(07-18-2024, 11:06 PM)Thryleon link Wrote:hmm. Interesting. Rhetorical question, the debate of rucks is quite irrelevant, but what people areactually arguing is what is our most complimentary mix of players.
Is that because they see our best lineup and road to flag that way? Possibly.
Realistically it's more about what mix produces our best footy but that's part of the problem. If we play one ruck for 2 years and have minimal issues with injury across that time it might be that they'll change their tune if it gets exposed a certain way.
As anything the longer you do something the more data you get. This is the reason why I disliked jsos as second ruck. To me it wasn't a viable long term plan and lived in Shaun grigg as second ruck territory where the Tigers ditched it after one season.
The people against the '1 ruck' team lineup do so because they are worried about injuries, specifically an injury to that ruck.
This is where luck comes into it.
Its also where common sense seems to escape.
The ruck is a specialist position and in that position is no more or less susceptable to an injury on any given day. If injuries happen to all positions equally. The chance of an injury have to a 'non-ruck' is 21x more likely than it happening to a ruck from your best 22 players. So why get so fixated no covering for that 1 in 22 chance of injury?
Yes, its luck who gets injured.
Yes, you can plan for a ruck getting injured.
Will that planning ultimately win you the game that the ruck does get injured? Potentially.
Will that planning cost you a win in another game by not having a suitable 'small' replacement instead? More likely.
So play the %'s IMO.
EDIT: re tigers....their ruck setup is different to our ruck setup. The players they have available and their individual strengths/weaknesses are different to ours.
I've always maintained that my stance is based on OUR team, not anybody elses.
If i did the same analysis on a different team, i might prefer 2 rucks in the side. Its all about team balance.