Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Great Ruck Debate. (Read 30266 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #105 –
Quote from: LP – on
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).

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #106 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
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).
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.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #107 –
In and of themselves, stats are just collections of data. The meaning and usefulness of stats increases with your knowledge and expertise in the context and subject matter. Anyone can trot out stats. But making sense of them, extracting meaning, correct and useful information from stats is another matter entirely. I'm not specially convinced that looking at W/L of 1 ruck v 2 is revealing anything meaningful, and I doubt very much the club would adopt such a reductionist mindset when looking at our form and performance.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #108 –
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.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #109 –
Quote from: Baggers – on
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.
Before you can ask who and what, you have to accept it's going to happen at some stage, and that seems to be where the fan debate breaks down, fans speak in absolutes like never or always. I doubt the MC, coaches or players do the same.

Some will assert it's only a need like an injury replacement that will trigger it, but I would assert good player management and strategy will require it to happen proactively and preventatively.

If you are predictable, to be successful you have to be the very best of all like Judd, not just the best at your own club. But even the very best can't sustain 100% performance all season long, it's impossible. All players are human, health, fitness, focus and form all wax and wane through a season.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #110 –
Quote from: LP – on
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.

Not the same thing at all. Not even close.

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.
Same with HTA. They can vary based on your opponent and you might get the odd one that goes with/against you that is circumstantial, but as a whole, they are accurate.
Hitouts themselves have no 'accuracy' built in to the stat at all. It can help your team, or the opposition 100% of the time and there is no way to determine how based on that stat. So why do we keep it at all?

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.


Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #111 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
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.
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).
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #112 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
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.
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.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #113 –
Quote from: Baggers – on
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.

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.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #114 –
Quote from: Baggers – on
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.
The best ruckmen are players that can be used around the ground. 100%.

This was basically the starting point for this ruck debate as our 2nd ruckmen could NOT be used around the ground. So why have one at all?
The better idea was to substitute a player into the ruck who could compete and nullify the hitout to advantage stat and then outperform his opponent around the ground. Be that as a KPP or as a mid. Getting more ball around the ground was key to who you would play.

The debate then morphed into who should be our best ruck and thats when stats got involved.
Showing...
1. Which ruck was best in the ruck contest itself (hitouts to advantage)
2. Which ruck was best in the ruck contest after the hitout (clearances by the ruck)
3. Which ruck was best around the ground in general play (disposals, marks, tackles etc)

At the time....
1. Pitto was clear winner
2. Despite what you might think based on agility, Pitto was leading here.
3. Despite popular opinion, this was very close between Pitto and TDK with TDK just taking the edge.

When you included someone as backup ruck (previously, silvagni, currently Harry, Kennedy, Cripps)
1. The difference was not significant between 2nd ruck and backup ruck
2. The backup ruck performed better
3. The backup ruck REALLY performed better.

But ultimately, it all comes down to the very first thing you wrote. How well do they do around the ground?
1 ruck is passable
2 rucks is silly and counterproductive with our current lineup and skill set.

Again, this was all based on OUR list, not anyone elses.
If Harry goes down, we play 2 rucks, no issue.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #115 –
Quote from: LP – on
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).
There are degrees of 'telling you nothing'.

Its tells you plenty.
It doesn't tell you who wins the game though.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #116 –
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.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #117 –
Quote from: LP – on
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.

Again, your problem is what you expect to get out of the stat, not the stat itself.

You want something as simple as - Win stat 'a' = win the game.
It doesn't work like that. It is not designed to work like that.
Nobody in their right mind should believe it would ever work like that.

You are looking at the HTA stat in isolation and saying its no good. The stat itself is good. You just want more information. Which you can get when you combine with other stats.
Hitouts as a stat gives you basically zero information because it gives you the same amount of information as if you were to throw the ball up in the air and let it land without a ruck touching it. It is ALL about what happens next and NOTHING to do with the hitout itself.
The hitout to advantage takes that into account (in part) and from there you can work out if it benefitted the side to the point of a score, or if it played into the oppositions hands who tackled you and won a free kick out of it (although technically, it wouldn't be a HTA if that happened as you need time to dispose of the ball).

Think about it this way.
A kick.

By itself, tells you very little.
Was it a small kick, a long kick, a kick out of bounds....on the full?
Did it find a teammate. Did it find the opposition. Was it a shot on goal? Did it score a goal?
Was it immediately smothered.
Was it towards your goal. Did you kick it the wrong direction by accident? Deliberately??
So using that 'kick' stat to see who won the game is never going to work. You need other stats.
However, the kick stat is correct as the ball had to hit your foot at least.

Do they keep 'kick' stats in soccer?
Backmen kick it back and forth to eachother 50 times a game, is that stat tracked? Is it important? Does it determine the game?
No. It tells us nothing. Its not tracked.

There are varying degrees of stats that tell us varying degrees of information.
The hitout stat tells us that our bloke got his hand on the ball before the other bloke. Thats it. Doesn't tell us where it went. Doesn't tell us if it helped us. Doesn't tell us if it helped them. Why do we keep that stat???

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #118 –
“The most important thing a ruckman can do is in his follow up at clearance – as an extra big body to crash packs – and their aerial presence in front and behind the ball"

This is the quote from Nathan Buckley from yesterday.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #119 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
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.

Which is why the hitout stat means nothing, because it can go directly to the opposition, but stats-wise, makes the ruck look good.

I posted some champion data stats that i receved via email which included hitouts sharked as a stat. I posted some analysis on that on here somewhere. At the time it did make some interesting revelations about certain rucks. Some actually showed some rucks are more likely to hit it to the opposition than their own players. What is the benefit of rucking them?