Carlton Supporters Club

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.