Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Great Ruck Debate. (Read 30215 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #195 –
Quote from: Lods – on
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.
Have an issue with my opinion, fine.

I've asked multiple times for an example of when 2 rucks would be a better option against which sides.
How many answers have i received to that question?

This is not a dictatorship. This is a debate, hell, its in the thread title.
Debate it.

The only opposition i get is to me and my comments. Not in regards to the points i am raising.

"Oh but the VFL...."
Is a different debate and not one i've ever spoken about.
"Oh but team x...."
Is a different debate and not one i've ever spoken about.
"Oh but back in the spring of 1967...."
Is a different debate and not one i've ever spoken about.

I'm talking about here and now with the fit players we have at our disposal. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Debate me on that.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #196 –
Everyone is on the Hawks bandwagon but I noted they too are running with one specialist ruck and a ruckrover (old terminology I know) in Nash. Interesting aspect of Nash is he classed as a midfielder but is 198cm/94kg which makes him a very big mid.
He plays like a mid who isnt a specialist ruck and had six hitouts, 8 clearances,8 Score involvements,  29 disposals and 400 plus metres gained.....
Imo he was a very influential player and having that extra midfielder around the ball was a win and again showed why one specialist ruckman only in the modern game is the preferred option by many clubs now and why developing other pinch hit ruckman is time well spent.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #197 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Have an issue with my opinion, fine.

I've asked multiple times for an example of when 2 rucks would be a better option against which sides.
How many answers have i received to that question?

This is not a dictatorship. This is a debate, hell, its in the thread title.
Debate it.

The only opposition i get is to me and my comments. Not in regards to the points i am raising.

"Oh but the VFL...."
Is a different debate and not one i've ever spoken about.
"Oh but team x...."
Is a different debate and not one i've ever spoken about.
"Oh but back in the spring of 1967...."
Is a different debate and not one i've ever spoken about.

I'm talking about here and now with the fit players we have at our disposal. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Debate me on that.

The problem is that it doesn't seem like a debate.
It seems like a lecture.

Now we played two rucks in the first game against GWS and it worked quite well.
But that may have been because of numerous factors including some missing personnel on their part.
The answer to the debate  doesn't lie in the superficial statistics...including wins/losses
As in the above example each game needs to be weighed in depth on a whole range of influencing factors.
That's something I'm sure our club folk do quite thoroughly, much more thoroughly than we could possibly do.

You can't demand a debate.
You engage in a debate...with give and take arguments on both sides.
If folks don't agree with you they'll either engage or just ignore.

What do you actually want people to say?
Most folk here acknowledge that there are times when we are better off going with one ruck...they agree with you.
You won't acknowledge that there are opposition that we may be better off engaging two rucks.
That's fair enough.
That's your opinion.
It doesn't make it right or wrong.

I'd argue we should try in some games for a few reasons.
1) In case we lose either one to injury it maintains some continuity.
2) More games together the better the understanding in terms of responsibility and positioning.
3) To provide relief over a long season.
4) To examine ways in which two AFL standard ruckmen can be used to greatest effect.

Over the course of the season that may take some juggling and fine tuning...because winning games is the main objective.
By all means at the pointy end go with one option.
But to make sure it's the best one isn't it a good idea to look at the possibilities.
If playing one ruck or two is the determining factor in our ultimate success then we have a few issues

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #198 –
Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on
Everyone is on the Hawks bandwagon but I noted they too are running with one specialist ruck and a ruckrover (old terminology I know) in Nash. Interesting aspect of Nash is he classed as a midfielder but is 198cm/94kg which makes him a very big mid.
He plays like a mid who isnt a specialist ruck and had six hitouts, 8 clearances,8 Score involvements,  29 disposals and 400 plus metres gained.....
Imo he was a very influential player and having that extra midfielder around the ball was a win and again showed why one specialist ruckman only in the modern game is the preferred option by many clubs now and why developing other pinch hit ruckman is time well spent.

Why can't DeKoning be that guy?
The issue seems to be that he goes missing when Pittonet plays.
So the job for the coaches would surely be to work out why that is the case and to make it so he doesn't.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #199 –
He goes missing because he's not in the ruck. It's simple, do you want Pittonet rucking or TDK?

Last year it was debatable about who was better, it isn't anymore.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #200 –
Quote from: Lods – on
Why can't DeKoning be that guy?
The issue seems to be that he goes missing when Pittonet plays.
So the job for the coaches would surely be to work out why that is the case and to make it so he doesn't.

Because he is our best ruckman and will influence the game more in that role vs the opposition ruckman who doesn't have his athletic abilities.
TDK and Pittonet both play their best when No 1 ruck but TDKs best is better vs most opposition.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #201 –
Quote from: Lods – on
Why can't DeKoning be that guy?
The issue seems to be that he goes missing when Pittonet plays.
So the job for the coaches would surely be work out why that is the case and to make it so he doesn't.

I'm not sure that De Koning goes missing but he doesn't seem to have the same opportunities.  Some of his work at stoppages with Pitto rucking has been outstanding but it doesn't happen often enough. 

There's really two issues that the coaches need to work on:

1. Making better use of De Koning when Pitto's rucking.
2. Finding a secondary role for Pitto (and improving his marking).
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #202 –
So last year Tom was not doing enough around the ground.
This year he only plays well if he's in the ruck.

Are we 'limiting' him in terms of expectations... again? ;)

EB used the term ruck-rover before.
It's an oldie, but a goodie and he probably fits the bill.

They tend to play wide of each other or spend time on the bench when the other is rucking.
I made the suggestion the other day. Play them closer together, see how it goes.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #203 –
Quote from: Lods – on
Why can't DeKoning be that guy?
The issue seems to be that he goes missing when Pittonet plays.
So the job for the coaches would surely be to work out why that is the case and to make it so he doesn't.

You say this like its a question without an answer.

We know the answer.

He goes missing because he cannot play another position sufficiently to warrant a spot in the side in that given position.

Thats why its a debate on whether we play 2 rucks and not if its a debate if we play Pittonet and TDK. its the same thing. TDK is a ruck. If he wasn't, it wouldn't be an issue.

You pick the best player in any given position. Do that for all 18-22 if you wish.
Then, if there is someone else that you want to shoehorn into the side for some reason, work out which position (of those you've already picked) gets booted weighing up the pros and cons in doing so.

Now whether you pick TDK or Pitto in the #1 ruck role, is irrelevent.
If you want to fit a 2nd one in, you need to look at which spot he takes from someone else and IF that is ultimately a benefit for the team.

I've been pretty clear in saying that as a team, when we have been playing at our best, was when we were on our run last year. We turned things around by going smaller and adding run and pressure. Fogarty, Martin, Cuningham were all introduced into the side at the same time and results followed. The moment we started reintroducing talls, we started to struggle again.
Coincidentally or not, the same thing has happened this year.

How many times do you want to be taught the same lesson before you accept it?

Whichever way you want to slice it, no amount of spin would suggest that playing 2 rucks over 1 (in OUR SIDE) gives us more run and pressure. Thats our thing. We want to get more of that, more of the time.
TDK can run like a gazelle for someone his height, but he can't run like a Hewett can, or a cuningham or a martin. These are the blokes who are borderline/missing out in their place.

People worry about running 1 ruck into the ground.
Alternate them as you need.
The moment TDK gets a niggle, throw in Pitto the next week.
Its a non-issue.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #204 –
Quote from: DJC – on
I'm not sure that De Koning goes missing but he doesn't seem to have the same opportunities.  Some of his work at stoppages with Pitto rucking has been outstanding but it doesn't happen often enough. 

There's really two issues that the coaches need to work on:

1. Making better use of De Koning when Pitto's rucking.
2. Finding a secondary role for Pitto (and improving his marking).

Or to summarise.

Find a position other than ruck that they can perform in well enough to derserve that spot on merit.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #205 –
Kruddler is right.

We won the big final against Melbourne and Gawn last year and both rucks did the job with TDK doing well forward but guess what? Harry didn't play.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #206 –
Quote from: Lods – on
The problem is that it doesn't seem like a debate.
It seems like a lecture.

...

What do you actually want people to say?
Most folk here acknowledge that there are times when we are better off going with one ruck...they agree with you.
You won't acknowledge that there are opposition that we may be better off engaging two rucks.
That's fair enough.
That's your opinion.
It doesn't make it right or wrong.

I don't want people to say anything other than give examples to back up their opinions.

As an example of how this 'debate' goes, lets try this hypothetical scenario.....
I can say "TDK is the best ruck in the game" and give reasons why, provide some stats. Use some footage for comparison.
Others can say. "No he's not."
.....which is fine.....but maybe give an example of why he is not. Maybe give an example of who might be.
People are being contrarian, without offering any substance.
Thats why its a 'lecture' because there are no actual points to debate coming from the opposition.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #207 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
Kruddler is right.

We won the big final against Melbourne and Gawn last year and both rucks did the job with TDK doing well forward but guess what? Harry didn't play.

Which is consistent with what i said all along.
With Harry AND Charlie in the side, you can't play 2 rucks.

Go back to the lead up to the prelim. I actually said we should NOT play Harry and stick with Pitto+TDK.
But no, played all of the above.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #208 –
I think Krud has nailed it with Pittonet not being a viable player in our best 22/3 other than in the ruck and the fact his best isnt as good as TDK's so he is cutting TDK's lunch in terms of time on ball when playing in the ruck.
Do you try and develop Pittonet in other positions ie KP Forward or KP back or do you develop pinch hitting ruckman like Harry or Jack Silvagni when fit instead. Pittonet has shown little aptitude as a forward imo even as a rarity  when he does rest forward and for me his role now is purely as a backup to TDK in case of injury.
Darcy and Jackson of Freo are in a similar position imho and id rate Darcy as a better crafted forward player than Pittonet but it still hasnt worked as Freo would have hoped as it did with Gawn and Jackson at Melb and both players perform better as No 1 ruckman.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #209 –
Just as an aside....
When Melbourne traded for Grundy i said it was silly and the only benefit to them was that the Dees wouldn't have to play against Grundy anymore.
They were the 2 best rucks in the game.
They played best as #1 rucks and did little else around the ground - granted Gawn had/has improved his efforts up forward.
Dees worked out pretty quickly that they made the wrong call and 12 months later the 2nd best ruck in the game was sent packing for all the same reasons i'm listed here.
You can't have 2 #1 rucks in the same side. If they can't play a different position, it doesn't benefit the side.