Carlton Supporters Club

Hollands is covered by the inclusion of Cottrell so we’ve actually got more running power.

The inclusion of a second ruck would effectively be at the expense of Hewett and we have ample midfield cover, particularly with De Koning playing forward in bursts.

It's interesting discussion, I know that the media continue to cherrypick events to either support or oppose a perspective.

For example in much of the recent rock throwing there is almost zero discussion of the injuries to TDK and Weitering. They will roll out the usual, "They went back on so they are fit", but it's hardly reality. The media want to paint the failure as "The Team", while most fans would assert the failure was probably an imbalance starting at MC, leaving the squad on the day without any cover, partial or total, for events around unexpected injuries.

For me the solo ruck might deliver the best chance of being competitive in expected circumstances "on the day", but the "on the day" part is massively dependant "on the circumstance", and as we have just seen it wasn't valid for "any or every circumstance".

Many in the AFL will assert you need "a bit of luck", and last weekend we had very little, but I think an astute MC is and must be task at minimising the contribution of luck. Still we nearly got across the line, with an unexpected reserve of last quarter run, but is that valid for GF Day?

I think it's pretty obvious, there will be days when we run one ruck, and other days when we run two rucks, and it depends as much on the opponent as it does on our own process. TDK was a good match up for Briggs when TDK is 100% fit, but the moment TDK was injured and the contest became a wrestle, Pitto would have been the much better choice but he wasn't there. The same could be applied to the ruck in the absence of injury, if GWS change ruck/stoppage tactics.

It's somewhat naivé of fans to think opponents will simply allow TDK to continue jumping over them or running off them without reacting.

"If you take the field you're fit" is one of those ridiculous football cliches.

It's the same as "We're taking it one week at a time" or "Injuries are no excuse."
If a club is taking it one game at a time their 'forward planning' is pretty "crap.
And injuries can cripple a sides season...we know that better than most.

I reckon we probably had half a dozen players on the weekend who were injured to some extent before they took the field and that hampered their performances. We don't know of course but we had three players roll ankles the week before and there is some talk Charlie rolled his pre-game.

Were GWS that good/ were we that bad.
Bit of both...but at different stages of the game.

GWS were awful in the first term.
They were excellent in the second and third, but struggled in the last.

Their 'dominant' period was just a little better than ours, lasted a little longer, and our worst was much worse than theirs.
And those momentum changes probably related to a fair extent to our injuries.

I wouldn't be getting over excited if I was a Giants fan.
I have a feeling they'll come back to earth pretty quickly.

On the rucks...
One of my main issues with the debate is the way we sometimes talk in "absolutes"...sometimes on both sides of the debate.

"We lose balance"
"We lose run"
"We lose clearances"
"If a solo ruck goes down we have nothing left"

The truth is we don't.
We don't lose these things.
They're not lost.
Not completely.
They change, sometimes dramatically and sometimes very subtly.

A player replacing a ruckman who goes down in the first ten minutes may not have the same influence, indeed it may be considerably less, but it doesn't disappear completely.
Not playing an extra runner doesn't mean you have no run at all.

With an advantage gained in one area, there is always a sacrifice in other areas.
The other thing is that things like balance and run are very hard to measure because there are numerous factors that can affect those things...including injury, loss of form, a poor game, weather
You can pick a side on paper...but the expectations won't always much the onfield performance.

Close your mind to options and you close your mind to opportunities to explore different structure and tactics.
You become one dimensional in that aspect of the game...and that makes you predictable.

We actually decreased our advantage in that regard to try strengthen a weakness when we have no hope of beating them with speed.  So smash them inside so they can't use the outside is that tactic to employ against these sides.  Could be argued we tried this vs Sydney and lost badly...

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/carlton-blues/afl-2024-carlton-blues-loss-to-gws-giants-reactions-response-mark-robinson-says-carlton-has-achieved-nothing-analysis-latest-news/news-story/60c03d8bdc3d6062b0edf75461db90f4

David King advocating for playing both De Koning and Pittonet, at least in the lead up to finals.

Dual premiership Kangaroo David King meanwhile believes the Blues need to bring Marc Pittonet back into the team to support Tom De Koning in the ruck.

King suggested Voss needed to at least get another look at the dual-ruck setup in the remaining seven home and away rounds to ensure he has his optimal mix for September.

“Pittonet is in this team for me because the ruck rule has changed ... do you go with two ruckmen or one?,” he said on The First Crack.

“They need Pittonet in there. Because if De Koning can’t get it done at clearance in terms of tapwork, they’re a different team.

“You’ve got (seven) weeks to have a look.”

“Little reality check for them, might have just got ahead of themselves,” Saints legend Leigh Montagna said on Fox Footy’s The First Crack.

“I’m not too concerned, I think their game is in great shape.

“Maybe just a good little reminder, if you take the foot off the gas ever so slightly, anyone can trounce you.”

TDK did not better or no worse than the majority of his games in the ruck this year.

The only reason its an issue this week is because we lost.
Where was this message from David King the last 5 weeks?

FWIW, we've played 4th, 5th, 6th, 12th and 18th over the past 5 weeks, won them all by at least 4 goals and have an average winning margin of over 7 goals in that time.

So, first of all, lets forget about all this sky is falling stuff Kingy.
Yes, ruck had some issues......but so did almost everyone. It was a bad game for most. Luck was not in our favour. Why change everything on whim?

Thankfully not everyone is as alarmist as King is. Lets look at Leigh Montagnas take in the same article....
I like this approach a lot better.

I think a lot of fans viewed GWS at home as a danger game much like the Swans are hard yakka at the SCG and its unlikely we would beat either if both were having reasonable seasons.
GWS match up well and have players who can counter our best so the result was no real surprise and no need to panic and drop half the team.
The ruck debate is an easy one for me...horses for courses, Briggs and Riccardi only required one specialist ruck and some relief workers in McKay and Kennedy. TDK was ok around the ground but Briggs had a day out and that can happen vs any team and I wouldnt be rushing Pittonet back in unless TDK is carrying an injury or too sore to play 100 mins.

Nathan Buckley made some good points this week about the ruck. Showed that the sides that have had the most hit outs have only won 49% of games.