(07-09-2024, 12:48 AM)LP link Wrote:It's interesting discussion, I know that the media continue to cherrypick events to either support or oppose a perspective.
For example in much of the recent rock throwing there is almost zero discussion of the injuries to TDK and Weitering. They will roll out the usual, "They went back on so they are fit", but it's hardly reality. The media want to paint the failure as "The Team", while most fans would assert the failure was probably an imbalance starting at MC, leaving the squad on the day without any cover, partial or total, for events around unexpected injuries.
For me the solo ruck might deliver the best chance of being competitive in expected circumstances "on the day", but the "on the day" part is massively dependant "on the circumstance", and as we have just seen it wasn't valid for "any or every circumstance".
Many in the AFL will assert you need "a bit of luck", and last weekend we had very little, but I think an astute MC is and must be task at minimising the contribution of luck. Still we nearly got across the line, with an unexpected reserve of last quarter run, but is that valid for GF Day?
I think it's pretty obvious, there will be days when we run one ruck, and other days when we run two rucks, and it depends as much on the opponent as it does on our own process. TDK was a good match up for Briggs when TDK is 100% fit, but the moment TDK was injured and the contest became a wrestle, Pitto would have been the much better choice but he wasn't there. The same could be applied to the ruck in the absence of injury, if GWS change ruck/stoppage tactics.
It's somewhat naivé of fans to think opponents will simply allow TDK to continue jumping over them or running off them without reacting.
"If you take the field you're fit" is one of those ridiculous football cliches.
It's the same as "We're taking it one week at a time" or "Injuries are no excuse."
If a club is taking it one game at a time their 'forward planning' is pretty "crap.
And injuries can cripple a sides season...we know that better than most.
I reckon we probably had half a dozen players on the weekend who were injured to some extent before they took the field and that hampered their performances. We don't know of course but we had three players roll ankles the week before and there is some talk Charlie rolled his pre-game.
Were GWS that good/ were we that bad.
Bit of both...but at different stages of the game.
GWS were awful in the first term.
They were excellent in the second and third, but struggled in the last.
Their 'dominant' period was just a little better than ours, lasted a little longer, and our worst was much worse than theirs.
And those momentum changes probably related to a fair extent to our injuries.
I wouldn't be getting over excited if I was a Giants fan.
I have a feeling they'll come back to earth pretty quickly.
On the rucks...
One of my main issues with the debate is the way we sometimes talk in "absolutes"...sometimes on both sides of the debate.
"We lose balance"
"We lose run"
"We lose clearances"
"If a solo ruck goes down we have nothing left"
The truth is we don't.
We don't lose these things.
They're not lost.
Not completely.
They change, sometimes dramatically and sometimes very subtly.
A player replacing a ruckman who goes down in the first ten minutes may not have the same influence, indeed it may be considerably less, but it doesn't disappear completely.
Not playing an extra runner doesn't mean you have no run at all.
With an advantage gained in one area, there is always a sacrifice in other areas.
The other thing is that things like balance and run are very hard to measure because there are numerous factors that can affect those things...including injury, loss of form, a poor game, weather
You can pick a side on paper...but the expectations won't always much the onfield performance.
Close your mind to options and you close your mind to opportunities to explore different structure and tactics.
You become one dimensional in that aspect of the game...and that makes you predictable.