Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The rise.... and RISE of Marc Pittonet (Read 95080 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #495 –
If they play together for the rest of this season... that will be a third of the games they've played together.
Work in progress.

(that probably won't progress) :(

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #496 –
I suspect Negrepontis is just another SoJ booster, the tell is that suggestion SoJ is some sort of viable ruck alternative to TDK, I just can't take them seriously, nobody should take them seriously!

We can even see that TDK is now starting to bring more run and link up than SoJ as well. The only area where SoJ might have an advantage is in F50 as a 3rd target, and even that is now becoming borderline with every game TDK plays besides Charlie and Harry he gains experience, all that is needed is time and patience.

Why then is there all this SoJ boosting dressed up as TDK bashing? The subconscious hope seems to be that offloading TDK will preserve SoJ's spot on the list as a 2nd ruck option, but to me that will just fade the long term outlook for SoJ because he's no good in the ruck, and it will also expose us to mobile ruck opponents because Pitto can't go with them, mobile ruck options are rare as hens teeth and we already have one that has a whole career ahead of him!

SoJ needs to find his spot on his own terms in a role suited to him, it's not the ruck, has never been the ruck and will never be the ruck.

So the debate and the question here is not about TDK versus Pitto, they are very different styles of player, complimentary styles. The debate is really about TDK versus SoJ, but the SoJ boosters do not want to talk about the war they want to keep SoJ's name out of the debate and undermine main hurdle at MC. The boosters spend their time making unrealistic and irrelevant comparisons between 3rd parties to avoid raising a question, they pose arguments based in sophistry, that's why I wrote "Don't mention the war!"
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #497 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
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.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #498 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
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.
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:! ;)
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #499 –
Quote from: Gointocarlton – on
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2023/06/28/the-second-biggest-gap-on-record-the-stark-gap-between-carltons-ruckmen/

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.

In the first quarter:

Pitto took part in 16 ruck contests for two centre clearances and two stoppage clearances.  Tom took part in eight ruck contests for three stoppage clearances.  Gold Coast (almost exclusively Witts) took part in 24 ruck contests for two centre clearances and ten stoppage clearances; a clear win for the Gold Coast ruck/midfield combination.

In the second quarter:

Pitto took part in seven ruck contests for six centre clearances.  Tom took part in nine ruck contests for two centre clearances and two stoppage clearances.  Gold Coast (Witts) took part in 16 ruck contests for two centre clearances and two stoppage clearances; a clear win for our ruck/midfield combination.  It's worth noting that Pitto was rucking for most of the centre bounces and our midfield tore Gold Coast a new one, regardless of who got the hitouts.

In the third quarter:

Pitto took part in 13 ruck contests for one centre clearance and three stoppage clearances.  Tom took part in 17 ruck contests for one centre clearance and six stoppage clearances.  Harry contested one boundary throw in and we won the clearance. Gold Coast (Witts) took part in 31 ruck contests for three centre clearances and eight stoppage clearances; a narrow win for our ruck/midfield combination. 

In the last quarter:

Pitto took part in 16 ruck contests for six centre clearance and four stoppage clearances.  Tom took part in nine ruck contests for two centre clearances and four stoppage clearances.  Harry and Charlie each took part in one ruck contest and Harry's resulted in a stoppage clearance.  We didn't contest one boundary throw in but won the clearance and scored a goal. Gold Coast took part in 28 ruck contests for one centre clearance and four stoppage clearances; a decisive win for our ruck/midfield combination. 

In total, Pitto took part in 52 ruck contests for 15 centre clearances and 9 stoppage clearances and Tom took part in 42 ruck contests for five centre clearances and 15 stoppage clearances.  Gold Coast took part in 98 ruck contests for eight centre clearances and 24 stoppage clearances.  Most of their stoppage clearances were won when Pitto was rucking.  As noted in the post-game thread, Witts was too strong for Pitto but Tom was too athletic for Witts.

Pitto and Tom are very different players but they complement each other and are difficult for opposition rucks to counter.  Tom, at his best, is a threat around the ground and up forward.  Pitto, at his best, can neutralise most opposition rucks and get the odd spoil, but he's not likely to provide a marking target when we have to go long.

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.

It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #500 –
Quote from: LP – on
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:! ;)

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.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #501 –
Quote from: DJC – on
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.
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.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #502 –
Quote from: DJC – on
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.
Yes, I was ignoring Mirkov's health as hopefully a short term issue, and just referring to ruck viability.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #503 –
With Pitto out with a PCL and Tom de Koning a huge question, we could be going into this game ruckless.
Do we play Lemmey? We're getting that desperate.
Live Long and Prosper!

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #504 –
Quote from: LP – on
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.

Is it at all possible for you to debate the 2nd ruck scenario WITHOUT going into SOS conspiracy theories?

You've tried twisting the debate in all sorts of directions in terms of TDK vs SOS, but the only reason SOS was even in the debate is because that was who was playing at the time.
The same debate can be had with TDK for Young, McKay, Cripps....whoever.

Take home point is TDK is not delivering and cannot legitimately hold down any other position on the ground. As a result its in our best interests to play someone who can. Up to this point, its largely been SOS. At one point, it was Young. We've used Harry when deep forward and even Cripps has contested a few as well. Its not a matter of WHO plays the 2nd ruck position as long as its not 2 dedicated rucks, it doesn't help the team.

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #505 –
Quote from: DJC – on
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.

You wanna talk about flaky data, then use 1 game where you felt the need to point out Pittonet was 'passed fit', clearly knowing he wasn't fit enough. Backed up by the fact he is out with a knee this week despite playing the entire game last week. So not only was he NOT fit going in (hand) he got injured during the game (knee) and kept on fighting through anyway.

Despite all of this, in terms of rucking ability, the 2 rucks ended up on a par.
THAT, together with the article (i think someone owes me some credit for the idea) clearly shows the difference in talent between the 2 rucks.

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #506 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
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.

Collingwood couldn't win in April for about 5 years running at one stage.
They should never play a game in a month ending in 'L' because it ends up being an 'L' for them.

This is a case of correlation. We both know that the 2 just happen to coincide and actually have no say in the end result.
This is the same in this case as your stats show.

I showed different data that showed, much more definitively, that the result of a match was not about who was in the team but who we were playing against. Play against a top team and you lose. 1 ruck, 2 rucks, 23 rucks, didn't matter.
Play against a low ranked team and you win, again, #rucks was irrelvent.
THAT is causation. Opposition team strength determines the result....not the number of rucks we played.

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #507 –
By what measure is our "team balance" as you call it better with just Pittonet? That's all I want to know.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #508 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
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.

What has been our issues most of the year? Largely its been (a lack of) run, chase, pressure and tackling. Now its clear our rucks are not going to improve that area of the game, but our already tired midfield were lacking in that area too. If we gave them another player to rotate through (in place of that 2nd ruck chilling out on the bench) then we have 1 more player to provide that pressure and at the same time give fresher legs to the other mids.
We could rest them deep forward, but once the ball hits the deck, with our 3 talls, we lack the run, chase, pressure and tackling and the balls gets swept away very easily.

So for team balance, we are able to get more run, chase, pressure and tackling by not playing 2 rucks because we generally have 1 of them sitting on the bench for 3/4s of a game.
In turn, we miss a ruck for 1/4 of the game (at most) which we can fill from a variety of other areas, be that SOJ, Young, Harry, Cripps...

If we didn't have Harry then TDK could line up at FF/CHF and give Pittonet a chop out when required and there isn't an issue.
But Harry up forward is better than TDK there.
 

Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet

Reply #509 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
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.
That stat doesn't change regardless of whoever is the 2nd ruck, SoJ or Young aren't a cure for it.

I'd even assert, that to be competitive in the ruck and on the ball in the ruck, SoJ and Young probably needs more time resting than genuine 1st rucks, otherwise they becomes a liability when they move into other areas of the field.

If our two genuine rucks get 30-35% game time to rest, they can go that much harder when they are on the field, that lets them match it with teams like Melbourne, or better teams like Gold Coast. It's pretty obvious, quality over quantity.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"