+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Princes Park (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Robert Heatley Stand (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-14.html)
+--- Thread: The Great Ruck Debate. (/thread-6556.html)
The Great Ruck Debate. - Lods - 06-26-2024
For the last few years we've been discussing the merits of our ruck combinations.
It's been a strong debate and like similar strong discussions it has drifted into, and somtimes derailed, other threads.
Just to give things a bit of order let's confine ourselves to discussion of our individual ruckmen and the various combinations, and support players to this thread
Thanks
Re: The Great Ruck Debate. - LP - 06-26-2024
Personally, I think the debate is dead already, has been for most of this season.
Pretty much everything Voss has done this season is working perfectly. When we needed two rucks he picked two and we dominated the stoppages and midfield, when we could go with one he went with one and it's worked equally as well.
The irrelevance of the tap and the HtA, and the importance of Ruck 2nd efforts has never been clearer, again obvious. Not weird statistical correlations or complicated assertions of causality needed. Just the basics, see ball get ball, don't stand and watch. We don't need to blame a depleted backline or misfiring forwards on the Ruck setup, all have their own responsibilities.
It is and always was obvious there is no one solution that fits all circumstances, it will always be that way.
The season is long, just like we can't run Cripps into the ground and expect him to drag us over the line, it was obvious he needed help, we need to share the ruck load as well and we need to do so in a way that is actually competitive as opposed to being placeholders.
The only risk now is that a few little successes see the coach and MC get sucked into thinking they have a systematic forever solution, but that's what opposition is for, to disassemble your systematic predictability.
Re: The Great Ruck Debate. - Lods - 06-26-2024
I probably see this thread as more a place to discuss not only the "one or two ruck" argument but all aspects of our ruckmen including their progress, but tactics, strengths and weaknesses etc....
It'll soon drift down the board if we don't use it but it will keep the ruck discussions out of multiple threads, which some folk find a distraction.
Re: The Great Ruck Debate. - DJC - 06-27-2024
It was interesting to hear Nathan Buckley’s opinion of Tom De Koning:
Rivalling Max Gawn in ruck craft and marking and rivalling Brodie Grundy in second efforts and impact around the ground. On track to be the best ruckman for the next 7-8 years.
At the same time, there’s a lot of love for Marc Pittonet.
Re: The Great Ruck Debate. - RiverRat - 06-27-2024
Good thinking Lods; starting this thread was probably overdue.
Just thought I would reiterate my recent posting, which does not deal with the relative effectiveness of the 1 or 2 ruck selection decisions, other than to highlight the risks associated with playing only one.
I don't think there is any question that we are a better balanced team with TDK rucking solo but I would hate to be relying on that team structure in a grand final or elimination final and have TDK injured without a suitable replacement. Having to move Harry into the ruck with Cripps and Kennedy as the backups might be catastrophic - especially against an opponent with strong ruck options.
Re: The Great Ruck Debate. - Lods - 06-27-2024
(06-27-2024, 01:02 AM)DJC link Wrote:It was interesting to hear Nathan Buckley’s opinion of Tom De Koning:
Rivalling Max Gawn in ruck craft and marking and rivalling Brodie Grundy in second efforts and impact around the ground. On track to be the best ruckman for the next 7-8 years.
At the same time, there’s a lot of love for Marc Pittonet.
Maybe that's the best assessment of where Tom is actually at...
Go 'one on one' (without Pittonet there) against Gawn or Grundy.
Most of us would probably still have him behind, but closing fast....and for the future most would favour TDK
(Be careful not to base it just on last Friday's game)
It's a bit like Highlander..."there can be only one."
Re: The Great Ruck Debate. - LP - 06-27-2024
Grundy is an interesting case, because for much of his career like TDK he was dependant on the vertical jump to better opponents, a few injuries have brought him back to the field and now he's become far more active around stoppages and it's giving him a second start to his career.
But Grundy was never a strong F50 presence like TDK might become, historically in tactical utility I'd have Grundy closer to Pitto in the drop behind play and intercept marking role.
If TDK is having problems in the ruck he's a genuine option to rest in F50, and doing so retains the F50 advantage we normally have with BigH and Charlie in combination. But BigH is not a genuinely competitive ruck option, he is a placeholder, and it hurts us two ways when we have to ruck BigH, we lose ruck competitiveness and we weaken our F50. In my opinion that is not a viable long term tactic, it's a shock /emergency option when things aren't going our way. In my opinion we still need a viable option to ruck when TDK isn't on the ball, and on our list the only option is Pitto.
Then we have to consider the Rucks role when someone like Weiters or McGovern is off the boil or unavailable, or just needs a chop out.
Melbourne are losing games at the moment because they have no backup ruck option, not the only reason but some of it, they went all in with the solo Gawn and if he's out, off the boil or beaten they are screwed.
We just defeated Geelong basically because they have disrespected the Ruck options, at least in contribution, they do use Blicavs who is , but using Blicavs takes away their equivalent of losing Cripps around stoppages or a McGovern type intercept marking player. Another example of being hurt two or more ways by a simple tactical error, the price is too high.
One ruck can be fine, but you better have a truly viable backup option at hand, or a bit of bad luck can see your day over before it's barely begun.
Re: The Great Ruck Debate. - kruddler - 06-27-2024
(06-26-2024, 10:29 PM)LP link Wrote:Personally, I think the debate is dead already, has been for most of this season.Except when we picked 2 we lost more often.
Pretty much everything Voss has done this season is working perfectly. When we needed two rucks he picked two and we dominated the stoppages and midfield, when we could go with one he went with one and it's worked equally as well.
(06-26-2024, 10:29 PM)LP link Wrote:The irrelevance of the tap and the HtA, and the importance of Ruck 2nd efforts has never been clearer, again obvious. Not weird statistical correlations or complicated assertions of causality needed. Just the basics, see ball get ball, don't stand and watch. We don't need to blame a depleted backline or misfiring forwards on the Ruck setup, all have their own responsibilities.So obvious you didn't understand where the stats for RC-HTA% came from or what it means. For a scientific mind, that is very poor form from you.
You've been caught out in the debate several times from skimming and/or not comprehending posts.
You also choose to completely fail to reply when proven wrong - 'i didn't see it' -
Most recently with injuries from ruck contests.
Or when we've played no rucks at all, yet dominated and won the game.
Everything is 'obvious' until its pointed out that you are wrong, and then you go MIA.
You start the fight and then run away. :
Re: The Great Ruck Debate. - kruddler - 06-27-2024
(06-26-2024, 11:47 PM)Lods link Wrote:I probably see this thread as more a place to discuss not only the "one or two ruck" argument but all aspects of our ruckmen including their progress, but tactics, strengths and weaknesses etc....
It'll soon drift down the board if we don't use it but it will keep the ruck discussions out of multiple threads, which some folk find a distraction.
For clarification, i've been debating things so long that i use shorthand in how i say things. So this has been turned into a '1 ruck vs 2' debate. In truth, thats not how it started exactly.
If we want to play 2 rucks, we need to have a genuine second position for them when they are not rucking. At the time of this debate, neither TDK or Pittonet had any claim over a second position.
Since then TDK has shown more promise as a genuine forward option......and has also shown to be next to useless as a genuine forward option. The lack of consistency is key.
Both have improved their around the ground efforts, both hitting the scoreboard.......but still, not quite genuine options.
So because of the above, we have 2 rucks who play best as 2 #1 rucks.....and don't offer much around the ground.
Which is how this debate started.
So TDK or Pitto was never the issue. Whoever performs best wins. Despite Pittos dominant form prior to injury, he can not reach the same heights that TDK has done in recent weeks with plenty of career best stats. So TDK gets first crack at #1 ruck until his performance begins to wane.
Another arm of the debate was about which ruck was better.
Which led to statistical analysis of ruck stats.
People who didn't understand it, poo-pood it.
Others debated the relevence of it in the scheme of playing 'as a ruck' which embodied more than just ruck craft. Which was fine.
That lead to statistical comparisons of clearances, marks etc etc, which due to reasons mentioned previously, are not comparing like for like. This is when 'aternate rucks' came into the picture in comparison to what they could do around the ground vs a ruck (when not rucking). As players play different positions. This is more 'vibe' type of feeling and personal opinion.
Ultimately the debate is specific to OUR team, when including Harry+Charlie as fit forwards (and/or when Silvagni/Young are fit and picked) and the overall team balance that is created / destroyed by playing too many talls.
If Harry is out, play Pitto and TDK in the same side. Simple.
Doesn't matter how many genuine rucks the opposition have, pick the best team with team balance for us to win the game.
We are good enough that teams need to defeat us, not us trying to limit them.
Re: The Great Ruck Debate. - Lods - 06-27-2024
So given that what we need from our second ruck is an around the ground impact, or the ability to play another position let's consider this...
DeKoning has demonstated at times the ability to play around the ground.
Consistency seems to be the issue.
One of the reasons used against two rucks is that with Pittonet playing it reduces the impact of DeKoning.
Now the problem I have with that line of argument is that it assumes that DeKoning is as impactful as he is ever going to be in that second ruck position.
It assumes no improvement...in either impact or consistency... that it will always be the case that if Pittonet plays Tom will be the second fiddle with a largely reduced influence.
Tom's improved as the solo ruck, would it be possible he's also improved as a part of a ruck duo.
The balance question will always be this....
If we play two rucks is the advantage greater than if we play one ruck and add an extra runner?
And it's not a clear cut answer...because what you "win on the swings you lose on the see-saw."