Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Great Ruck Debate. (Read 30247 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #180 –
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 still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #181 –
Quote from: DJC – on
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.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #182 –
Quote from: DJC – on
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.
Quote from: kruddler – on
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! ::)
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #183 –
Quote from: LP – on
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! ::)

Tell me you don't understand the debate without telling me you don't understand the debate.

At least now i realise why this debate is still going. You blokes don't bloody read it properly.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #184 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
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.

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.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #185 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
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.

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

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #186 –
Quote from: Lods – on
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.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #187 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
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.

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

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #188 –
Quote from: DJC – on
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.

Closer.

This whole debate started because we had....
1. Harry and Charlie up forward
2. Weitering down back, with kemp/mcgovern/young/marchbank as other tall defender options
3. Silvagni as a 3rd tall forward/backup ruck.

With THAT side, we couldn't afford to play 2 rucks who could NOT play another position.
Now even without Silvagni throwing a spanner in the works, we still can't afford it.

Everyone concedes Pittonet can't play another position.
Most people agree that TDK is not good enough to play as a sole key forward as well.
Yes, he has had good games there. He has also had games worse than Fantasia there as well.

To make things clear, if Harry or Charlie can't play, TDK and Pittonet can absolutely play in the same team.
However, if i'm choosing my key forwards, i'm going with Harry and Charlie first. Tdk a distant 3rd option.

This is why i constantly talk about team balance and OUR side only. Its only about our side because our side is the only one that has 2 coleman medalists up forward and rucks who can't play elsewhere.
Even looking at Geelong with their 2 coleman medalists up forward, they have Blicavs who can play as a ruck or a wing.
My 'rules' don't apply to them.
Just us.
Its always been about us.
If anyone has thought otherwise, they haven't been paying attention to the debate.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #189 –
Quote from: Lods – on
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.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #190 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
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.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #191 –
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. ;)
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #192 –
Quote from: Lods – on
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.

Yes, it is about the NOW.
We are in the premiership window NOW.
We have the players we have on our team and we work with what we have got.

I've never intended for this to be a one-size fits all, universally rule that works throughout all space and time. I've never suggested that and have been pretty clear that its not about that at all.

But, without trying to pigeon hole players too much, there are certain 'givens' you can expect from players, and certain things you know you just won't get. So while there is always some wiggle room and room for growth (and going backwards) there is very few 'box-shattering' revelations that players go through. You might get 1 a year.
You could argue Williams move forward could be one this year.
Others might suggest Cincotta, but i don't think its a huge step to go from a defender to a tagger. Its relatively common.

In terms of everyone else though.....they basically end the season in the same box they start it and as much as you'd like to suggest otherwise, there is little growth outside of that. Even for TDK.

He has filled out his 'box' and performed above previous expectations, but that was always the hope with him. He hasn't grown from a ruck into a midfielder. Or a ruck into a key defender. He has just become a better ruck.....and a slightly better key forward.

The reason i talk about OUR team and only our team in this manner is....
1. I don't care about other teams to the point i will analyse them in the same way.
2. I don't think other teams have such a solid spine compared to ours. Harry+Charlie+Weitering + [insert flavour of the week here] will outdo any other spine out there. All in their peak and largely performing at their peak (if not for some little niggles). So they would be the first picked and everyone else is picked around them.

If you slotted Pitto and TDK (as a pair) into any other team out there, you'd probably play them both in almost all of them.
@Sydney.....Pitto could do the grunt work and allow Grundy and TDK to roam free and do as they please, forward or back and wouldn't really get in the way of any other talls in that side.
@Melbourne....Pitto could be # 1 ruck and Gawn and TDK could both play up forward and pinch hit in the ruck where required.

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

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #193 –
Quote from: LP – on
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. ;)
We agree you don't understand these things. Your comment as to why you don't shows your ignorance.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #194 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
@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.