Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Great Ruck Debate. (Read 30058 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #15 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
You can get cohesion on the training track though. You want to put that into practice in games, being the #1 target in VFL would get more practice than 3rd banana in the 1's.
I've done a million different analysis of these, a lot of it will be littered through these threads. Some of it you can still find the stats and work through the logic of it, some of it are really only relevant at the time.
For instance, pressure ratings are very difficult to find. However, in the moment there is often graphs, stats, trends and discussions around them which can be found highlighting these exact things. I'm sure you could try and find a lot of the analysis from trawling through old footy shows and pre-shows if you had the time.

In terms of opposition and talent you are up against, that is easier to check. I actually did a recent analysis for LP (which he ignored)
All of your debates above are coming from the 'now' whereas i am summarising from the 'then'.

Thats the thing, its a moving goal post.

Maybe Jack improves? Maybe TDK goes backwards? Maybe we recruit a better 3rd tall forward option or repurpose someone we already have?
What any of that will do to our team balance depends on what our team balance is at the time.

Again, i'm not playing any favourites. If Jack doesn't play again. So be it. If TDK plays the next 200 games straight, so be it.
Whatever is best for the team is best for me.


It's funny because I often feel you're looking at the 'now' rather than the possibilities of what might be. ;D
Stats certainly are a measure of the 'past'...as soon as they occur.

Just on those two games you mention

No rucks yep
But at the time we played them we were beginning our charge.
The other sides were going backwards or not progressing.

Rnd 16 v Hawthorn
Hawthorn were 16th
They stayed 16th

Rnd 17 v Freo
Freo were 11th.
They fell to 14th were they stayed until the end of the year.

So the quality of the opposition matters.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #16 –
Quote from: Lods – on

It's funny because I often feel you're looking at the 'now' rather than the possibilities of what might be. ;D
Stats certainly are a measure of the 'past'...as soon as they occur.

Just on those two games you mention

No rucks yep
But at the time we played them we were beginning our charge.
The other sides were going backwards or not progressing.

Rnd 16 v Hawthorn
Hawthorn were 16th
They stayed 16th

Rnd 17 v Freo
Freo were 11th.
They fell to 14th were they stayed until the end of the year.

So the quality of the opposition matters.

Yes, and so does the margin that goes along with it.

Go and have a look at the pre-games.....plenty of people were saying we would get smashed in both.
At the time, they were our peers. In fact, we were 16th and Hawks were only 2 points below us on the ladder.

The difference between the then and now, is the NOW is when we are challenging for a flag.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #17 –
Voss has made one mistake this season.
He said the "ladder doesn't lie." ;)
It does!
Does anyone seriously believe that Brisbane are the tenth best side in the competition, despite where they sit at the moment.
The only ladder that counts is the one at the end of the year...and even that can change after finals.
That's the one that tells you the true standing of a team.

And the fact is that Fremantle and Hawthorn were the 14th and 16th best sides in 2023, and Carlton were no 5 at the end of H&A and equal 3rd after the finals.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #18 –
Quote from: LP – on
Personally, I think the debate is dead already, has been for most of this season.

Do you think so?
I think we've found a pulse. :D  :D  :D

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #19 –
Quote from: Lods – on
Voss has made one mistake this season.
He said the "ladder doesn't lie." ;)
It does!
Does anyone seriously believe that Brisbane are the tenth best side in the competition, despite where they sit at the moment.
The only ladder that counts is the one at the end of the year...and even that can change after finals.
That's the one that tells you the true standing of a team.

And the fact is that Fremantle and Hawthorn were the 14th and 16th best sides in 2023, and Carlton were no 5 at the end of H&A and equal 3rd after the finals.

The ladder is a fairly neat encapsulation of the body of work a team has produced thus far, but not necessarily a fair representation of where a team is in the moment. The Lions play the Demons tomorrow, and despite the ladder saying the Demons are 9th and the Lions 10th, the form line suggests that these teams are miles apart and seemingly headed in different directions. I would not be at all surprised to see Brisbane win by 10 goals.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #20 –
Quote from: Lods – on
Voss has made one mistake this season.
He said the "ladder doesn't lie." ;)
It does!
Does anyone seriously believe that Brisbane are the tenth best side in the competition, despite where they sit at the moment.
The only ladder that counts is the one at the end of the year...and even that can change after finals.
That's the one that tells you the true standing of a team.

And the fact is that Fremantle and Hawthorn were the 14th and 16th best sides in 2023, and Carlton were no 5 at the end of H&A and equal 3rd after the finals.


No he was right.  The ladder doesn't lie, it's a measure of the past and how teams have travelled to now.

Not what a side is capable of nor where a side should be ranked in the comp.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #21 –
Is the ruck thread seriously going off track?
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #22 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
Is the ruck thread seriously going off track?

Just mention hitouts to advantage and it will get back on track 😇
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #23 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
No he was right.  The ladder doesn't lie, it's a measure of the past and how teams have travelled to now.

Not what a side is capable of nor where a side should be ranked in the comp.

You're right to an extent...it's a measure of the past.
But it has little meaning in terms of the present.
It has little relevance to the 'now' for many sides.

Especially these days, where some sides have two byes before a side has one and a compromised and unfair fixture.

(But the ruck thread has been derailed :o ...serves it right...my fault in part. :( )

So just relating it back to the ruck debate...
When we look at assessing combinations and individuals we have to consider things like...

1) What combinations were used...e.g. one ruck or two
2) The strength of the opposition as a whole....and the strengths of the opposition-(a side may have a quality ruckman but still be a struggling side-much like Melbourne at the moment.)
3) Individual match-ups...Do our rucks struggle against a certain type of opponent?-(and that may be different for each of our guys)
4) Time spent in the ruck contests.
5) Margins (as Kruddler points out) compared to expectations...a 50 point win when expectations were for a close game is significant.
6) Ability to run out the game...Did a solo ruck tire noticeably and once his dominance waned did momentum go with it.
7) Time on the bench.
8) Other obvious advantages and disadvantages...extra clearances v more run, extra breaks.

So there's a fair bit to factor in.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #24 –
Quote from: Lods – on
Kreuzer probably deserves some kudos because he has two AFL standard ruckmen under his charge.

I think that Matty Kreuzer deserves more credit.

Tom sang his praises in the interview where he explained “zones” and how it’s his call as to which zone he intends to use.  While it could be argued that Tom’s improved ruckwork is natural development and maturity, Pitto’s improvement has to be down to Matty; he was a borderline spud at Hawthorn.

Harry was reluctant and largely ineffective when he first started taking ruck contests in the forward 50.  Now he has a technique that keeps him safe, allows him to neutralise the opposition ruck, take clean possession, and get the odd hitout.  That’s down to Matty K.

 Crippa was very good at third man up before the AFL took that weapon away from us and he has the size and strength to compete against smaller ruckmen.  While he is capable of taking clean possession and winning an occasional hitout, his main modus operandi is forcing/fooling the opposition ruck to hit to the wrong zone.  That’s Matty K’s work.

Chugga’s strength and determination are his main weapons in ruck contests.  His prime objective is to make it hard for the opposition rucks to direct the ball to their midfielders’ advantage.  Again, Matty K has equipped him to do that.

Hudson O’Keeffe was a raw talent with an impressive vertical leap when we picked him up.   He’s now a steadily improving young ruckman who has an impact around the ground.  Will he make it? Not through lack of effort on Matty K’s part.

Harry Lemmey is fortunate to have Harry McKay mentoring him as a key forward and Matty K mentoring him as a ruckman.  While he is a KPP first and foremost, he is competitive against the best rucks running around in the VFL and that’s a huge improvement over his first season.

Then there’s Alex Mirkov.  After a huge improvement in his ruck craft in his first two seasons, he has stagnated if not gone backwards.  Is that down to Matty K, or Alex’s inability to use his huge frame in the ruck and around the ground?

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

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #25 –
@djc, mirkov has no idea how to use his height to his advantage.  He should be running and jumping in ruck contests rather than worrying about his frame.  Matt can't help him with this.  Kreuzer was an excellent ruck but he was undersized and that means he can't teach how to use that size mirkov posesses to advantage.  You would think a volleyball convert would have the vertical leap to really own the aerial component of the ruck battle, and could jump all over an opponent.  Mirkov might learn more from tdk about that than he will from kreuzer.  His strength was not dominating the air but the follow up work after the contest.

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #26 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Kreuzer was an excellent ruck but he was undersized and that means he can't teach how to use that size mirkov posesses to advantage.
I think the ruck size issue is vastly overstated. much like the claims McGovern is too small for KPP.

On SpecialK Malthouse started that rubbish and it stuck, people seemed to conveniently forget when Malthouse first joined the club one of his first statements was that he was shocked by how big they were. Then when things started to go south he come out with SpecialK is too small, it was bullsh1t then and it's bullsh1t now! I don't know why fans swallowed this rubbish without questioning it, I suppose they were looking for reasons or excuses as to why the great coach was failing.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #27 –
He probably won't stay on the list but I wonder how much Mirkov's health issues have affected his development.
He missed a fair bit of time.
It would certainly have affected his confidence, and it would have basically been back to square one.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #28 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
@djc, mirkov has no idea how to use his height to his advantage.  He should be running and jumping in ruck contests rather than worrying about his frame.  Matt can't help him with this.  Kreuzer was an excellent ruck but he was undersized and that means he can't teach how to use that size mirkov posesses to advantage.  You would think a volleyball convert would have the vertical leap to really own the aerial component of the ruck battle, and could jump all over an opponent.  Mirkov might learn more from tdk about that than he will from kreuzer.  His strength was not dominating the air but the follow up work after the contest.

Not jumping at ruck contests is commonplace and is one of the outcomes of rule changes intended to minimise injuries.  However, if you’re 210cm and 110kg, you should be able dominate opponents, jumping or not. Mirkov did that quite well in his first couple of seasons but it’s not so evident now.  He also doesn’t have much of a presence around the ground and I don’t think you can afford a ruckman who doesn’t impact contests these days.

Kreuzer wasn’t an undersized ruckman.  At 200cm and 105kg, he was right in the mix.  For example, Levi Casboult was 199cm, Sam Jacobs was 203cm and Shaun Hampson and Nic Naitanui were both 201cm. Paddy Ryder, at 196cm, was “undersized” but was one of the best ruckmen of that era.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #29 –
I suppose it's possible Mirkov has lost a lot of aerobic capacity, strength and condition from his health issues, so it might take time to regain that.

He looked to have enough to persist with before his health issues, probably deserves another run at it if he wants it.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"