The Great Ruck Debate.

[DJC]

I'm not having this debate with you.
I've ran the figures and that was the outcome.

You can cherry pick a couple games and show whatever you like. Do it over seasons (and eliminate games where someone was injured and/or subbed out) and there is a clear pattern

Its on this site somewhere if you care to look.

Its only a small part of the debate anyway. Their ineffectiveness around the ground, compared to a mid alternative, and the TOG shows how much time on bench they are hogging AND how much of the game we are trying to hide them away somewhere else as well.

So we were hiding away Owies, Fogarty, Boyd, Ollie Hollands, Cerra and Walsh against the Bulldogs?

They all spent around the same amount of time on the bench as De Koning against the Bulldogs.

Against the Giants, De Koning had 78% TOG (a little more than he did against the Bulldogs with Pitto in the team).  Cerra, E Hollands, McGovern, Saad, Fogarty, Cowan, Williams and Cottrell all had the same or less TOG.

The thing is, when you have 22 players rotating through 18 places on the field, several will spend at least 25% of the game on the bench.  It really doesn't matter if they're ruckmen, midfielders, small forwards or half back flankers. That's particularly the case when one of your ruckmen is racking up possessions, getting clearances and taking marks ... and that brings us back to Pitto's limitations.

For interest's sake, in their win over the Swans, Sean Darcy had 82% TOG and Luke Darcy had 83%, exactly the same as McLean and Grundy. 

[DJC]

The people against the '1 ruck' team lineup do so because they are worried about injuries, specifically an injury to that ruck.

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. 

[Thryleon]

The people against the '1 ruck' team lineup do so because they are worried about injuries, specifically an injury to that ruck.
This is where luck comes into it.
Its also where common sense seems to escape.
The ruck is a specialist position and in that position is no more or less susceptable to an injury on any given day. If injuries happen to all positions equally. The chance of an injury have to a 'non-ruck' is 21x more likely than it happening to a ruck from your best 22 players. So why get so fixated no covering for that 1 in 22 chance of injury?
Yes, its luck who gets injured.
Yes, you can plan for a ruck getting injured.
Will that planning ultimately win you the game that the ruck does get injured? Potentially.
Will that planning cost you a win in another game by not having a suitable 'small' replacement instead? More likely.
So play the %'s IMO.


EDIT: re tigers....their ruck setup is different to our ruck setup. The players they have available and their individual strengths/weaknesses are different to ours.
I've always maintained that my stance is based on OUR team, not anybody elses.
If i did the same analysis on a different team, i might prefer 2 rucks in the side. Its all about team balance.

see, I think you've misinterpreted what I was getting at. 

The debate is a distraction. 

The real question is, which of our sides gets the job done on grand final day.

[kruddler]

see, I think you've misinterpreted what I was getting at. 

The debate is a distraction. 

The real question is, which of our sides gets the job done on grand final day.

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.

[kruddler]

You're misleading the debate and verballing other forums members;

If we list the issues that have been discussed at length in this thread and others;
- Injury to a solo ruck issue is one.
- Offering KPP backup / flexibility.
- Surrendering momentum to strong opposition rucks.
- Season long viability. (That one is mental and physical)
- Overloading already heavily loaded players like Cripps or Harry. (Risk of injury and freshness.)
- Wasting valuable premium AFL resources (Like wedging a Coleman or Brownlow Medallist into a B-Grade ruck role.)
- Flexible team tactics.

Thanks for the summary.

Is there a question or a point to that?
Only one of us had posts removed from 'verballing' in this debate that i can recall and its not me.

[kruddler]

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.

[kruddler]

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?

[Thryleon]

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.

[kruddler]

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.

[laj]

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.