Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Great Ruck Debate. (Read 31906 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #60 –
Thry, I agree. The connections and interrelationships are also important.

I watched the game, and IMO Freo was the better team, despite the shots on goal. Sydney came late in the 3rd and throughout the 4th and nearly pinched it.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #61 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
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.
They led comfortably at one stage, maybe four or five goals for almost half a game, then held off a fast finishing Swans.

It was in Sydney too!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #62 –
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.

But does that not filter down if we use a backup ruck as well? If our mids are doing all the work??

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #63 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
But does that not filter down if we use a backup ruck as well? If our mids are doing all the work??

our lack of leg speed is a bigger issue than the ruck combo is a big point, but my next question is interesting. 

If we play a shock value ruck for longer how well does that work?  Like you've stated it comes back to the mean right?  My recollection of playing jack in the ruck was the more it happened the worse it looked over time. 

That's not to say don't do it, but as we play two rucks how would that look over time?  Better worse same?  Depends on the bigger picture.  Players available, not.  Etc.  Harry wasn't kicking as well last year as he does this year.  Would that change the debate entirely just by him improving? 

Perhaps.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #64 –
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'm not sure that the Fremantle model is one you'd want to follow (although the Freo pair made life very difficult for Grundy), and the hounds are baying for Darcy to be traded so Jackson can scale new heights as the sole ruckman.  The emergence of Treacy and Amiss as key forwards is another factor.

I think that you can safely assume that our MC aren't wedded to a single approach and will play Tom, Pitto or both of them as appropriate.  One thing I think that we can be sure of is that, unlike Melbourne, they won't throw their hands in the air and give up on two rucks.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #65 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
our lack of leg speed is a bigger issue than the ruck combo is a big point, but my next question is interesting. 

If we play a shock value ruck for longer how well does that work?  Like you've stated it comes back to the mean right?  My recollection of playing jack in the ruck was the more it happened the worse it looked over time. 

That's not to say don't do it, but as we play two rucks how would that look over time?  Better worse same?  Depends on the bigger picture.  Players available, not.  Etc.  Harry wasn't kicking as well last year as he does this year.  Would that change the debate entirely just by him improving? 

Perhaps.

There's a bit to unpack there.

Firstly, leg speed is part of the equation in limiting your talls. Again, this is in relation to our side, nobody else. As good and fast as TDK is, he can not compete with sn extra mid/half forward that would take the other spot in the 22. Obviously, all are quicker than TDK.

Jack (or anyone else) is only a part time solution to take 20% of the ruck load. The main benefit of Jack (or anyone else) doing that role is that they are already in the side doing a primary role. It also assists with ground ball work around the ground by comparison to a ruck.
The other side of this tactic is this. Both Jack (before his injury) and Harry earlier this year found form by being freed up to have a run around in the middle. Go back and look through the early games pre/in/post-game threads and you'll see many contributed Harrys return to form to playing backup ruck.
This tactic could work in any game someone is being beaten and gives Vossy a different lever to pull on match day.

Even Charlie has an 'out' to get himself into the game by going and playing in the backline whenever he sees fit.
Playing backup ruck is Harrys out.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #66 –
Quote from: LP – on
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.

If that really made no difference you wouldn’t see the guns on the pine.
Let’s go BIG !

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #67 –
Quote from: northernblue – on
If that really made no difference you wouldn’t see the guns on the pine.
I think your statement is a confusion of total time on the bench versus +/- some seconds, and that is how intuition fails most fans.

The average total game time if we consider the length of quarters is about 120min, the average percentage time on ground if we are conservative is about 70%. So that's on average about 84min on the ground and 36min off the ground. We concede across the list the distribution is a bell curve, with KPPs closer to 100% and SFs closer to 60%, Subs are typically < 30%.

Further in that 120min, there are 20 to 30 total goals scored, in modern AFL that's 10min to 15min of global rest time minimum, in real terms actually it's even more because of the broadcast arrangements.

The players I heard discuss the impact of two rucks basically imply that 26min of bench time +/- some seconds makes stuff all difference.

How many visits to the bench do players have, and over how many visits to the bench is that "lost" 60s to 90s per player distributed across? 4 at one visit per quarter, 8 if they go to the bench twice, that's somewhere between 7s and 15s per visit!

If I look at a top line running Mid, someone like Warner or Heeney for the Swans last night, they spend 85% game time on the ground, they come off once per quarter for an average of 255s, so the second ruck would give them 255s +/- 15s in the worst case.

I tend to believe the players.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"
 

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #68 –
Quote from: northernblue – on
If that really made no difference you wouldn’t see the guns on the pine.

Yep.

Every little bit of rest time counts.

Playing a second ruck and working out the relative TOG differences translates to 1 ruck sitting on the bench for one quarter of the game MORE than if you play 1 ruck.
So thats equivalent to 1 quarter worth of no rotations.
Spread that across 18 players and its close to 2 minutes of less rest a game.

However, the bigger part of that scenario is that all of the players that get 2 minutes less rest, are also picking up the slack of 1 extra player that is now not in the side due to that second ruck.
Given that player is usually a small/mid and you might have 12 of them who you would consider would be picking up the slack of that player. So 12 players doing the work of 13 (if you had 1 ruck) means they are doing the equivalent of 10 minutes more work......with 2 minutes less rest to cover that missing rotation.

So yes, the load is spread around to other players, but that load is significant in the scheme of things when you do the math on the rest of the blokes picking up the slack.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #69 –
Pittonet not playing in the twos, wonder if there might be a late change today.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #70 –
Quote from: DJC – on
................................................................

I think that you can safely assume that our MC aren't wedded to a single approach and will play Tom, Pitto or both of them as appropriate.  One thing I think that we can be sure of is that, unlike Melbourne, they won't throw their hands in the air and give up on two rucks.

It will be interesting to see where the MC take this, assuming both remain on the list. One of the appropriate ways to play them may be to occasionally use De Koning as a super sub. Get Pittonet to work over the other ruck man for e.g 2 1/2 quarters, then bring on De Koning to use his fresh legs, athleticism and skill to gain dominance around stoppage and in the air. In wet conditions like today, it could work.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #71 –
Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on
Pittonet not playing in the twos, wonder if there might be a late change today.
Pretty wet conditions, so it's probably not surprising.

Today in the 1s it should be Charlie weather, not Harry weather. Even after the rain stops the cold will keep things greasy.

But late in games, when the talls aren't getting any shorter, they can often have an impact in heavy conditions.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #72 –
Thought we handled the ruck situation pretty well yesterday, and if we are mostly going with one ruck it may be the blueprint for going forward.
Now assuming we take Voss at his word, DeKoning had some 'general soreness'.
So by giving him a break we were also able to get some senior game time into Pittonet as he comes back from injury.
Win-win.

Now if DeKoning was generally sore that also indicates that his workload will need to be managed so that one or both of them are ready to go come finals.
One of the key concerns with just one ruck is the toll it would take over a season for a solo ruckman.

Playing it the way we did yesterday means that some weeks we play only one ruck, others we alternate the rucks depending on the opposition, and some weeks maybe both play.
We are pretty lucky, and probably one of the few teams who have two ruckmen able to handle the solo role, if need be.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #73 –
Quote from: Lods – on
Thought we handled the ruck situation pretty well yesterday, and if we are mostly going with one ruck it may be the blueprint for going forward.
Now assuming we take Voss at his word, DeKoning had some 'general soreness'.
So by giving him a break we were also able to get some senior game time into Pittonet as he comes back from injury.
Win-win.

Now if DeKoning was generally sore that also indicates that his workload will need to be managed so that one or both of them are ready to go come finals.
One of the key concerns with just one ruck is the toll it would take over a season for a solo ruckman.

Playing it the way we did yesterday means that some weeks we play only one ruck, others we alternate the rucks depending on the opposition, and some weeks maybe both play.
We are pretty lucky, and probably one of the few teams who have two ruckmen able to handle the solo role, if need be.

Yes, having two competent and competitive rucks is a huge positive.

However, unless your sole ruckman can “rest” forward, the one ruckman approach does affect forward structure.  For example, when Harry was rucking, Zac Williams was our CHF.  That reduces his ability to have an impact and puts more defensive pressure on Charlie.

Tom and Pitto both spend around 25% of the game on the pine so were effectively playing with one genuine key forward for one quarter.

Obviously, we are able to work around that with Cripps going forward and our mids and small forwards hitting the scoreboard.

It will be interesting to see how the ruck duties are shared from here on in 🤔
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #74 –
Quote from: Lods – on
Now if DeKoning was generally sore that also indicates that his workload will need to be managed so that one or both of them are ready to go come finals.
One of the key concerns with just one ruck is the toll it would take over a season for a solo ruckman.
The nerd discussing stats won't ever understand this, and much of the media coverage is a stats nerd sitting in front of a PC waiting for their preferred / predicted numbers to appear, or at least waiting for something to appear that supports their preferred scenario, no matter how selective the data turns out to be if a supporting case it will be found and broadcast to all who wish to follow.

But the solo ruck problem exists in the real world not on a spreadsheet, and it's never about one game or one quarter, it's about a season long strategy.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"