The Great Ruck Debate.

[DJC]

This article is from 3 months ago. Hoyne looks at the ruck question through the lens of turnover v contest.

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2024/04/16/h...ion-calls/

“I want to more talk about the structure of the team on the weekend and moving forward.

“It surprised me to see Marc Pittonet back in the team and playing the two rucks together.

“If you look at every team heading into the year, there was an area of improvement for every team in 2024 and clearly that was the turnover game for Carlton.

“That needed to get better for them to compete – and across the first four weeks of the year, they’re the best turnover team in the competition. It’s been fantastic and through forward-half pressure.

“Then Pittonet comes back into the team and for the first time for the year they lose the turnover game, but their stoppage game comes back – and they dominate stoppage and score 14 times, but they lose the most important aspect of the game.

“So, over the last couple of years, when it’s just been De Koning, Carlton has won the turnover game 60 per cent of the time. They win it by seven points per game. That profile is going to take you a long way.

“When they play both rucks, they’ve won the turnover game 6 of 14 times and that’s not going to take you to a finals campaign.

“When it’s just Pittonet alone, they’ve won 1 of 5 in the turnover game.

“The previous three weeks they were +98 in the turnover game. They lose it for the first time.

The problem with that analysis, like most of Hoyne's work, is that he focuses on one variable, in this case having Pitto in the team.  There's no consideration of the opposition strengths and weaknesses, what other changes were made to the line up, coach's instructions, conditions, the result, or other factors.  Is there a causal relationship between winning the turnover game and having Pitto in the team? Possibly, but it's certainly not the only factor at play.