Carlton Supporters Club

The Owies tackle on Tuohy, just superb

Actually, Krud, we have a real problem with our 2nd ruck. Rucking Cripps and Kennedy is not sustainable against a decent team. They try hard, they're strong and they can come up with a few moments of magic, but it is a real weakness in our game.

What the solution may be, I don't know yet. I like Pittonet and what he brings to the team, but Tom de Koning has really pulled up his socks with the #1 role.
That said, Tom isn't a great ruckman. He won tonight because Geelong were stupid enough not to play a real ruckman against him. They paid and paid and paid for that stupidity. How they didn't play Conway, I don't know. Conway would have evened up the midfield with his strength and taps, even though Tom would slaughter him around the ground.
But, no, they had to try SdK and Blicavs. Blicavs wasn't disgraced in the ruck, but it meant he could do roles he would be better armed to do. It was idiocy, and I'm glad they paid they full price.
But that doesn't excuse us to thinking of doing the same thing.

If Harry Lemmey had come on a bit, I would have liked to tried him in the role. However, he isn't close to it at the moment.

What is the answer? Maybe we will need to play Pitto as well as Tom. Tom has already shown that his ruck work is his least strong area, for all his athleticism. Start Pitto and sub his off late, having a fitter Tom to finish off?
Maybe. But it is a conundrum we need to address. Especially before we play Collingwood or Sydney.

How about he was giving credit where credit was due.

How about he was giving credit where credit was due.

Nah, Laura Kane will come and tell us that the natural arc of run up plus the angle of the dangle minus pi squared divided by the price of fish in China clearly demonstrates the umpire got it 110% correct.

Which would mean, given the umpire called play on the quarter ended and the goal did not stand.  The only way that goal should stand is in fact if you say the umpire was wrong - which he wasn't.  Percentage could be crucial come end of year - I genuinely believe the club should challenge it.

Crash, how is it a weakness in our game?
How often does the #2 ruck turn a game on its head or provide the difference? They simply don't.

The only thing that worries me with solo rucking TDK - or Pitto or any other ruck is what happens if they go down early.  I have always believed you need a second ruck you can live with rucking for the bulk of the game if your number 1 goes down - don't need them to win but just not be a liabilty.  And then someone to give them a bit of a chop-out.  If that person gets beaten but it's only for brief spells then so be it.  And hopefully they make a contest in the ruck and/or add value at ground level whist they ae relieving in the ruck.  The problem is Pitto is only any good in the ruck.  Cant rest him anywhere but bench.  Most teams who run 2 rucks only have 1 big forward and rest the rucks forward.  When we run Pitto in the ruck and TDK forward with Charlie and Harry we become top-heavy even given they are all mobile and athletic.  I would not have thought this but the evidence seems clear,  Perhaps faster and more defensively minded small forwards than what we had in earlier this year might help this.  Suppose we rotated Williams, Cincotta, Fogarty and Cottrell as small forwards - there would be plenty of speed and defensive pressure there and they have shown the ability to hit the scoreboard more than I would have expected.  Might TDK  and the 2 KPF work then?  I'd like to trial it before finals time.  The worry of going 1 ruck into a grannie is multiplied - a ruthless opponent might just "awkwardly" cannon into TDK very early on and leave rucking say Harry for 80-90% game time with chop-out from Crippa/Kennedy - and against a top flight ruckman that would be a huge worry.  Of course if Hudson O'Keeffe or Harry Lemmey were to come on maybe they could factor into the equation, but whilst I like both (and Liam McMahon from our VFL list for that matter) they are fair way off AFL ready and in the case of O'Keeffe long term injured.

The benefit of a 2nd ruck is to give the 1st ruck a chop out because it is ASSUMED that when the 1st ruck is resting, that a mid/KPF rucking hurts our game to the extent that we will sacrifice another player on the ground to make that time less damaging.
That time is 20-25% of the game. Max.

Lets look at last night.
Harry+Cripps+Kennedy+Weitering combined for a total of 34 ruck contests. They combined for 9 hitouts (2 to advantage).
Blicavs was geelong '2nd ruck'. He attended 43 ruck contests and managed 12 hitouts (2 to advantage).

Our 'backup rucks' are competing against opposition 'backup rucks' and holding their own in that very specific area of hitouts.
I don't think i need to point out that our clearances certainly do not decrease when we play a backup ruck as half the time they are the first to the ball because they know exactly where it is going first.....or they tap to themselves.

Don't want to use last nights game?
Try last weeks.
Harry+Cripps+Kennedy = 30 contests - 4 hitouts - 2 to advantage
vs
2m Peter as 'backup ruck' = 27 contests - 13 hitouts - 2 to advantage.

So our hack mids drew even with 2m Peter in the ruck.

Question: So why are we suffering with our mixed bag of backup rucks?
Answer: We are not.

We MIGHT be able to increase our ruck dominance by adding a second ruck, but that would decrease our effectiveness in another area of the game as we dop someone to make way for them. What will we actually gain?

Now, as you all know, i've certainly got nothing against Pittonet....and he was in terrific form this year including his last game before injury, BUT we simply do not need 2 rucks.
I don't care if its Pitto.
I don't care if its TDK.
Choose 1, and stick to it. Its working.

The reason we have played 2 rucks to this point in time (IMO) is to try and jumpstart TDK so he can reach the point he has now. We all knew he had it in him, we just needed to see it. He's producing it, there is no need to babysit him anymore.
Let him ruck.

Well there's something you don't see everyday.

Chris Scott basically in 'awe' of Carlton at the presser.

Crash, how is it a weakness in our game?
How often does the #2 ruck turn a game on its head or provide the difference? They simply don't.

The benefit of a 2nd ruck is to give the 1st ruck a chop out because it is ASSUMED that when the 1st ruck is resting, that a mid/KPF rucking hurts our game to the extent that we will sacrifice another player on the ground to make that time less damaging.
That time is 20-25% of the game. Max.

Lets look at last night.
Harry+Cripps+Kennedy+Weitering combined for a total of 34 ruck contests. They combined for 9 hitouts (2 to advantage).
Blicavs was geelong '2nd ruck'. He attended 43 ruck contests and managed 12 hitouts (2 to advantage).

Our 'backup rucks' are competing against opposition 'backup rucks' and holding their own in that very specific area of hitouts.
I don't think i need to point out that our clearances certainly do not decrease when we play a backup ruck as half the time they are the first to the ball because they know exactly where it is going first.....or they tap to themselves.

Don't want to use last nights game?
Try last weeks.
Harry+Cripps+Kennedy = 30 contests - 4 hitouts - 2 to advantage
vs
2m Peter as 'backup ruck' = 27 contests - 13 hitouts - 2 to advantage.

So our hack mids drew even with 2m Peter in the ruck.

Question: So why are we suffering with our mixed bag of backup rucks?
Answer: We are not.

We MIGHT be able to increase our ruck dominance by adding a second ruck, but that would decrease our effectiveness in another area of the game as we dop someone to make way for them. What will we actually gain?

Now, as you all know, i've certainly got nothing against Pittonet....and he was in terrific form this year including his last game before injury, BUT we simply do not need 2 rucks.
I don't care if its Pitto.
I don't care if its TDK.
Choose 1, and stick to it. Its working.

The reason we have played 2 rucks to this point in time (IMO) is to try and jumpstart TDK so he can reach the point he has now. We all knew he had it in him, we just needed to see it. He's producing it, there is no need to babysit him anymore.
Let him ruck.

Machine is a great word to describe how the team went about it last night. A machine is made of parts and those parts perform a function. All the part performed well and none of the parts broke off last night. The main part, the engine, just purred along and didn't miss a beat, tuned to perfection. And when the other machine tried to launch an overtake, the machine operator  shifted the gearbox into 4th gear and away the machine went over the finish line. After the game my mate and I both thought that despite the 10 goal win against a quality side, we had  another couple of gears left over so the machine analogy is quite apt this morning.

Apparently the 2 De Koning boys were the 2 highest rated players on the ground. Tom at 35.5 (highest rating for any player this season) and Sam at 26 points. I assume this is the Champion Data rating system.

It's the second story on this page.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/carlton-blues/afl-news-2024-carlton-blues-win-over-geelong-cats-sit-second-on-premiership-power-rankings-behind-sydney-swans/news-story/75997f181e5d50293ef979fc7a56c7ed

FMD the AFL sometimes makes things more difficult than they need to be.

I mean, they claim they review every goal. So why didn’t we hear that voice from the box say, “Looking at this angle, we can see that the player deviated from his line and so played on after the siren. Result is on the scoreboard.”

Watching in real-time I thought McGovern played it well by planting his feet, not moving, but pointing and calling attention to the umpire.

Upon reflection, however, maybe he would have been better to sprint off his line as soon as Cameron deviated? Obviously that would have risked a 50 metre penalty but might, just might have conned the umpire?