Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Great Ruck Debate. (Read 30384 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #165 –
Quote from: DJC – on
That's one consideration but not necessarily a compelling one.

It's more about fielding a team that is best equipped to beat the opposition.  That team could have one ruckman and a competent part timer (not Matt Kennedy) or two genuine ruckmen, at least one of whom should have more than one string to their bow.

Not a compelling one from my point of view either.

I agree in theory.

In practice, i'm yet to see a side where we are better off by playing 2 rucks against that given team if/when we have our first choice KPPs available at selection.
As i said, its all about team balance.....for us....and who we have available.

If we lose Charlie or Harry, play 2 rucks. No issue.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #166 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
You can't really put value on a big man that has presence. Putting on blocks, getting opposition mids out the way, just generally throwing their weight around. That would be a real asset to any team and Pittonet and De Koning would add to our team if they developed in this space. Hit outs are nice numerically, but not the main attraction IMO.

FWIW, both TDK and Pitto are excellent at clearances, and not just for rucks, but considering they get the chance to grab the ball out of the ruck before it even gets to the mids, it helps.

However, once the ball hits the deck is key. A ruck, even one as agile as TDK is NOT going to be as good as a mid at the point, despite the bigger body.
So an added bonus of playing bigger mids like Cripps and Kennedy in there as the ruck is it offers another genuine bigger body who can block and move mids out of the way.....yes usually sacrificing a hitout in the process (but not necessarily a hitout to advantage).

At the end of the day, if you wanna look at clearances for the team. Playing a backup ruck is not evident by looking at clearances week to week. There is no 'dip' in numbers of our team when playing a backup ruck. So....why else would you play one?

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #167 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Well thats the million dollar question.

If you could tell me what our luck is like on grand final day with injuries, and injuries to the opposition, i'd be better positioned to answer that.

Of course.....you have to win enough games to make finals, and perform well enough in the finals to MAKE the grand final.
We went too tall against the Lions last year, got ran over and fell 1 game short.

We didn't lose to the Lions because of the height.

We lost because we were a bit banged up and got run over by a side on their home deck and an extra weeks rest.

Our last few games against Melbourne suggest two rucks isn't a bad idea.

A few games doesn't tell the story well enough anyway.

To close out what im getting at, Tom is 76 games into his afl career.  Given he was still finding his feet for the first 50, and of the next 26 he's probably only featured in tandem about half that, is the sample size large enough to stamp it and categorically say anything?

Over time things change.  Give it another 30 games, Tom and pittonet could very well be a winning combination.

Or they might not be.  I try not to be too definite with things these days as the afl keep tinkering with things.  At times things will work, at times they won't.

I've seen the bombers run with Draper, Wright and Goldstein with no issues at times but at other times it hasn't worked which lends weight to things being a variable at best.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #168 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
We didn't lose to the Lions because of the height.

We lost because we were a bit banged up and got run over by a side on their home deck and an extra weeks rest.

Our last few games against Melbourne suggest two rucks isn't a bad idea.

A few games doesn't tell the story well enough anyway.

To close out what im getting at, Tom is 76 games into his afl career.  Given he was still finding his feet for the first 50, and of the next 26 he's probably only featured in tandem about half that, is the sample size large enough to stamp it and categorically say anything?

Over time things change.  Give it another 30 games, Tom and pittonet could very well be a winning combination.

Or they might not be.  I try not to be too definite with things these days as the afl keep tinkering with things.  At times things will work, at times they won't.

I've seen the bombers run with Draper, Wright and Goldstein with no issues at times but at other times it hasn't worked which lends weight to things being a variable at best.

We'll agree to disagree about the Lions game. Not just 1 factor involved there, but a lack of run is part and parcel with having an extra ruck.

I'm not worried about whats best for Tom.
Or
Whats best to Pitto.
Or
Any other individual.

I'm more for the team and the club.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #169 –
Quote from: LP – on
Are you somehow asserting our Cripps, Walsh, Cerra, Hewett, Kennedy midfield need no ruck at all?


You could no doubt get away with it. Especially with our blokes. Melbourne did. Tap outs these days are an overrated stat. How many times have we seen sides barely win a tapout but smash the opposition in the clearances. A number of times.

I'm not against not contesting a tap occasionally and have 4 on the deck. Seen that work in the women's game once when the ruck got injured.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #170 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
We'll agree to disagree about the Lions game. Not just 1 factor involved there, but a lack of run is part and parcel with having an extra ruck.

I'm not worried about whats best for Tom.
Or
Whats best to Pitto.
Or
Any other individual.

I'm more for the team and the club.
I think we are in agreement about what we are all interested in.

What's good for our team.

I think any perceived lack of run we may have with two rucks is because we coincide with a bad contribution from a number of our players (usually not the rucks).
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #171 –
Quote from: kruddler – on

Only one of us had posts removed from 'verballing' in this debate that i can recall and its not me.
Best check your memory.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #172 –
Michael Voss said through summer that Carlton needed to become a “great” home-and-away side to lay the platform for a legitimate premiership quest.

It was a point Harry McKay endorsed in February, the Blues determined to build on last year’s breakthrough preliminary final. In second spot heading into Sunday’s twilight clash against North Melbourne, the Blues have made more major steps, but successive losses to Greater Western Sydney and the Western Bulldogs have prompted questions about their true standing.
Injuries, as they have to many teams, have hurt, but the Blues have two philosophical questions to address. Are they better with two frontline ruckmen in Marc Pittonet and Tom De Koning, or do they just use the sprightly De Koning? For Sunday, at least, they have reverted to just using De Koning, axing Pittonet.

What Voss must also solve is how best to ease their woes in conceding scoring from clearances. The latter had been an area of strength until this season.

The De Koning and Pittonet debate has several layers. De Koning, 25, was brilliant when used as the sole ruck between rounds 11 and 17, for he was the No.1 ranked ruckman across the league in this period, including for disposals, contested possessions and clearances.

But Pittonet’s return against the Bulldogs nullified this, De Koning’s numbers in all categories plummeting, including for centre bounce clearances (from an average of 26 to 11), clearances (from nine to one) and score involvements (from an average of seven to one).
The answer, for Voss, seems clear. When De Koning has been the sole ruckman this season, the Blues average 103 points per game and have an 8-1 win-loss record. When the two giants are paired, the Blues average a more modest 89 points per game, and their record tumbles to 2-5, including a loss to Adelaide at Marvel Stadium when Pittonet was a shock late replacement for Adam Cerra.

AFL great Matthew Lloyd has maintained all season the Blues should only field De Koning, but Brisbane triple-premiership great Jonathan Brown says the robust Pittonet, 28, has been important for his younger teammate’s wellbeing, easing the physical load of clashing bodies at bounce downs and ball ups.
“Pittonet has certainly served his purpose, if you purely are just looking at Tom De Koning’s health, to get him through the finals series,” Brown said on Fox Footy.

The Blues, however, are invested in Pittonet, having last year handed him a four-year contract extension. De Koning can expect a monster new deal when his two-year extension, inked last year, expires after the 2025 campaign.
Voss said last weekend the Blues were still “evolving” as a side, and was amused at a football world that he said seems “somewhat besotted” by the ruck debate.

“We’re really fortunate that we’ve got some strengths in our team, and we’ve got two guys that can play ruck very well. And Tom can impact forward as well,” Voss said.

Pittonet had only nine touches against the Bulldogs, his inability to push forward and impact potentially hurting him at selection this weekend – and come September.

Amid the winter grind, opponents scoring from clearances is another issue the Blues must address, for they concede an average of 41.8 per game in this area, ranked 17th. This has contributed greatly to the Blues ceding 87 points per game - 15th across the league. To put that in perspective, no team in the past 24 years has ranked outside the top six for points against and won the premiership.
What is even more baffling is that this comes despite Jacob Weitering, now admittedly playing sore, being arguably the best key defensive tall in the league.

“We haven’t been at our best – from stoppages as well. We have been giving up a fair few points,” Blues forward Lachie Fogarty said.

“I think it’s important to look at the vision, it can be pretty confronting at times and tough to look at yourself, and knowing that you probably haven’t done the right thing in that instance. We’ll just keep looking at it and trying to grow.”
AFL great Nathan Buckley says tightening up at clearances can be a “quick fix”, with more defensive positioning around the ball, the Blues allowing the Bulldogs last week to burst easily from the front of stoppages.

“As an 18-man system, we are not connected,” Fogarty noted.

To become the great team Voss envisions, that connection switch needs to be flicked.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #173 –
Thanks for posting this. I think Voss has a point. You have 18 take the field, 4 on the bench and 1 sub. The inclusion or omission of one single player cannot have such a dramatic difference, unless the team has problems elsewhere. No doubt some difference must exist, but pairing the W/L and points scored with the number of ruckmen seems simplistic IMO.
 

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #174 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
Thanks for posting this. I think Voss has a point. You have 18 take the field, 4 on the bench and 1 sub. The inclusion or omission of one single player cannot have such a dramatic difference, unless the team has problems elsewhere. No doubt some difference must exist, but pairing the W/L and points scored with the number of ruckmen seems simplistic IMO.

I reckon our recent woes have more to do with certain mids getting beaten and opponents nullifying Newman's influence bug you won't hear voss talk about that publicly.

He's had a defensive forward play on him and whilst statistically he looks similar I think his ability to set us up at times was hampered significantly.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #175 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
I reckon our recent woes have more to do with certain mids getting beaten and opponents nullifying Newman's influence bug you won't hear voss talk about that publicly.

He's had a defensive forward play on him and whilst statistically he looks similar I think his ability to set us up at times was hampered significantly.
The Stat Nerds like Hoyne and Negrepontis want you to believe there is an association, but they ignore other potential casual associations with some losses like when Saad and McGovern are out, I suppose it doesn't fit their own agendas. Secondly, there is the issue of De Koning not being signed yet, it's useful for the media and opponents to drive a wedge because players moving clubs is what they want.

The media pick up on this and parrot the same claims, that's because the media are lazy and won't look deeper when they can have the bulk of the story written for them. The media are just repeating the same wrong conclusions a millions times, it like a lie repeated a million times, it's still a lie.

Fans are allowing the themselves to be distracted from the real issues by a smokescreen, the problems we have won't go away by fiddling with the ruck combination, because the problems are only coincident to the ruck selection issues, the ruck isn't casual.

Where the stats deceive are in areas like efficiency. For example you see our Mids with a series of give and get type disposals in close around the stoppages to break into space, then in the clear they kick it straight to the opposition. Those 2 or 3 possessions in close combined with the one b0rk give them a 67% or 75% DE rating, but the one stuffed up possession is 1000x more costly! ::)

Last year some repeatedly told us Pitto was mustard and TDK was mickey mouse, some even went as far to say we must not sign TDK on a long term deal and should trade him, there is no need to continually rehash the stats because we can all remember the message. This year now the same people using the same numbers are telling us Pitto is now apparently a boat anchor and TDK is mustard, yet the by the very same sets of numbers both have improved around stoppages in 2024 by 20% to 30%! :o

The problem in the analysis conflict is not the numbers, they are what they are, it's always the conclusions that humans b0rk up, reading too much into things by finding patterns don't exist, and profligate biased conclusions.

I think some have spent a bit too much time watching Moneyball and think they know everything about Statistics and Probability learnt from a dumbed down Hollywood blockbuster.

If we win this week against a bottom side they tell us it was because of the solo ruck, if we lose this week to a bottom side and I assert it was because of the solo ruck, they'll claim that's not the case. That's just how some roll!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #176 –
It'll always be the case that any win or loss is dependent on dozens of variables
Some structural changes create an advantage.
But with every advantage gained there will be a cost in another area.
That's the balance that's most important, not 'team balance'.

Team balance is another of those 'cliche' things that is also used in arguments.
It exists, but it's often used in a throwaway context like 'run'
We don't lose 'balance', we don't lose 'run' completely
The balance and run changes...often only slightly.
Multiple combinations of smalls and talls have been effective in the history of football.
It's totally dependent on the skills and abilities of the players

The fact that there are so many variables in play means that reducing an argument to a single position is a bit of a futile, and really 'simplistic' exercise.

Anyone who looks at our 'wins and losses' solely in terms of our ruck situation is guilty of a huge over-simplification.

It doesn't take into account all the other factors like-
Opposition strength,
Match-ups,
Changes to lineups on both sides,
Injuries during the game,
Key players being contained, down on form or carrying minor injuries
Coaching tactics on both sides.

After the first GWS game two rucks were the 'bees knees'
A couple of weeks later and it was the worst idea in the world.

We make judgements on limited information...even statistical information.
In the end it will all play out, and hopefully we'll enter a final's campaign with a number of structural options should things go pear shaped.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #177 –
Quote from: LP – on
Last year some repeatedly told us Pitto was mustard and TDK was mickey mouse, some even went as far to say we must not sign TDK on a long term deal and should trade him, there is no need to continually rehash the stats because we can all remember the message. This year now the same people using the same numbers are telling us Pitto is now apparently a boat anchor and TDK is mustard, yet the by the very same sets of numbers both have improved around stoppages in 2024 by 20% to 30%! :o

The problem in the analysis conflict is not the numbers, they are what they are, it's always the conclusions that humans b0rk up, reading too much into things by finding patterns don't exist, and profligate biased conclusions.

Despite being repeatedly told.....some people still missed the message. No point repeating it here as statistics will tell you that if they don't get it the first 20 times, its unlikely that the 21st time will make a difference. No hollywood blockbusters needed to work that one out.

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #178 –
Despite what some people like to make out, nobody is suggesting that the current side has 1 problem to solve and 1 problem only (1 ruck vs 2 rucks).

When doing analysis, simplistic at that, of wins vs losses, its easy to jump to conclusions.

Even when those kind of statistics have backed up my claims, i've still cautioned the use of them for that regard.

That being said.
There is more and more statistics, visual queues, win/loss records, expert analysis and even MC choices that are all tending the same way in regards to this debate. I've done more than enough analysis over the years in regards to the pros and cons of this to know that each individual article for or against is setlling the whole debate very short as its always oversimplified in a short form article. But the amount of evidence that is trending that way, is starting to make believers of those who were originally skeptics.

Instead of people worrying about WHO is saying it. Look at what is actually being said. It may even make sense. ;)

Re: The Great Ruck Debate.

Reply #179 –
Quote from: Lods – on
It'll always be the case that any win or loss is dependent on dozens of variables
Some structural changes create an advantage.
But with every advantage gained there will be a cost in another area.
That's the balance that's most important, not 'team balance'.

Team balance is another of those 'cliche' things that is also used in arguments.
It exists, but it's often used in a throwaway context like 'run'
We don't lose 'balance', we don't lose 'run' completely
The balance and run changes...often only slightly.
Multiple combinations of smalls and talls have been effective in the history of football.
It's totally dependent on the skills and abilities of the players

The fact that there are so many variables in play means that reducing an argument to a single position is a bit of a futile, and really 'simplistic' exercise.

Anyone who looks at our 'wins and losses' solely in terms of our ruck situation is guilty of a huge over-simplification.

It doesn't take into account all the other factors like-
Opposition strength,
Match-ups,
Changes to lineups on both sides,
Injuries during the game,
Key players being contained, down on form or carrying minor injuries
Coaching tactics on both sides.

After the first GWS game two rucks were the 'bees knees'
A couple of weeks later and it was the worst idea in the world.

We make judgements on limited information...even statistical information.
In the end it will all play out, and hopefully we'll enter a final's campaign with a number of structural options should things go pear shaped.

Few things lods.

1. If you are good enough, you pick a team to win and try and make the opposition defeat you. This is where we stand.
2. Each individual team has a different set of circumstances and i've been consistent in this debate that this is for our team and our team only.
3. Yes, there are moving goal posts and it depends who else is in your team as to who you choose and the pros/cons of picking 2 rucks.

'Team balance' might be hard to quantify into a nice succinct sentence, that can be understood by all.......but its pretty easy to say if/when you don't have it. I think there have been quite a few people over the journey that will back me up in saying we have lost many a game at the selection table over the years, and these claims have been shown in pre-game threads, without the benefit of hindsight, when the MC gets something obviously wrong.