The rise.... and RISE of Marc Pittonet

[kruddler]

Isn't ToG yet another measure of output?

TDK 76%
Pitto 68%

Lets play your game, and ignore the fact that Pittonet played 14% game time in 1 game.

With 8% less game time, he averages 1 possession less.

Output.

[kruddler]

Today was a good indication of how 'good/bad' our backup ruck options were.

Player - RC - HO - HTA - RC-HTA% - TOG% - Disposals
Silvagni - 36 - 12 -  7  -  19.4%  -  77% - 17 -
Young  - 61 - 14 -  1  -  1.6%  -  77%  - 13  -
McKay    - 5  - 1  -  1  -  20%  - 92% - 19  -
-------
Meek - 61 - 32 -  6  -  9.8% -  73% - 7 -
Reeves - 43  - 29 -  6  - 14% -  50% - 5 -

Centre clearances
Hawks - 12
Blues - 11

Total Clearances -
Hawks - 34
Blues - 39

End result?
Silvagni got elite RC-HTA% numbers - (Technically, as did Harry, but he only attended 5 contests, so data is insignificant)
Young, despite the extra size, is not a ruckman with only 1 hitout from 61 ruck contests attended.

Around the ground, Silvagni got more of the ball than Young (and more than TDK and Pittonet average 11-10 respectively) as well as hitting the scoreboard.

Now i keep pointing out that IDGAF who plays as our 2nd ruck as long as they can hold their own and play around the ground.
People accuse me of being a Silvagni booster because of his name, but the stats cannot be argued with. He is thrust into the ruck because he is by far our best 'non-ruck' option.....who performs on a par with our 2nd ruck option, but surpasses their output around the ground.

FWIW, Silvagni had 10 score involvements today.

[ElwoodBlues1]

Going to be a real test next week..Darcy and Jackson vs who ever we throw on the park.Jack was good today but we are asking a lot of him to take on a combo like that. Young is purely backup and I prefer Jack to be honest...

[Thryleon]

If ever there was an example of how midfield dominance translates to ruck dominance this is it.

[kruddler]

If ever there was an example of how midfield dominance translates to ruck dominance this is it.

It shows a couple of things.

Firstly, Hawks are just trash. Their mids, and their rucks, are simply not very good.

Secondly, it shows that you can very much win a game by getting 'dominated' in the ruck. Which by extension, playing a 'sub-par' second ruck is something you can get away with very easily.

Thirdly, it shows that the numbers put up by Pittonet, that is hitouts to advantage, are very much by him and not the midfield making him look good. Youngs efforts in the ruck did NOT translate to hitouts to advantage despite having the same midfield that Pittonet rucks too. (Which also puts to bed whatever shred of hope the pro-TDK rucking to a seconds midfield conspiracy theory).

Pittonets numbers are legit.
Our midfield does not carry him.
Jack is underrated as a backup option.
Playing 2 rucks is folly.

[LP]

No matter how you want to spin today's game figures it won't win over anybody who actually watched, and certainly not anybody who was there.

Our rucks were smashed, their Mids were smashed, we got some hit outs to advantage because the Dawk kiddies couldn't arrest the front position from the big bodies of Cripps, Cerra, Walsh and Kennedy. Pretty much as [member=57]ElwoodBlues1[/member]‍ predicted, it was infants against men, in the end Cripps and Cerra were waltzing through the Dawks Midfield like Titanic passing through a duck pond.

[kruddler]

No matter how you want to spin today's game a figures it won't win over anybody who actually watched, and certainly not anybody who was there.

Our rucks were smashed, their Mids were smashed, we got some hit outs to advantage because the Dawk kiddies couldn't arrest the front position from the big bodies of Cripps, Cerra, Walsh and Kennedy. Pretty much as [member=57]ElwoodBlues1[/member]‍ predicted, it was infants against men, in the end Cripps and Cerra were waltzing through the Dawks Midfield like Titanic passing through a duck pond.

Before you get your back up and start arguing, i suggest you read what you are arguing against first. It just makes you look silly otherwise.

[LP]

Before you get your back up and start arguing, i suggest you read what you are arguing against first. It just makes you look silly otherwise.

The stats say exactly what we've been telling you, HTA is the most bogus over-rated stat in the AFL, if clubs were smart they'd stop paying for it to be collected!

[kruddler]

The stats say exactly what we've been telling you, HTA is the most bogus over-rated stat in the AFL, if clubs were smart they'd stop paying for it to be collected!

So great, haven't read anything.
Thanks for confirming.

[LP]

People at the game saw Reeves and Meek win clear hitout after hitout, palming the ball exactly to where they wanted it for almost the 1st-1/2 of the game, with Carlton Mids brushing the Dawks aside and clearing the footy. That's why the HTA stat is bogus, because it's counting is completely dependant on what happens in the moment after the ball is tapped, it's not dependant on how skilful the ruck is.

Secondly, those of us at the game would have seen Reeves limping around just after 1/2-time, with SoJ able to jump over him for a brief period before Meek returned to ruck out the game, I'd assert it was that short period when SoJ would have earned most of his HtA.

Around that time Young was doubling up in the backline, a tactic that outside of our opponents getting an injury won't fly against Darcy and Jackson next week.

If we'd gone into today's game with two competitive rucks, in combination with the dominant Mids, we might have kicked a percentage booster.

The Dawks were so powerless to stop our Mids, for one brief period they tried to ruck Nash to have an extra Mid around the footy, but that only made thing worse for them and they went back to Meek winning the taps.