06-22-2024, 12:48 AM
(06-21-2024, 02:52 PM)crashlander link Wrote:Actually, Krud, we have a real problem with our 2nd ruck. Rucking Cripps and Kennedy is not sustainable against a decent team. They try hard, they're strong and they can come up with a few moments of magic, but it is a real weakness in our game.
What the solution may be, I don't know yet. I like Pittonet and what he brings to the team, but Tom de Koning has really pulled up his socks with the #1 role.
That said, Tom isn't a great ruckman. He won tonight because Geelong were stupid enough not to play a real ruckman against him. They paid and paid and paid for that stupidity. How they didn't play Conway, I don't know. Conway would have evened up the midfield with his strength and taps, even though Tom would slaughter him around the ground.
But, no, they had to try SdK and Blicavs. Blicavs wasn't disgraced in the ruck, but it meant he could do roles he would be better armed to do. It was idiocy, and I'm glad they paid they full price.
But that doesn't excuse us to thinking of doing the same thing.
If Harry Lemmey had come on a bit, I would have liked to tried him in the role. However, he isn't close to it at the moment.
What is the answer? Maybe we will need to play Pitto as well as Tom. Tom has already shown that his ruck work is his least strong area, for all his athleticism. Start Pitto and sub his off late, having a fitter Tom to finish off?
Maybe. But it is a conundrum we need to address. Especially before we play Collingwood or Sydney.
Crash, how is it a weakness in our game?
How often does the #2 ruck turn a game on its head or provide the difference? They simply don't.
The benefit of a 2nd ruck is to give the 1st ruck a chop out because it is ASSUMED that when the 1st ruck is resting, that a mid/KPF rucking hurts our game to the extent that we will sacrifice another player on the ground to make that time less damaging.
That time is 20-25% of the game. Max.
Lets look at last night.
Harry+Cripps+Kennedy+Weitering combined for a total of 34 ruck contests. They combined for 9 hitouts (2 to advantage).
Blicavs was geelong '2nd ruck'. He attended 43 ruck contests and managed 12 hitouts (2 to advantage).
Our 'backup rucks' are competing against opposition 'backup rucks' and holding their own in that very specific area of hitouts.
I don't think i need to point out that our clearances certainly do not decrease when we play a backup ruck as half the time they are the first to the ball because they know exactly where it is going first.....or they tap to themselves.
Don't want to use last nights game?
Try last weeks.
Harry+Cripps+Kennedy = 30 contests - 4 hitouts - 2 to advantage
vs
2m Peter as 'backup ruck' = 27 contests - 13 hitouts - 2 to advantage.
So our hack mids drew even with 2m Peter in the ruck.
Question: So why are we suffering with our mixed bag of backup rucks?
Answer: We are not.
We MIGHT be able to increase our ruck dominance by adding a second ruck, but that would decrease our effectiveness in another area of the game as we dop someone to make way for them. What will we actually gain?
Now, as you all know, i've certainly got nothing against Pittonet....and he was in terrific form this year including his last game before injury, BUT we simply do not need 2 rucks.
I don't care if its Pitto.
I don't care if its TDK.
Choose 1, and stick to it. Its working.
The reason we have played 2 rucks to this point in time (IMO) is to try and jumpstart TDK so he can reach the point he has now. We all knew he had it in him, we just needed to see it. He's producing it, there is no need to babysit him anymore.
Let him ruck.
