The Great Ruck Debate.

[kruddler]

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."

No, there is no assumption made there.

You assume that the only development TDK can do is in the 1's.
We could potentially fast track him as a forward option (if thats the way you want to go) by playing him full time in that role in the VFL. Play him as the #1 guy and go through him every chance you get.
That will likely get him up to speed in forward craft quicker than playing 3rd fiddle to 2 coleman medalists and perhaps only getting targetted a handful of time in a game.
You can have a philosophical debate on whats best, but there will never be a consesus on how to best develop a player.

re the balance...
This is where a combination of stats and eyeballs can help show a few trends.
1. Our pressure factor is much higher when we are smaller and play more runners.
This is not exclusive to just rucks, but backs and forwards as well. (tall and small)
Its dangerous pointing to one instance and proclaiming a trend but as an example...
Prelim vs Lions
Harry + Charlie
Pitto + TDK
Weitering + Marchbank + McGovern
....we also had Kennedy (slow) as the sub.
We lacked run and pressure and ended up subbing off Fogarty.....which made it worse.
The turnaround the club had was when we (re)introduced run and carry into the side at the expense of taller (rucks+Silvagni).....even to the point we were winning without a recognised ruck at all.
Pressure = wins
This is one stat that seems to be one of the best predictors of a win.
No real debate required on who will provide more pressure a ruck of a small forward/mid.

2. The balance thing ties into the importance of a rucks influence over games too.
This is where Silvagni entered the debate.
Around the ground, last year (no data this year), Silvagni was offering more as a 3rd tall / backup ruck than anyone else playing that role. Look at any stats including scoreboard impact and it was clear as day he was the best option.
But, robbing peter to pay paul meant you were losing some 'influence' in the actual ruck / hitout side of things.
This is where people are split....
Group A - Ruck hitouts are useless stats and the mids have more influence.
Group B - Rucks do matter and can make a big difference, HTA stats and clearance stats are relevent.

First lets look at Group A.
If the rucks don't matter and the stats are useless.....why play 2 rucks? Pretty simple. 1 ruck for 80% of the game, and a backup filling space for the rest of it. Silvagni filled that role, especially when paired with his around the ground superiority by comparison. I use Silvagni, because he was our 3rd option last year. Same could be said this year for Harry....and even Cripps/Kennedy.

Next we look at Group B.
Rucks make a different and we need a recognised backup ruck rather than a fill in.
Which is a fine stance to take. However, when you deep dive into the stats, the difference between TDK and SOJ in the ruck in terms of hitouts was about the same as the gap from Pitto to TDK.....and TDK was an 'average' ruck at best.
But....TDK is still better.
Then.....you include the other stats like clearances and tackles (which increase as a ruck vs as a forward) and SOJ was far superior to TDK.
Ultimately, if you drew out the stats on are we more likely to get a clearance with TDK in the ruck vs Silvagni in the ruck, they actually showed that Silvagni would get more clearances (compared to TDK) than TDK would get 'hitouts to advantage + TDK clearances'. In short, we were more likely to get a clearance with Silvagni in the ruck than TDK...even if we sacrificed the hitout by comparison.
Add that to SOJ doing more around the ground......and IMO it was a simple choice.

So Group A and Group B argued different points, but both pointed to having Silvagni over TDK (or Pitto) as the backup ruck.


Now, the only legitimate debate that is nothing but opinion goes back to what we started talking about......Development.

Do you 'take a hit' in performance now by playing someone who is not up to the output of an alternative? Using the logic of doing so for developmental reasons, is fair and opinion is divided. Its one thing that can't be tested one way or another as you can never do it both ways at once.
Some will use TDK as an example that it works.
I might use Dow or Obrien as an example that it doesn't.
Truth is, its all anecdotal evidence that can prove nothing one way or another.

Throughout all this i've been accused of being pro pittonet and silvagni and anti tdk.
My comments were made with my head, not my heart.
Stats showed it was an easy decision, but heart meant others couldn't accept it.

I think i've been consistent in my comments through the years.
TDK has (finally) produced what we are believed he had in him and is very much deserving of the #1 ruck. He holds it down without question and i'm as happy as anyone......but it was never about that.