Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Great Ruck Debate. (Read 30043 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #45 –
You can rewrite history to back up your argument. Thats fine.
Even IF we take your side of the debate, what we did with no rucks would not have been expected by you, or anyone else in the AFL....certainly nowhere near the margin it is.

Going back and reading the pre-matches, the in-games and post games at that time gives us great insight.

In fact MBB laid down the gauntlett in terms of importance of rucks going into those game and turned around with how (un)important they are based off those efforts.

The fact that occured with 0 rucks shows its possible.
Obviously, when you have 1 ruck its better.
Having additional rucks after that simply has diminishing returns in terms of how much influence they have in the ruck. (simply spend less time there by comparison to 1).
So it comes down to a matter of how good are they around the ground.
Which comes down to how much better (or worse) are the 2nd ruck compared to a specialised position player who would be getting squeezed out as a result.
Almost by definition, shoehorning a ruck into another position is going to be less effective.
So why do it for limited improvement in the actual ruck......when we can dominate sides without one at all?

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #46 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Even IF we take your side of the debate, what we did with no rucks would not have been expected by you, or anyone else in the AFL....certainly nowhere near the margin it is.
I think you confuse short term and long term, it's why you keep arguing for long term change based on short term statistics.

Short term changes, forced or planned, come with a benefit, they aren't predicted or prepared for by opposition. Like playing a bunch of kids or when a caretaker coach is put in place. They can bring some success but that is not certain, they can also fail dismally. A great example of success is the 1970 Grand Final and the birth of modern football, unplanned and an unequivocal success back then, ground-breaking, but now a predictable and planned for tactic that wouldn't even rate a special comment.

But those short term results are quite different from the long term, when opponents have the time to study and prepare. Some tactics built around no rucks or placeholder rucks might work here or there occasionally, but they are unlikely to succeed once opponents have opportunity to plan and leverage the inherent weakness that such a setup brings.

Actually, the most recent Geelong game is another great example of that, how much easier it would have been for SDK and Blicavs if we only had SoJ or Young as ruck, or if TDK had gone down early leaving BigH, Cripps or Kennedy as our Ruck. It's no longer shock and awe, they've seen it before!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #47 –
Did we know Geelong were not going to play any rucks?
Did we practice for that eventuality?
Why didn't they catch us by suprise?

Simple. We are not Geelong. Geelong are not us.

I've argued what is best for OUR team. Not what is best for Geelong, or Freo and Port Melbourne....

You say i'm looking for long term.
Lods says i'm looking at the now.

I'm looking at both.

Its always been about our team balance. Who we have available and how they are performing......and how we are performing as a team and if we are fighting for a flag.

I'm always talking about drafting for the future.
I'm always talking about picking a team based on how players are currently playing....and nobody is safe.

Before Pittonet got injured, he was in career best form.
TDK is currently in career best form.

Despite this, we simply do not need them both in the team.

The team is working with Harry, Charlie and Kenendy playing backup ruck for 20% of the time, which translates to about 25 ruck contests, which translates to about 5 centre bounces......which is something that is VERY manageable and gives us an element of surprise as well.

Honestly, the focus that people are putting into this 2nd ruck position far outweighs the benefits to the team.

IMO, we should spend more time focussing on our forward setup, specifically small forwards/half forwards.....and the long term goals in this regard.

Owies/Durdin/Fantasia/Motlop/Williams/Moir
and
Cottrell/Martin/Fogarty/Cuningham/Cincotta/Kennedy

There is way too many unknowns from that group. Way too many variables there. Way too many questions need to be answered there.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #48 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Did we know Geelong were not going to play any rucks?
Did we practice for that eventuality?
Why didn't they catch us by suprise?

Simple. We are not Geelong. Geelong are not us.

I've argued what is best for OUR team. Not what is best for Geelong, or Freo and Port Melbourne....

You say i'm looking for long term.
Lods says i'm looking at the now.

I'm looking at both.

Its always been about our team balance. Who we have available and how they are performing......and how we are performing as a team and if we are fighting for a flag.

I'm always talking about drafting for the future.
I'm always talking about picking a team based on how players are currently playing....and nobody is safe.

Before Pittonet got injured, he was in career best form.
TDK is currently in career best form.

Despite this, we simply do not need them both in the team.

The team is working with Harry, Charlie and Kenendy playing backup ruck for 20% of the time, which translates to about 25 ruck contests, which translates to about 5 centre bounces......which is something that is VERY manageable and gives us an element of surprise as well.

Honestly, the focus that people are putting into this 2nd ruck position far outweighs the benefits to the team.

IMO, we should spend more time focussing on our forward setup, specifically small forwards/half forwards.....and the long term goals in this regard.

Owies/Durdin/Fantasia/Motlop/Williams/Moir
and
Cottrell/Martin/Fogarty/Cuningham/Cincotta/Kennedy

There is way too many unknowns from that group. Way too many variables there. Way too many questions need to be answered there.

Id agree with all that...the backup ruck only plays in that position for around 5 minutes a quarter usually so your main ruck can rest and the opposition usually do the same with their main ruck at the same time. Two amatuer rucks usually have zero bearing on clearances and its down to who are the mids you have at the stoppage to win the ball without any ruck help.
Its more down to your system and style of play and having that extra runner/mid or utility overrides what a second specialist ruckman can give you in a value sense in most cases.
Am I going to reduce TDKs time on the field the way he is playing to play Pittonet for half a quarter every quarter.???...Im sure the opposition coach would love seeing TDK leave the field for that length of time so why would you do it?
Kennedy, Cripps can assist Harry in a Shaun Grigg role as the backup ruck combo and having that extra mid/runner rather than a slower tall helps offset probably our only team negative which is lack of pace vs some teams.
No brainer that one specialist ruck with a few others chipping in as that 2nd ruck backup works best for us and our gamestyle.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #49 –
Quote from: LP – on
I think you confuse short term and long term, it's why you keep arguing for long term change based on short term statistics.

Short term changes, forced or planned, come with a benefit, they aren't predicted or prepared for by opposition. Like playing a bunch of kids or when a caretaker coach is put in place. They can bring some success but that is not certain, they can also fail dismally. A great example of success is the 1970 Grand Final and the birth of modern football, unplanned and an unequivocal success back then, ground-breaking, but now a predictable and planned for tactic that wouldn't even rate a special comment.

But those short term results are quite different from the long term, when opponents have the time to study and prepare. Some tactics built around no rucks or placeholder rucks might work here or there occasionally, but they are unlikely to succeed once opponents have opportunity to plan and leverage the inherent weakness that such a setup brings.

Actually, the most recent Geelong game is another great example of that, how much easier it would have been for SDK and Blicavs if we only had SoJ or Young as ruck, or if TDK had gone down early leaving BigH, Cripps or Kennedy as our Ruck. It's no longer shock and awe, they've seen it before!

 Nice work getting the thread back on topic LP 🙂

Let’s say Geelong goes into a game with SDK at fullback, Blicavs on the wing and Stanley in the ruck.  SDK and Blicavs are competent, capable ruckmen and Geelong intends to use one or both as Stanley’s backup(s).  They have plans in place to cover them when they go into the ruck and they don’t lose much when Stanley takes a break. 

If Stanley has to be subbed out, either or both of SDK and Blicavs can cover for him and the plans to cover them simply switch from temporary to ongoing.  Geelong’s structure and game plan aren’t thrown out by Stanley’s loss.

If we are playing one ruckman with McKay as backup with cameos from Cripps and Kennedy, we are in trouble if our ruckman is subbed off.  Yes, we have plans to cover our backups but only for five minutes or so in the case of McKay and contest by contest for the other two.  McKay rucking for 80% of the game significantly weakens both our ruck and forward line and Cripps and/or Kennedy rucking for 20% of the game makes it a no contest in the ruck and compromises our midfield and our game plan.  The scenario is completely different if Silvagni is playing.

We take a risk when we go into a game with one ruckman and a part timer, particularly if the opposition has more ruck options.  One ruckman and two part timers, as per the Geelong example above, is less of a risk.  Playing two ruckman virtually eliminates that risk but compromises our structure and game plan unless at least one of the rucks can fill another role.  That role may be as a KPP or as a midfielder such as when we had Kreuzer in the midfield with Hampson taking the hitouts.

One ruck or two depends on how versatile your rucks are, how competent your backups are and how well they can be covered, and what the opposition’s ruck strengths are.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #50 –
Not to mention how strong your mids are.  I'd like to see how pittonet and tdk would fare without cripps, Kennedy and Walsh on.  Oh hang on, we same both of thems truggle vs Sydney and it wasn't because there was two rucks, it was because the Sydney midfield smashed us.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #51 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Not to mention how strong your mids are.  I'd like to see how pittonet and tdk would fare without cripps, Kennedy and Walsh on.  Oh hang on, we same both of thems truggle vs Sydney and it wasn't because there was two rucks, it was because the Sydney midfield smashed us.

That brings us back to the hitouts to advantage debate.  No matter how good your ruckman is, he’ll get very few HTAs if your midfielders are spuds.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #52 –
Quote from: DJC – on
Nice work getting the thread back on topic LP 🙂

It was never really off topic.
Threads are a bit like a snake...they sometimes go where they want to go and if the snake catcher isn't there they can make themselves at home. ;)  :D

Kruddler gave an  example of where 'no real rucks' worked for us.
The debate then turned to the quality of the opposition at the time, which has to be a factor in assessing the ruck impact.
In isolation posts may have looked 'off topic' but in the context of the debate....they were relevant.

That's one of the issues with the whole debate...the number of variables and factors that have to be considered.
And that leads to different points of view as to what is best.
If we have a full list to choose from I struggle to find a place for two rucks if it also means finding a place for Cerra, Cottrell and maybe Motlop.

We could be facing that situation in the next couple of games and it will be interesting to see how the match committee approaches it.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #53 –
I’ve taken a low level interest in this discussion. I’m not really invested in one solution. I’m happy for the MC to make a call based on their superior knowledge of all things football. If that means 0,1,2 or 10 rucks, I’ll back them in.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #54 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
I’ve taken a low level interest in this discussion. I’m not really invested in one solution. I’m happy for the MC to make a call based on their superior knowledge of all things football. If that means 0,1,2 or 10 rucks, I’ll back them in.
That's largely my position, it's the MC and a horses for courses approach, I find it absurd anyone could think there is only one viable tactical solution.

Especially when many posters on here continually complain about no Plan-B!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #55 –
I wonder if Voss and co may be looking at Fremantle’s ruck setup. Darcy is the anchor, like a better version of Pittonet, and Jackson is the mobile, athletic one, like Tom De Koning. I’m safely assuming (hoping) the MC will leave nothing to chance and will continue to thoroughly explore all options, even if that means a variable, horses for courses approach, based on the best solution for the opposition.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #56 –
Pat, I was typing and didn’t see your post.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #57 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
I wonder if Voss and co may be looking at Fremantle’s ruck setup. Darcy is the anchor, like a better version of Pittonet, and Jackson is the mobile, athletic one, like Tom De Koning. I’m safely assuming (hoping) the MC will leave nothing to chance and will continue to thoroughly explore all options, even if that means a variable, horses for courses approach, based on the best solution for the opposition.
I'd wonder the same, would you try to get a game into Pitto before then?

I won't be surprised to see a late change against Nthmond, because Darcy and Jackson are a big ask coming in from the cold!

Given Freo have defeated Swans, Darcy / Jackson versus the Grundy / KPF combo, is there a blueprint?

Darcy is not mobile, but he had 5 clearances against Grundy, is the bull ruck a Grundy weakness?

Lots to mull over.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #58 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
I wonder if Voss and co may be looking at Fremantle’s ruck setup. Darcy is the anchor, like a better version of Pittonet, and Jackson is the mobile, athletic one, like Tom De Koning. I’m safely assuming (hoping) the MC will leave nothing to chance and will continue to thoroughly explore all options, even if that means a variable, horses for courses approach, based on the best solution for the opposition.

It's not just the opposition. 

Its also the mids below.  Would our rucks go as well with a second string midfield going around at their feet?

Cripps, Kennedy, Hewett, Walsh, cerra.  All capable of winning the clearance.

Would freos ruck duo worked as well with our slower bigger midfield crew?

How would our rucks go in their midfield setup?

All pointed questions.

We've argued about the stats, and the ladder but the scoreboard lies too. 

14.14 to 15.9.  On paper freo won, but in practice did they win easily?  I haven't seen any of it, so I don't know, the stats can lie. 
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #59 –
The issues of run and carry having one or two rucks are vastly overstated by opponents of the two rucks, it's really not an issue.

When you run two rucks there are three main scenarios;
A:- One Ruck on the Ground, One on the Bench
B:- Two Rucks on the Ground
C:- Both Rucks on the Bench

A is the most common, but it's not 100% of the time. B happens more than people realise and C rarely happens but it does happen.

Time on the bench isn't necessarily causing a lack of run, a significant portion of the reported bench time happens when players take set shots for goal, most using the full 30s plus some, then there is the obligatory Ad after every goal not just set shots. It a flaw of stats that bench time isn't just measured against Time On, a rather uncomfortably large chuck of time is standing or sitting there waiting for the red light to flash!

The time a ruck occupies can obviously vary, but it's an interval largely distributed across the rest of the team. I heard one of our players(McGovern or Hewett if I recall correctly) described playing the second ruck reduced bench time for the rest of players by about 60-90s per player for the entire game. That is because it's a distribution, whether it's proportional to run or distributed evenly is really an MC issue.

Of course opponents of playing the two rucks like to make it sound bad, they like to talk totals, he spent 18 minutes on the bench, he spent 22 minutes on the bench, but of course that 18 or 22 minutes is distributed across 21 team-mates. If we use bench time averages and report it as our players spent 65s or 83s less on the bench across the whole game, it barely registers as a concern.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"