent on the bench is insignificant provided time on the ground is productive.  For example, in the round 20 game against Collingwood, Martin and Motlop were on the bench for a little under and a little over a quarter respectively but they combined for 5 goals and 4 tackles.  Tom and Pitto didn't have great games but they were competitive.  Cameron and Cox would have had a picnic if we had gone in with one ruck.

The problem with that analysis, like most of Hoyne's work, is that he focuses on one variable, in this case having Pitto in the team.  There's no consideration of the opposition strengths and weaknesses, what other changes were made to the line up, coach's instructions, conditions, the result, or other factors.  Is there a causal relationship between winning the turnover game and having Pitto in the team? Possibly, but it's certainly not the only factor at play.

On Hoyne and Negrepontis, the statistical analysis is thin because it gives no considerations to the strengths and weakness of opponents, if and how our tactics may have changed, and how the opposition was impacted by our tactics. It's always going to be like that because the issue is too complex for it to be framed in numbers.

Team sports are like the travelling salesmen problem on steroids. As we know, a hypothesis only becomes a theory when it predicts outcomes better than chance, but you won't find that to be the case with the stats. If the stats had any value at all they would be used to predict game outcomes in advance, but they never do, they always discuss outcomes retrospectively.

Of course the stats can't predict an outcome, because much of the stats collected are the result of chance events, a coin toss moment, true randomness, even the oval footy contributes.

If you could be bothered to go back through this thread, you'll find the same set of statistics framed in different ways in response to varied questions. The problem is the response and the conclusions that are drawn not the numbers, that is how humans have interpreted the numbers, applying meaning to the figures, but interpretations and meaning can be logically inconsistent. btw., In another framework we've discussed this about the collection of stats, in they way the AFL or CD define an type of action and who decides an event qualifies.

For me there was a huge tell earlier this season, long before this debate escalated, it was the conclusions that some drew from the win over Melbourne dismissing the tactics as somehow lucky. In that game the two rucks and tactics didn't deliver a great positive result in the ruck, in fact Gawn was among Melbourne's best and probably with Petracca the games two most influential players, the only time in that game that we faltered was when Pitto spent time off late getting further attention, TDK was forced into the ruck and Lever was set free to intercept. But for the bulk of the game our MC and coaching tactics delivered two clear wins, despite Gawn's influence he never really dominated, in fact he became frustrated and lost focus at times, we kept him heavily occupied with less respite, thank-you Pitto. Lever was basically ineffective also kept occupied, if he wasn't standing Charlie he was stuck on TDK, sure TDK spent less time in the ruck but the ruck wasn't how he was being used. It was the first real time this season we showed we had a Plan B against a team that has disposed of us repeatedly.

MC and tactics, have always been, and will always be, horses for courses.

Yep.
We talk a bit about variables in this debate. Things like ‘luck’ are a variable, and probably more than any other football code, because of the oval shape of the ball, luck plays a big part. If a hit-out doesn’t go directly to a player and hits the ground luck comes into play. The bounce can determine which side has the advantage.

But luck is just one of many variables that determine the result of matches.
If a club has built a list that is looming as a premiership contender (which I think everyone agrees…is ‘us’) then there are a couple of other factors that will determine the success of any campaign. Amongst the most important are ‘stability’ and ‘flexibility’

Stability-that depends on maintaining a healthy list. It can be affected by injury and also loss of form. That’s where the old chestnut ‘luck’ comes into play again.

Flexibility-that’s the importance of a list that contains a group of players that can fill specific roles but also some who can perform multiple roles. It’s the ability to experiment with combinations and tactics so that come finals time you are ready to go with a healthy list and a healthy set of strategies.

But flexibility also has a role in ‘thinking’.
This debate can probably be divided into two camps.

I don’t think there is anyone on here who would argue that two rucks is always the best option.

So, the difference of opinion is between some who think that one ruck is ‘always’ the best option (in fact the only option)  and those who think there are times when one option will work and others when two options should be explored.

That’s a difference in ‘fixed’ and ‘flexible’ thinking.

The only sure thing is we need to sort it out before September.

hmm.  Interesting.   Rhetorical question, the debate of rucks is quite irrelevant, but what people areactually arguing is what is our most complimentary mix of players. 

Is that because they see our best lineup and road to flag that way? Possibly.

Realistically it's more about what mix produces our best footy but that's part of the problem.  If we play one ruck for 2 years and have minimal issues with injury across that time it might be that they'll change their tune if it gets exposed a certain way.

As anything the longer you do something the more data you get.  This is the reason why I disliked jsos as second ruck.  To me it wasn't a viable long term plan and lived in Shaun grigg as second ruck territory where the Tigers ditched it after one season.

The people against the '1 ruck' team lineup do so because they are worried about injuries, specifically an injury to that ruck.
This is where luck comes into it.

Last week Melbourne won easy with no rucks. Comes down to your ones on the ground, not those contesting the tap.

I'm not having this debate with you.
I've ran the figures and that was the outcome.

You can cherry pick a couple games and show whatever you like. Do it over seasons (and eliminate games where someone was injured and/or subbed out) and there is a clear pattern

Its on this site somewhere if you care to look.

Its only a small part of the debate anyway. Their ineffectiveness around the ground, compared to a mid alternative, and the TOG shows how much time on bench they are hogging AND how much of the game we are trying to hide them away somewhere else as well.

The people against the '1 ruck' team lineup do so because they are worried about injuries, specifically an injury to that ruck.

The people against the '1 ruck' team lineup do so because they are worried about injuries, specifically an injury to that ruck.
This is where luck comes into it.
Its also where common sense seems to escape.
The ruck is a specialist position and in that position is no more or less susceptable to an injury on any given day. If injuries happen to all positions equally. The chance of an injury have to a 'non-ruck' is 21x more likely than it happening to a ruck from your best 22 players. So why get so fixated no covering for that 1 in 22 chance of injury?
Yes, its luck who gets injured.
Yes, you can plan for a ruck getting injured.
Will that planning ultimately win you the game that the ruck does get injured? Potentially.
Will that planning cost you a win in another game by not having a suitable 'small' replacement instead? More likely.
So play the %'s IMO.


EDIT: re tigers....their ruck setup is different to our ruck setup. The players they have available and their individual strengths/weaknesses are different to ours.
I've always maintained that my stance is based on OUR team, not anybody elses.
If i did the same analysis on a different team, i might prefer 2 rucks in the side. Its all about team balance.

see, I think you've misinterpreted what I was getting at. 

The debate is a distraction. 

The real question is, which of our sides gets the job done on grand final day.

You're misleading the debate and verballing other forums members;

If we list the issues that have been discussed at length in this thread and others;
 - Injury to a solo ruck issue is one.
 - Offering KPP backup / flexibility.
 - Surrendering momentum to strong opposition rucks.
 - Season long viability. (That one is mental and physical)
 - Overloading already heavily loaded players like Cripps or Harry. (Risk of injury and freshness.)
 - Wasting valuable premium AFL resources (Like wedging a Coleman or Brownlow Medallist into a B-Grade ruck role.)
 - Flexible team tactics.

That's one consideration but not necessarily a compelling one.

It's more about fielding a team that is best equipped to beat the opposition.  That team could have one ruckman and a competent part timer (not Matt Kennedy) or two genuine ruckmen, at least one of whom should have more than one string to their bow.

You can't really put value on a big man that has presence. Putting on blocks, getting opposition mids out the way, just generally throwing their weight around. That would be a real asset to any team and Pittonet and De Koning would add to our team if they developed in this space. Hit outs are nice numerically, but not the main attraction IMO.

Well thats the million dollar question.

If you could tell me what our luck is like on grand final day with injuries, and injuries to the opposition, i'd be better positioned to answer that.

Of course.....you have to win enough games to make finals, and perform well enough in the finals to MAKE the grand final.
We went too tall against the Lions last year, got ran over and fell 1 game short.

We didn't lose to the Lions because of the height.

We lost because we were a bit banged up and got run over by a side on their home deck and an extra weeks rest.

Our last few games against Melbourne suggest two rucks isn't a bad idea.

A few games doesn't tell the story well enough anyway.

To close out what im getting at, Tom is 76 games into his afl career.  Given he was still finding his feet for the first 50, and of the next 26 he's probably only featured in tandem about half that, is the sample size large enough to stamp it and categorically say anything?

Over time things change.  Give it another 30 games, Tom and pittonet could very well be a winning combination.

Or they might not be.  I try not to be too definite with things these days as the afl keep tinkering with things.  At times things will work, at times they won't.

I've seen the bombers run with Draper, Wright and Goldstein with no issues at times but at other times it hasn't worked which lends weight to things being a variable at best.

Are you somehow asserting our Cripps, Walsh, Cerra, Hewett, Kennedy midfield need no ruck at all?

We'll agree to disagree about the Lions game. Not just 1 factor involved there, but a lack of run is part and parcel with having an extra ruck.

I'm not worried about whats best for Tom.
Or
Whats best to Pitto.
Or
Any other individual.

I'm more for the team and the club.

Only one of us had posts removed from 'verballing' in this debate that i can recall and its not me.

Thanks for posting this. I think Voss has a point. You have 18 take the field, 4 on the bench and 1 sub. The inclusion or omission of one single player cannot have such a dramatic difference, unless the team has problems elsewhere. No doubt some difference must exist, but pairing the W/L and points scored with the number of ruckmen seems simplistic IMO.

I reckon our recent woes have more to do with certain mids getting beaten and opponents nullifying Newman's influence bug you won't hear voss talk about that publicly.

He's had a defensive forward play on him and whilst statistically he looks similar I think his ability to set us up at times was hampered significantly.

Last year some repeatedly told us Pitto was mustard and TDK was mickey mouse, some even went as far to say we must not sign TDK on a long term deal and should trade him, there is no need to continually rehash the stats because we can all remember the message. This year now the same people using the same numbers are telling us Pitto is now apparently a boat anchor and TDK is mustard, yet the by the very same sets of numbers both have improved around stoppages in 2024 by 20% to 30%! :o

The problem in the analysis conflict is not the numbers, they are what they are, it's always the conclusions that humans b0rk up, reading too much into things by finding patterns don't exist, and profligate biased conclusions.

It'll always be the case that any win or loss is dependent on dozens of variables
Some structural changes create an advantage.
But with every advantage gained there will be a cost in another area.
That's the balance that's most important, not 'team balance'.

Team balance is another of those 'cliche' things that is also used in arguments.
It exists, but it's often used in a throwaway context like 'run'
We don't lose 'balance', we don't lose 'run' completely
The balance and run changes...often only slightly.
Multiple combinations of smalls and talls have been effective in the history of football.
It's totally dependent on the skills and abilities of the players

The fact that there are so many variables in play means that reducing an argument to a single position is a bit of a futile, and really 'simplistic' exercise.

Anyone who looks at our 'wins and losses' solely in terms of our ruck situation is guilty of a huge over-simplification.

It doesn't take into account all the other factors like-
Opposition strength,
Match-ups,
Changes to lineups on both sides,
Injuries during the game,
Key players being contained, down on form or carrying minor injuries
Coaching tactics on both sides.

After the first GWS game two rucks were the 'bees knees'
A couple of weeks later and it was the worst idea in the world.

We make judgements on limited information...even statistical information.
In the end it will all play out, and hopefully we'll enter a final's campaign with a number of structural options should things go pear shaped.

It's interesting watching the VFL team with Pitto, O'Keeffe, Mirkov, Lemmey and Young on the field.  Our run and ability to cover the ground defensively doesn't seem to be compromised.

It's interesting watching the VFL team with Pitto, O'Keeffe, Mirkov, Lemmey and Young on the field.  Our run and ability to cover the ground defensively doesn't seem to be compromised.

Completely different team and team balance.

Pretty sure i've made that abundently clear that i am referring to our AFL side only. Not our VFL side, not our AFLW side. Not GWS' AFL side, or bombers AFL side or any other side.

Yes @DJC, what are you thinking, it's a completely different game on a completely different ground with different umpires and different opponents, etc. etc...

You know, the conclusions you make have to depend on each team and game, case by case, we can't expect one solution fits all, how silly of you! ::)

1. If you are good enough, you pick a team to win and try and make the opposition defeat you. This is where we stand.

Completely different team and team balance.

Pretty sure i've made that abundently clear that i am referring to our AFL side only. Not our VFL side, not our AFLW side. Not GWS' AFL side, or bombers AFL side or any other side.

I'm not sure we're good enough...yet.
That will play out in the next few weeks.

But even the best of teams wouldn't operate solely on the above basis.
You need to pick a team that the oppositition finds hard to combat, but also you need to find a counter to the opposition weapons.
The 'rise of Cincotta' is a testament to that.

I reckon what we've seen in recent weeks is a bit of experimentation, and a bit of resting of players.
While some selections may have seemed a bit strange they're probably well thought out.
But that experimentation and managing should wind up, and the focus needs to turn towards first making the finals and then securing the best possible position.
The first shouldn't prove a huge challenge...

But lose today and our percentage is poorer than the 9th placed team and we're only a game ahead.

We are good enough.

On any given day, we can certainly match it and beat any opposition team put out there.
Are we good enough to make it certain? Not yet.
But, play to your strengths. The moment we start changing our team, weaken it, to play against the opposition is the moment we start going down hill. Some of the recent changes may be proof ot that.

re %....
We have one of (if not THE) easiest run home from here. I expect our % to take care of itself a little bit from here on out and some other teams to fall.

The ladder doesn't lie.....in our case it shows we've had games against tough opposition.

So the amount of time ruckmen spend on the bench is irrelevant unless their names are Pittonet and Tom De Koning?

Pitto’s inability to go forward and have an impact is really the only reason we don’t play two rucks.  I can see us playing De Koning and O’Keeffe if the latter continues to develop.

The ladder is not always truthful. ;)
Some games we thought would be easy may not be the cake-walk we thought.

Of course, but you know that with or without a ladder.

Look how bad we've been over the past decade, we always managed to sneak a couple unexpected wins in there though. You expect the same this year....and every other year.

There is a difference between SHOULD win.....and actually winning.

Quite right
Now apply that same thinking to games against North Melbourne and WCE...even perhaps Collingwood in their present state.
We're just as likely to drop one to teams that are in the position we were not so long ago.
Take nothing for granted.

Just on the other point your making...
I understand that you are using it specifically to refer to our current AFL side.
My problem has always been with how it's presented as a 'fixed in time' presentation.
It's about the now.
So we shouldn't even think about options.
It makes little allowance for a changes such as players adapting, improving, developing a better communication or understanding with games together, changes in how they are used by the coaches in combination.

Tom went from a player who should be playing VFL to one of our most effective in the space of twelve months.
Pittonet has had an interrupted year.
I don't think anything can be fixed in stone....but we may need to make a firm decision in respect of the current campaign.

Binns racked up 45 in the VFL, thankfully he wasn't stuck on the bench which was full of rucks anyway! :o

Poor bastard Binns, might have set a VFL record and got 56 if he'd sprinted off to have a few seconds for a break!

Did Pitto set a VFL Clearance record, or is his high clearance count just proportional to time in the ruck?

Anyway, I don't understand these things, best leave it to the mathematicians. ;)

@other teams, it works.
For us......it doesn't.

And there's the whole issue with the argument, Kruds.
It's the 'Absolute'
It's the never, ever, ever, works
It's the closed thinking.
It's the "I'm right, you're wrong"...(even ignorant.)
It's the 'inflexibility' of opinion that a lot of folk just have an issue with.

Have an issue with my opinion, fine.

I've asked multiple times for an example of when 2 rucks would be a better option against which sides.
How many answers have i received to that question?

This is not a dictatorship. This is a debate, hell, its in the thread title.
Debate it.

The only opposition i get is to me and my comments. Not in regards to the points i am raising.

"Oh but the VFL...."
Is a different debate and not one i've ever spoken about.
"Oh but team x...."
Is a different debate and not one i've ever spoken about.
"Oh but back in the spring of 1967...."
Is a different debate and not one i've ever spoken about.

I'm talking about here and now with the fit players we have at our disposal. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Debate me on that.

Everyone is on the Hawks bandwagon but I noted they too are running with one specialist ruck and a ruckrover (old terminology I know) in Nash. Interesting aspect of Nash is he classed as a midfielder but is 198cm/94kg which makes him a very big mid.
He plays like a mid who isnt a specialist ruck and had six hitouts, 8 clearances,8 Score involvements,  29 disposals and 400 plus metres gained.....
Imo he was a very influential player and having that extra midfielder around the ball was a win and again showed why one specialist ruckman only in the modern game is the preferred option by many clubs now and why developing other pinch hit ruckman is time well spent.

Why can't DeKoning be that guy?
The issue seems to be that he goes missing when Pittonet plays.
So the job for the coaches would surely be to work out why that is the case and to make it so he doesn't.

Why can't DeKoning be that guy?
The issue seems to be that he goes missing when Pittonet plays.
So the job for the coaches would surely be work out why that is the case and to make it so he doesn't.

Why can't DeKoning be that guy?
The issue seems to be that he goes missing when Pittonet plays.
So the job for the coaches would surely be to work out why that is the case and to make it so he doesn't.

I'm not sure that De Koning goes missing but he doesn't seem to have the same opportunities.  Some of his work at stoppages with Pitto rucking has been outstanding but it doesn't happen often enough. 

There's really two issues that the coaches need to work on:

1. Making better use of De Koning when Pitto's rucking.
2. Finding a secondary role for Pitto (and improving his marking).

The problem is that it doesn't seem like a debate.
It seems like a lecture.

...

What do you actually want people to say?
Most folk here acknowledge that there are times when we are better off going with one ruck...they agree with you.
You won't acknowledge that there are opposition that we may be better off engaging two rucks.
That's fair enough.
That's your opinion.
It doesn't make it right or wrong.

Kruddler is right.

We won the big final against Melbourne and Gawn last year and both rucks did the job with TDK doing well forward but guess what? Harry didn't play.

Which is consistent with what i said all along.
With Harry AND Charlie in the side, you can't play 2 rucks.

Go back to the lead up to the prelim. I actually said we should NOT play Harry and stick with Pitto+TDK.
But no, played all of the above.

Just as an aside....
When Melbourne traded for Grundy i said it was silly and the only benefit to them was that the Dees wouldn't have to play against Grundy anymore.
They were the 2 best rucks in the game.
They played best as #1 rucks and did little else around the ground - granted Gawn had/has improved his efforts up forward.
Dees worked out pretty quickly that they made the wrong call and 12 months later the 2nd best ruck in the game was sent packing for all the same reasons i'm listed here.
You can't have 2 #1 rucks in the same side. If they can't play a different position, it doesn't benefit the side.

Tom needs a rest, as I said on the post game thread it's time to play Pittonet vs Port and let TDK get a spa and massage.
TDK on one taped leg was important after half time today and needs managing rather than a second ruck in the team.

I think the general consensus from all is that he needs a rest.
But this will be the second one in a couple of weeks.
Are we dealing with a chronic injury, one that he will carry for the rest of the year.
Or would a couple of weeks off now be sufficient to heal him and freshen him up.

Then why pick him injured ?  Are Voss and the MC f****ed in the head or something?
 Christ, we've got a perfectly capable second ruck killing it in the twos to give him a break.   Who's running the show, Bozo the clown!?!

He rolled the ankle in the first quarter of the Giants game. He hasn't had a rest.

Another example of how unimportant the need for 2 rucks is, when you get by with half of one for the almost the whole game.

Yes, BUT ...

We got a brief look at how bad we can be if that solitary ruck is injured.  Apart from the centre clearance issues, losing McKay from the forward line for an extended period makes it much easier for opponents to negate Curnow.

Yes, BUT ...

We got a brief look at how bad we can be if that solitary ruck is injured.  Apart from the centre clearance issues, losing McKay from the forward line for an extended period makes it much easier for opponents to negate Curnow.

If we are going to play only one ruck, I would seriously consider selecting Young as the injury substitute in any must-win game. I don't believe the substitute has represented a significant tactical benefit and Young would represent a true injury-sub option to provide a tall option in the ruck and in case any of our injury-prone defensive talls goes down - even Weitering has been shown to be prone to being hobbled.

Oh well this may be a no issue now as chances are TDK wont play again till finals. Is is hospital with punctured lung and will be out indefinitely.

Oh well this may be a no issue now as chances are TDK wont play again till finals. Is is hospital with punctured lung and will be out indefinitely.

Guess we can close this thread.

Not yet...... it Pitto does ok for the next five weeks, and then TDK is back fresh to start the finals, what happens then....?

I saw him on the sidelines struggling to breathe.

North hit us hard physically.

Not yet...... it Pitto does ok for the next five weeks, and then TDK is back fresh to start the finals, what happens then....?

When Pitto get injured again (very likely) we are screwed.

Yes, BUT ...

We got a brief look at how bad we can be if that solitary ruck is injured.  Apart from the centre clearance issues, losing McKay from the forward line for an extended period makes it much easier for opponents to negate Curnow.

If we are going to play only one ruck, I would seriously consider selecting Young as the injury substitute in any must-win game. I don't believe the substitute has represented a significant tactical benefit and Young would represent a true injury-sub option to provide a tall option in the ruck and in case any of our injury-prone defensive talls goes down - even Weitering has been shown to be prone to being hobbled.

Not yet...... it Pitto does ok for the next five weeks, and then TDK is back fresh to start the finals, what happens then....?

When Pitto get injured again (very likely) we are screwed.

For every negative, there is a positive on the other side of the coin.

Couldn't agree more. ;)  :D

It wasn’t so long ago that Pittonet earned a 4 year deal, on the back of some very good form. In fact it was about 12 months ago. So what went wrong ? Has he caught a severe dose of the Lewis Young affliction?

This debate is over.  Pittonet is not the ruckman we need.

Last week we heard all about his stats but i dont need stats.  They paint the wrong picture.  He was better this week but was still well beaten for most of the game.

Can't wait for tdk to return and I would definitely consider rucking a tandem, because we are way too thin both forward and back not to.

Pitto was elite against Geelong. Wtf happened

Pittonet, like seemingly everyone else in the team right now, isn't playing his best football.

He is not the reason for the form slump though, he is just caught up in it.

Pittonet is still performing well enough in the ruck, without being as dominant as he has been.
Pittonet is still doing the job in clearances and HTA (He got more than Cameron in both)
Pittonet is still capable of giving us what we need - look at how Gov got the ball at the end of the game.

He is not AA.
He does not need to be banished to the VFL.

He is playing because we need an AFL capable ruck and there isn't one on the list, apart from him, who is actually fit.

Not sure where the issue is.

You're too generous with him.

I'm not chastising the guy, but as we've seen, (a stat you ignore) our midfield makes the ruck look good.

Pittonet is ok, but thats all he is.

Cameron was the best ruck on the ground but our mids won the clearances and the part that costs us is his inability to make a mark around the ground.   He is out of the play.  You said it yourself.  How many times are the rucks actually rucking?