Carlton Supporters Club

That's just a further demonstration you might not fully understand the meaning of the numbers you present, you don't have to express your claims in words to convey meaning, they are an inherent property of the figures presented. Math is a language, and the numbers hold and describe relationships, which can also be described in written word.

You have become so heavily invested in this solo ruck debate it is clouding your judgement, to the point you can't see that you are contradicting yourself.

Despite many of us posting that it remains an MC decision on a week by week tactical basis, including my earlier #48 Reply in this very thread which stated "this week might have been...." , you continue the barrage.

Only fools talk definitive.

In the past you have constantly argued you don't want TDK at a reduced number of ruck contests that is caused by playing two rucks, and that the number of ruck contests he gets to directly reflects in his good stoppage figures.

So the  years worth of arguments on the matter and you still don't understand the concept of a 'backup ruck'?

You know, the blokes we are constantly talking about who take ruck contests when your solo ruck cannot for whatever reason.
I'll give you a hint, their names start with McKay, Cripps, Kennedy.

Bailey Smith done.

Most are quite rational in response to these issues.

Statistics convey meaning, they are a language, whether you argue with numbers or argue with words you are still making an argument. If statistics don't convey meaning then why post them?

If someone genuinely thinks that somehow a solo ruck isn't going to be required to cover more ground, and not have to get from end to end across the playing surface in quick time, I can't help them, I'm not sure anybody can assist because the assertion they won't need to do so is utterly ludicrous.

Might need a new backup ruck with rumours the Dogs are targeting Pittonet if Tim English takes the big dollars West Coast are offering as the Dogs see Pittonet even though contracted as available.

So i've constantly said stuff.....but you can't provide any evidence, rather just broad generic BS.
Be that statistics that suggest that (which i 100% disagree with as well - in fact i've said the opposite).....but you can't provide evidence of that either.

I don't want to continue this debate in here, so i'll end it with this.
Playing 1 ruck means you have a ruck on the ground 75% and bench 25% of the time (TOG 75% give or take)
Playing 2 rucks means you have a ruck on the bench 60% of the time (TOG 70% each give or take) and 1 ruck on the ground 40% of the time.
What happens when you are playing 2 rucks, but only have 1 on the ground for 40% of the time under your scenario??? Does the world end? Does the whole system break down??
OR does someone else take a ruck contest that the sole ruck on the ground couldn't get to......even if that is a 'thing' that may occur in 1% of scenarios.

Maybe we should play 3 rucks just so we always have 2 rucks on the ground at once so we never have to worry about a ruck missing the 1% of contests they might miss in your scenario.

Or do those statistics not work for you?

If you are so worried about the distance a ruck has to cover, play him exclusively between the arcs.
If you are so worried about the distance a player has to cover, you should be more worried about the mids who have to cover more ground because they have 1 less rotation in the team due to you requiring a ruck to cover a scenario that happens 1% of the time and still has a 40% chance of happening even with your extra ruck!

Again, stop making stuff up just for the sake of arguments.

Playing 2 rucks means you have a ruck on the bench 60% of the time (TOG 70% each give or take) and 1 ruck on the ground 40% of the time.

Dixon rucking F50, and Sweet dropping behind play is a hard reality not something anybody makes up.

I suggest that stopping the posts might be a good idea, because stuff like this item below just doesn't make any sense at all, and your posts are littered with such assertions. Is time disappearing into a black hole?We have a few teacher types in our forum that might be kinder at explaining this to you, there might be some accountants that can give you a bit of a leg up as well, but they might not be so friendly about it.

You know most of us have started scrolling straight past you both when these discussions flare up again right?