The Great Ruck Debate.

[Baggers]

That's not how it works now, that claim is used by the anti-ruck duo brigade to cast doubt.

The reality is TDK is generally in a complex rotation with Charlie and Harry, but it's no more complex than the D50 or Midfield rotations. Pitto shares bench time mostly from Harry, Charlie, TDK bench time. Technically it won't matter who we have as the 3rd tall in that rotation, the impact on the bench is the same, whether it's a ruck or another KPP like SoJ, Young or Durdin. What changes from the choice of who is in the squad is how they can be used on the field and who they can substitute for in a crisis!

It quite foolish to think you can have an "All In" approach and leave one significant segment of the zones without a viable back plan. For me it's not viable for Harry to be our ruck backup plan, in fact it's disastrous to withdraw Harry from F50 if our solo ruck goes down, the flow on impact to Charlie and the F50 as well as the diminished ruck / midfield presence is almost impossible to overcome against a well organised opponent. Our F50 strength is the Twin Towers, when we go solo ruck, even without unexpected injuries, we actively degrade one of our key strengths.

Then you have the absurdity of the claim that when we solo ruck a Mid like Cripps get extra bench time, it's both worthless and meaningless claim. In reality when we solo ruck it's Cripps who ends up doing some of the part-time ruck role, if anything his load goes up when we solo ruck, he's not fresher at all!

Well that's complicated and somewhat pregnant with assumptions, Spotted One. Just to isolate one of your seven hundred points, it seemed to moi that when H rucked, Charles took up the challenge/responsibility of being solo for a while and improved! Likewise, small forwards. Also confused defenders for a time. Knock-on effects aren't always negative.

[DJC]

Are you arguing with me or trying to summarise everything i've been saying over the years?

I've done analysis on TOG% for both before.

Short version equates to basically this.
In a game where you have 2 genuine rucks, a ruck is taking up a spot on the bench for a full quarter MORE than if you have 1 ruck.
So that means there is 1/4 worth of time LESS rotation for others to share. (30 minutes more time others play apread across them).

When you go one step further and realise that an extra small would take place of the ruck on top of that (in the 1 ruck model) you basically get a whole extra player/rotation to add to that, so basically 75% game time from the extra mid.

So you have an extra mid for the whole game more rotation wise
vs
A genuine ruck over a backup ruck for 25% of the game and largely hiding them for the other 75% or hoping they can fit in.

....and people also try and debate how pointless the ruck stats are.....but still want the 2nd ruck over an additional mid.

I’m not arguing, just providing some data … but you’re wrong about two rucks meaning more time on the pine.  Tom and Pitto’s TOG shows that. 

There’s no hard and fast rules about one or two rucks.  It depends on the opposition, whether the rucks can do more than take part in ruck contests, game plans, and the other players in the 22.

I would definitely play Tom and Pitto against Xerri and Teakle.

[PaulP]

......................................... 

There’s no hard and fast rules about one or two rucks.  It depends on the opposition, whether the rucks can do more than take part in ruck contests, game plans, and the other players in the 22.........................................

Not just rucks, but any selection decision for game day has to be horses for courses. Whatever resources are at the club's disposal have to be marshaled as and when required. Anything else is formulaic, dogmatic thinking.

[kruddler]

I’m not arguing, just providing some data … but you’re wrong about two rucks meaning more time on the pine.  Tom and Pitto’s TOG shows that. 

There’s no hard and fast rules about one or two rucks.  It depends on the opposition, whether the rucks can do more than take part in ruck contests, game plans, and the other players in the 22.

I would definitely play Tom and Pitto against Xerri and Teakle.

Tom and Pittos TOG shows exactly that.

I've shown my workings on this previously but simplisticly....

75% TOG when 1 ruck. - 25% game time on bench
75% and 75% TOG when 2 rucks. - 25% + 25% game time on bench = 50%
Thats an extra 25% of the game that a ruck is on the bench, or a full quarter EXTRA a ruck holds up a bench spot.

Reality is actually more the other way, with 1 ruck going at 80% and 2 rucks 75+70%.....depending on which years you want to use for your data.

[kruddler]

Not just rucks, but any selection decision for game day has to be horses for courses. Whatever resources are at the club's disposal have to be marshaled as and when required. Anything else is formulaic, dogmatic thinking.

Correct.

I'm waiting on someone to provide an answer that proves in any given game we need 2 rucks.

Best argument so far is to cover an injury for a ruck.
Unfortunately, that doesn't allow us to cover an injury for any of the other starting 17 positions as a result though.

[DJC]

Tom and Pittos TOG shows exactly that.

I've shown my workings on this previously but simplisticly....

75% TOG when 1 ruck. - 25% game time on bench
75% and 75% TOG when 2 rucks. - 25% + 25% game time on bench = 50%
Thats an extra 25% of the game that a ruck is on the bench, or a full quarter EXTRA a ruck holds up a bench spot.

Reality is actually more the other way, with 1 ruck going at 80% and 2 rucks 75+70%.....depending on which years you want to use for your data.

What the figures show is that TOG is largely independent of whether we play one or two rucks.

For example, round 20 of 2023 against the Pies, Tom was 85% and Pitto was 76%.  In the elimination final against the Swans, Tom was 71% and Pitto was 61%.  In round 18, Tom, as the sole ruckman, was 78%.  In round 9, as sole ruckman, Pitto was 78%.

This season, in round 1, Tom was 77% as sole ruckman.  In round 16, Pitto was 75% as sole ruckman.  In round 9, it was close to your figures with Tom on 74% and Pitto on 73%.  Excluding Cerra and Hewett, we had seven other players whose TOG ranged from 72 to 79%.  Mitch McGovern and Matt Kennedy combined to spend the equivalent of half a game for one player on the bench. 

In round 20 of 2023, excluding Cerra and Dow, we had nine players spend more or roughly the same time on the pine than our ruck duo.  That must be unsustainable ... or is having players on the bench for a quarter of the game only a problem when they're ruckmen.

Time spent on the bench is insignificant provided time on the ground is productive.  For example, in the round 20 game against Collingwood, Martin and Motlop were on the bench for a little under and a little over a quarter respectively but they combined for 5 goals and 4 tackles.  Tom and Pitto didn't have great games but they were competitive.  Cameron and Cox would have had a picnic if we had gone in with one ruck.

[PaulP]

This article is from 3 months ago. Hoyne looks at the ruck question through the lens of turnover v contest.

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2024/04/16/h...ion-calls/

“I want to more talk about the structure of the team on the weekend and moving forward.

“It surprised me to see Marc Pittonet back in the team and playing the two rucks together.

“If you look at every team heading into the year, there was an area of improvement for every team in 2024 and clearly that was the turnover game for Carlton.

“That needed to get better for them to compete – and across the first four weeks of the year, they’re the best turnover team in the competition. It’s been fantastic and through forward-half pressure.

“Then Pittonet comes back into the team and for the first time for the year they lose the turnover game, but their stoppage game comes back – and they dominate stoppage and score 14 times, but they lose the most important aspect of the game.

“So, over the last couple of years, when it’s just been De Koning, Carlton has won the turnover game 60 per cent of the time. They win it by seven points per game. That profile is going to take you a long way.

“When they play both rucks, they’ve won the turnover game 6 of 14 times and that’s not going to take you to a finals campaign.

“When it’s just Pittonet alone, they’ve won 1 of 5 in the turnover game.

“The previous three weeks they were +98 in the turnover game. They lose it for the first time.

[DJC]

Not just rucks, but any selection decision for game day has to be horses for courses. Whatever resources are at the club's disposal have to be marshaled as and when required. Anything else is formulaic, dogmatic thinking.

Absolutely!  If our best combination against our next opponent involves one or two rucks, then that's what we should go with, regardless of how much time certain players may spend on the pine.. 

[DJC]

This article is from 3 months ago. Hoyne looks at the ruck question through the lens of turnover v contest.

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2024/04/16/h...ion-calls/

“I want to more talk about the structure of the team on the weekend and moving forward.

“It surprised me to see Marc Pittonet back in the team and playing the two rucks together.

“If you look at every team heading into the year, there was an area of improvement for every team in 2024 and clearly that was the turnover game for Carlton.

“That needed to get better for them to compete – and across the first four weeks of the year, they’re the best turnover team in the competition. It’s been fantastic and through forward-half pressure.

“Then Pittonet comes back into the team and for the first time for the year they lose the turnover game, but their stoppage game comes back – and they dominate stoppage and score 14 times, but they lose the most important aspect of the game.

“So, over the last couple of years, when it’s just been De Koning, Carlton has won the turnover game 60 per cent of the time. They win it by seven points per game. That profile is going to take you a long way.

“When they play both rucks, they’ve won the turnover game 6 of 14 times and that’s not going to take you to a finals campaign.

“When it’s just Pittonet alone, they’ve won 1 of 5 in the turnover game.

“The previous three weeks they were +98 in the turnover game. They lose it for the first time.

The problem with that analysis, like most of Hoyne's work, is that he focuses on one variable, in this case having Pitto in the team.  There's no consideration of the opposition strengths and weaknesses, what other changes were made to the line up, coach's instructions, conditions, the result, or other factors.  Is there a causal relationship between winning the turnover game and having Pitto in the team? Possibly, but it's certainly not the only factor at play.

[Professer E]

It's not the rucks it's the midfield not doing the job.