The Great Ruck Debate.

[kruddler]

So the amount of time ruckmen spend on the bench is irrelevant unless their names are Pittonet and Tom De Koning?

Pitto’s inability to go forward and have an impact is really the only reason we don’t play two rucks.  I can see us playing De Koning and O’Keeffe if the latter continues to develop.

Closer.

This whole debate started because we had....
1. Harry and Charlie up forward
2. Weitering down back, with kemp/mcgovern/young/marchbank as other tall defender options
3. Silvagni as a 3rd tall forward/backup ruck.

With THAT side, we couldn't afford to play 2 rucks who could NOT play another position.
Now even without Silvagni throwing a spanner in the works, we still can't afford it.

Everyone concedes Pittonet can't play another position.
Most people agree that TDK is not good enough to play as a sole key forward as well.
Yes, he has had good games there. He has also had games worse than Fantasia there as well.

To make things clear, if Harry or Charlie can't play, TDK and Pittonet can absolutely play in the same team.
However, if i'm choosing my key forwards, i'm going with Harry and Charlie first. Tdk a distant 3rd option.

This is why i constantly talk about team balance and OUR side only. Its only about our side because our side is the only one that has 2 coleman medalists up forward and rucks who can't play elsewhere.
Even looking at Geelong with their 2 coleman medalists up forward, they have Blicavs who can play as a ruck or a wing.
My 'rules' don't apply to them.
Just us.
Its always been about us.
If anyone has thought otherwise, they haven't been paying attention to the debate.