Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Great Ruck Debate. (Read 30240 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #75 –
Quote from: LP – on
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.

Resorting to name calling are we LP?

Getting desperate are we??

Potentially the nerd talking about stats has covered this before and talked about a rotation policy as well. Which, when you think about it, actually provides us with fresher rucks than if we played 2 every week.

The knock on from having 2 rucks exists in the real world as well, and makes the others players sorer as a result, which i literally highlighted this week, but feel free to pick and choose whichever scenario suits your argument, rather than look at the facts and THEN make a judgement.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #76 –
Thought i'd come back to this after seeing the ins/outs for this week.

Hewett has been ommitted (as has Pittonet) for this week. In is Cottrell (and TDK).

Now the reason i bring this up is someone of Hewetts talent can't get a game right now because of how good our team is going.
Imagine we played a 2nd ruck.
I don't think Hewett has missed a game this year, and i don't think anyone would say he's done anything wrong, or is terribly out of form.  Excluding his 2 games where he started as sub, he has averaged 25 touches this year and 5.2 tackles.

So the question is, who else would you drop in order to play that 2nd ruck this week?
.....and how could you justify that?

The benifit provided by that 2nd ruck surely doesn't even come close to the output of someone like Hewett (or better) who would also need to make way.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #77 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Thought i'd come back to this after seeing the ins/outs for this week.

Hewett has been ommitted (as has Pittonet) for this week. In is Cottrell (and TDK).

Now the reason i bring this up is someone of Hewetts talent can't get a game right now because of how good our team is going.
Imagine we played a 2nd ruck.
I don't think Hewett has missed a game this year, and i don't think anyone would say he's done anything wrong, or is terribly out of form.  Excluding his 2 games where he started as sub, he has averaged 25 touches this year and 5.2 tackles.

So the question is, who else would you drop in order to play that 2nd ruck this week?
.....and how could you justify that?

The benifit provided by that 2nd ruck surely doesn't even come close to the output of someone like Hewett (or better) who would also need to make way.

That's easy; Ollie Hollands.

A second ruck in reasonable form, like Pitto, would provide greater output than Ollie has over recent weeks.  Cottrell covers Ollie's role and De Koning going forward means we don't miss Cottrell as a high half forward.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #78 –
The two ruck combination worked well last time we played GWS.
I'd have no problems if we used it again this week.
We've been playing ducks and drakes with our line ups after initial selection (TDK last week) so it may  pay to see how we actually line up.
We've also been managing our players game time and it may be  the Hewett move is part of that strategy.
Will Kennedy  play...I suspect he won't.
I suspect he shouldn't
... and in comes Hewett.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #79 –
Quote from: DJC – on
That's easy; Ollie Hollands.

A second ruck in reasonable form, like Pitto, would provide greater output than Ollie has over recent weeks.  Cottrell covers Ollie's role and De Koning going forward means we don't miss Cottrell as a high half forward.

So you want to play our least mobile player in place of one of our best runners and think that's a good idea?
In form or not, hollands running power benefits the team and losing that has a follow on effect.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #80 –
Quote from: Lods – on
The two ruck combination worked well last time we played GWS.
I'd have no problems if we used it again this week.
We've been playing ducks and drakes with our line ups after initial selection (TDK last week) so it may  pay to see how we actually line up.
We've also been managing our players game time and it may be  the Hewett move is part of that strategy.
Will Kennedy  play...I suspect he won't.
I suspect he shouldn't
... and in comes Hewett.

Don't site on the fence. Who comes out?
 

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #81 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Don't site on the fence. Who comes out?

I'll site where I like thank you :D

You're a demanding fellow and folks can answer as they like. ;)

I don't know if the MC will play two rucks, but if they do it is probably likely that Ollie Hollands will not play.
I've also provided a scenario that explains the Hewett omission, that may or may not come to pass.
You seem to have this idea that if Pittonet plays there is no counter benefit to losing one of the running players.

Pittonet's contribution may be greater than Hollands
There may be more benefit from Hollands extra run
But the addition of either comes with a benefit and that benefit may very well cancel out a loss in another area.

You're invested in the one way of structuring (a single ruck), that you probably find it hard to give any thought that another way may also work...even slightly better, depending on the opponent.

It's not all gain or loss either way
Given we used two rucks very effectively last time we played this mob, I'd have no problem if we played that way again....but I don't think we will.

I think Hewett will come in for Kennedy
And Pittonet won't play.
But we'll leave that to the folks with a better idea than us. ;)

.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #82 –
I'm invested in us winning.

I'm invested in picking a balanced team.

It's been a bugbear of mine for more than a decade. We lost many games at the selection table. Coach's playing their favourites. Or picking types to suit trends.
Under vossy things have been much better.
We went away from it in the middle of the year last year. Changed tact and started winning. Then reverted back in the prelim.

I've got no issue with playing 2 rucks at the right time. With the right mix of players.
Usually because a key forward is out. Potentially of a key back is out.
However, if we have our full compliment of KPPs available and the likes of cripps and Kennedy in the side, then we simply cannot afford to carry 2 rucks.

I find it ironic that half of my arguing about ruckmen is defending the stat of hitout to advantage against people who completely ignore it, usually because our 'mids make the stat'....but at the same time suggest we need 2 rucks playing because of their complimentary nature.

Either the ruck makes so much of a difference that we need 2 of them.
Or they make so little difference you can ruck anyone.

Re hollands.
He might be in danger if we get someone like jack Martin or even cuningham back in form, but it throw out our balance if it's for a ruck.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #83 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Potentially the nerd talking about stats has covered this before and talked about a rotation policy as well. Which, when you think about it, actually provides us with fresher rucks than if we played 2 every week.
You are the only one referring to two rucks every week, a stat nerd would probably
get that right.

The rest of us think it will be one or two as required by the opponent as per MC tactics.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #84 –
I'm all for one or two rucks.  Means nothing to me in the season proper but we all know what's going to happen later in the year. 

Finals football usually means contested footy not outside run.  It will likely mean two rucks.

For all the huffing and puffing going on at the minute during the finals we played a bit taller and the stronger contested players than the outside runners and generally it held us in good stead.  Only thing that stopped us was not having the extra week off and having a few sore bodies heading into the prelim.

When was the last time we won a final with one recognised ruckman?  ;)
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #85 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
I'm invested in us winning.

I reckon you're not Robinson Crusoe ;)
All of us are invested in winning

With reference to the preliminary final against Brisbane...there were a range of opinions.

Some thought we were in with a real chance....
Others thought that we'd run our race and a win would have been one for the ages, that the home ground advantage and the effort it had taken to reach the prelim would take its toll.

Expectations differed.
If you believed we were a chance you would have been looking around for reasons we lost.
If you thought we'd gone as far as we could go and that the effort had taken its toll and didn't expect to win, you probably had a good idea of the reasons in your own mind.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #86 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
So you want to play our least mobile player in place of one of our best runners and think that's a good idea?
In form or not, hollands running power benefits the team and losing that has a follow on effect.

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 still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #87 –
Quote from: DJC – on
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.
Yes, it seems reasonable, but as most of us mention it won't be every round.

Anti-ruck duo fans always go down this path, but the reality is when Pitto is in it releases TDK to spend time forward as you mention, and in terms of mobility around stoppages and straight line speed I wouldn't be at all surprised to find the average speed and agility for our F50 goes up when TDK has opportunity to rest forward.

Also fans like to complain about lost bench time for Mids, I don't hear the Mids complaining given they get A-Grade service from Pitto and TDK as a duo, and from the mouths of babes they told us it makes stuff all difference. Further the same anti-ruck duo types won't mentioned that when the ruck duo is in it's Charlie who probably gets some of the extra bench seconds, and Charlie's biggest weapon is his capacity run opponents ragged. Good luck for Charlie's opponent when we do something to give him an ever so little freshen up, and those same opponents, do they get a rest or do they then have to stay out there and stand Harry or TDK? I'd assert forcing the opponents to stay out there puts them at their limit, which makes the seconds they don't get more critical than the seconds Charlie would get.

All this is why we leave our trust in Voss and the MC, because it's never as simple as fans want to make out!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #88 –
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.”

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #89 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
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.”

I think King is right.  Pitto would have reduced the influence of Briggs and freed up De Koning to do more around the ground.

It’s definitely worth persevering with for several games to see if we can get the balance right.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!