04-15-2024, 04:08 AM
(04-14-2024, 11:04 PM)Lods link Wrote:The two Ruck option is not just a matter of replacing a tall for a more mobile mid/forward/defender.
It's a little more complicated than that.
There are a number of other variables that come into play.
There is a flow on effect for multiple other positions.
The roles played by TDK, Harry, even Kennedy change to some extent.
Of course that can have an impact on performance
Initially that can be unsettling to a side.
If it's to be persisted with it's something that would take time to fine tune.
The alternative is to scrap it completely and consign one ruck to a season of VFL
Given all that.
And also given the understanding that a ruck on the bench reduced mid-field rotations, which was further complicated by injuries.
Pittonet played 50% of the game.
TDK played 75%
Was there a difference in our effectiveness or style of play in the lengthy times when one ruck was off the ground?
For much of the game we did play only one ruck.
Firstly, given the injuries we had, and still only played 2 rucks for a half and 3/4's of a game, it showed how little we used 2 rucks at once.
There was a ruck off the ground for 3/4's of the game.
The question should be, watching the game, can you tell if/when we had 2 rucks on the ground?
There didn't appear to be any on-field benefit to having 2 rucks. Its hard to quantify how much it hurt us by having 2 rucks.
But, what is clear is that we took up a large part of the game, 3'4s to be exact, with a ruck on the pine. That time would've been better suited to a smaller (mid/flanker type) as that 50%* game time would've been better off sharing between 10 other mid/flanker types. (*50% rather than 75% because TDK would still have 75% game time, so we only gain Pittonets time on the bench).
