The Great Ruck Debate.

[Lods]

No he was right.  The ladder doesn't lie, it's a measure of the past and how teams have travelled to now.

Not what a side is capable of nor where a side should be ranked in the comp.

You're right to an extent...it's a measure of the past.
But it has little meaning in terms of the present.
It has little relevance to the 'now' for many sides.

Especially these days, where some sides have two byes before a side has one and a compromised and unfair fixture.

(But the ruck thread has been derailed :o ...serves it right...my fault in part. )

So just relating it back to the ruck debate...
When we look at assessing combinations and individuals we have to consider things like...

1) What combinations were used...e.g. one ruck or two
2) The strength of the opposition as a whole....and the strengths of the opposition-(a side may have a quality ruckman but still be a struggling side-much like Melbourne at the moment.)
3) Individual match-ups...Do our rucks struggle against a certain type of opponent?-(and that may be different for each of our guys)
4) Time spent in the ruck contests.
5) Margins (as Kruddler points out) compared to expectations...a 50 point win when expectations were for a close game is significant.
6) Ability to run out the game...Did a solo ruck tire noticeably and once his dominance waned did momentum go with it.
7) Time on the bench.
8) Other obvious advantages and disadvantages...extra clearances v more run, extra breaks.

So there's a fair bit to factor in.