The Great Ruck Debate.

[Lods]

There's another factor that comes into play in this decision and it works for both sides of the argument
That's the state of the list at any one time in terms of injury, fitness and ability to run out games.

As Kruddler points out if Harry was out injured there is little argument about playing both Pitto and TDK

If we have a full list to choose from including players like Cerra and Cottrell we may have trouble squeezing Pittonet in (I'm assuming Tom's there to stay now)

But if it's a choice for the last spot between Pittonet and a Carroll or Binns you have to ask which player is likely to have a greater impact on the game.

The 'rest' for the other runners comes into play to some extent but that would be well spread...and do we want players like Walsh and Cripps off the ground for any extra time.
The rest would be minimal spread through the mids and flankers.

And I'm just scratching the surface in terms of variables
If you think this is a simple 'one or the other'....think again

[kruddler]

Now the problem I have with that line of argument is that it assumes that DeKoning is as impactful as he is ever going to be in that second ruck position.
It assumes no improvement...in either impact or consistency... that it will always be the case that if Pittonet plays Tom will be the second fiddle with a largely reduced influence.

Tom's improved as the solo ruck, would it be possible he's also improved as a part of a ruck duo.

The balance question will always be this....
If we play two rucks is the advantage greater than if we play one ruck and add an extra runner?

And it's not a clear cut answer...because what you "win on the swings you lose on the see-saw."

No, there is no assumption made there.

You assume that the only development TDK can do is in the 1's.
We could potentially fast track him as a forward option (if thats the way you want to go) by playing him full time in that role in the VFL. Play him as the #1 guy and go through him every chance you get.
That will likely get him up to speed in forward craft quicker than playing 3rd fiddle to 2 coleman medalists and perhaps only getting targetted a handful of time in a game.
You can have a philosophical debate on whats best, but there will never be a consesus on how to best develop a player.

re the balance...
This is where a combination of stats and eyeballs can help show a few trends.
1. Our pressure factor is much higher when we are smaller and play more runners.
This is not exclusive to just rucks, but backs and forwards as well. (tall and small)
Its dangerous pointing to one instance and proclaiming a trend but as an example...
Prelim vs Lions
Harry + Charlie
Pitto + TDK
Weitering + Marchbank + McGovern
....we also had Kennedy (slow) as the sub.
We lacked run and pressure and ended up subbing off Fogarty.....which made it worse.
The turnaround the club had was when we (re)introduced run and carry into the side at the expense of taller (rucks+Silvagni).....even to the point we were winning without a recognised ruck at all.
Pressure = wins
This is one stat that seems to be one of the best predictors of a win.
No real debate required on who will provide more pressure a ruck of a small forward/mid.

2. The balance thing ties into the importance of a rucks influence over games too.
This is where Silvagni entered the debate.
Around the ground, last year (no data this year), Silvagni was offering more as a 3rd tall / backup ruck than anyone else playing that role. Look at any stats including scoreboard impact and it was clear as day he was the best option.
But, robbing peter to pay paul meant you were losing some 'influence' in the actual ruck / hitout side of things.
This is where people are split....
Group A - Ruck hitouts are useless stats and the mids have more influence.
Group B - Rucks do matter and can make a big difference, HTA stats and clearance stats are relevent.

First lets look at Group A.
If the rucks don't matter and the stats are useless.....why play 2 rucks? Pretty simple. 1 ruck for 80% of the game, and a backup filling space for the rest of it. Silvagni filled that role, especially when paired with his around the ground superiority by comparison. I use Silvagni, because he was our 3rd option last year. Same could be said this year for Harry....and even Cripps/Kennedy.

Next we look at Group B.
Rucks make a different and we need a recognised backup ruck rather than a fill in.
Which is a fine stance to take. However, when you deep dive into the stats, the difference between TDK and SOJ in the ruck in terms of hitouts was about the same as the gap from Pitto to TDK.....and TDK was an 'average' ruck at best.
But....TDK is still better.
Then.....you include the other stats like clearances and tackles (which increase as a ruck vs as a forward) and SOJ was far superior to TDK.
Ultimately, if you drew out the stats on are we more likely to get a clearance with TDK in the ruck vs Silvagni in the ruck, they actually showed that Silvagni would get more clearances (compared to TDK) than TDK would get 'hitouts to advantage + TDK clearances'. In short, we were more likely to get a clearance with Silvagni in the ruck than TDK...even if we sacrificed the hitout by comparison.
Add that to SOJ doing more around the ground......and IMO it was a simple choice.

So Group A and Group B argued different points, but both pointed to having Silvagni over TDK (or Pitto) as the backup ruck.


Now, the only legitimate debate that is nothing but opinion goes back to what we started talking about......Development.

Do you 'take a hit' in performance now by playing someone who is not up to the output of an alternative? Using the logic of doing so for developmental reasons, is fair and opinion is divided. Its one thing that can't be tested one way or another as you can never do it both ways at once.
Some will use TDK as an example that it works.
I might use Dow or Obrien as an example that it doesn't.
Truth is, its all anecdotal evidence that can prove nothing one way or another.

Throughout all this i've been accused of being pro pittonet and silvagni and anti tdk.
My comments were made with my head, not my heart.
Stats showed it was an easy decision, but heart meant others couldn't accept it.

I think i've been consistent in my comments through the years.
TDK has (finally) produced what we are believed he had in him and is very much deserving of the #1 ruck. He holds it down without question and i'm as happy as anyone......but it was never about that.

[kruddler]

There's another factor that comes into play in this decision and it works for both sides of the argument
That's the state of the list at any one time in terms of injury, fitness and ability to run out games.

As Kruddler points out if Harry was out injured there is little argument about playing both Pitto and TDK

If we have a full list to choose from including players like Cerra and Cottrell we may have trouble squeezing Pittonet in (I'm assuming Tom's there to stay now)

But if it's a choice for the last spot between Pittonet and a Carroll or Binns you have to ask which player is likely to have a greater impact on the game.

The 'rest' for the other runners comes into play to some extent but that would be well spread...and do we want players like Walsh and Cripps off the ground for any extra time.
The rest would be minimal spread through the mids and flankers.

And I'm just scratching the surface in terms of variables
If you think this is a simple 'one or the other'....think again

Yes, as mentioned, its all about OUR team and OUR team balance.

Other teams can play 1 ruck, 2 rucks or 3 rucks.....and it might work for them.....it doesn't work for us as well because of our other personnel.

The 'spread of rest' is important. You're forgetting something though, there are other areas players can go other than the bench.
Resting Cripps forward and swapping with someone like Kennedy can actually increase our potency of both players, and the team.

But yes, the 22nd player you displace to play that ruck needs to be taken into account too.

As an example i highlighted TDKs worst game this year (game Pitto got injured?) was when he played mostly as a forward. His stats as a forward were terrible even when comparing to someone like Fantasia and Durdin who are perennial 'underachievers' on the stat sheet. So would blooding a binns in that instance have been a better option? Potentially.
If the 22nd player was someone like Jack Martin or Matt Cottrell though? Sorry TDK, try again next week.

[Lods]

Just a few points...

No, there is no assumption made there.

You assume that the only development TDK can do is in the 1's.

I assume it will be better in the 1's because it's those players we want Tom to develop an understanding and cohesion with. It's a non-event now anyway...I doubt he'll play VFL again.

We could potentially fast track him as a forward option (if thats the way you want to go) by playing him full time in that role in the VFL. Play him as the #1 guy and go through him every chance you get.
That will likely get him up to speed in forward craft quicker than playing 3rd fiddle to 2 coleman medalists and perhaps only getting targetted a handful of time in a game.

I don't see him as only a forward but more a ruck- rover /utility type when he's not rucking-(forward and back). He can also do that Silvagni role now but probably better if we're playing two rucks.

You can have a philosophical debate on whats best, but there will never be a consesus on how to best develop a player.

re the balance...
This is where a combination of stats and eyeballs can help show a few trends.
1. Our pressure factor is much higher when we are smaller and play more runners.
This is not exclusive to just rucks, but backs and forwards as well. (tall and small)
Its dangerous pointing to one instance and proclaiming a trend but as an example...
Prelim vs Lions
Harry + Charlie
Pitto + TDK
Weitering + Marchbank + McGovern
....we also had Kennedy (slow) as the sub.
We lacked run and pressure and ended up subbing off Fogarty.....which made it worse.
The turnaround the club had was when we (re)introduced run and carry into the side at the expense of taller (rucks+Silvagni).....even to the point we were winning without a recognised ruck at all.
Pressure = wins
This is one stat that seems to be one of the best predictors of a win.
No real debate required on who will provide more pressure a ruck of a small forward/mid.

In looking at things like wins and pressure ratings have you taken into account the quality of the opposition.
Where was the opposition on the ladder when we played two rucks and lost or played none and won?
What was our pressure ratings when comparing high ladder and low ladder opposition

2. The balance thing ties into the importance of a rucks influence over games too.
This is where Silvagni entered the debate.
Around the ground, last year (no data this year), Silvagni was offering more as a 3rd tall / backup ruck than anyone else playing that role. Look at any stats including scoreboard impact and it was clear as day he was the best option.
But, robbing peter to pay paul meant you were losing some 'influence' in the actual ruck / hitout side of things.
This is where people are split....
Group A - Ruck hitouts are useless stats and the mids have more influence.
Group B - Rucks do matter and can make a big difference, HTA stats and clearance stats are relevent.

First lets look at Group A.
If the rucks don't matter and the stats are useless.....why play 2 rucks? Pretty simple. 1 ruck for 80% of the game, and a backup filling space for the rest of it. Silvagni filled that role, especially when paired with his around the ground superiority by comparison. I use Silvagni, because he was our 3rd option last year. Same could be said this year for Harry....and even Cripps/Kennedy.

Next we look at Group B.
Rucks make a different and we need a recognised backup ruck rather than a fill in.
Which is a fine stance to take. However, when you deep dive into the stats, the difference between TDK and SOJ in the ruck in terms of hitouts was about the same as the gap from Pitto to TDK.....and TDK was an 'average' ruck at best.
But....TDK is still better.
Then.....you include the other stats like clearances and tackles (which increase as a ruck vs as a forward) and SOJ was far superior to TDK.
Ultimately, if you drew out the stats on are we more likely to get a clearance with TDK in the ruck vs Silvagni in the ruck, they actually showed that Silvagni would get more clearances (compared to TDK) than TDK would get 'hitouts to advantage + TDK clearances'. In short, we were more likely to get a clearance with Silvagni in the ruck than TDK...even if we sacrificed the hitout by comparison.
Add that to SOJ doing more around the ground......and IMO it was a simple choice.

That was 'then' would it still be the case that Silvagni offered more. I'm not sure there's a place for Jack other than on the bench

So Group A and Group B argued different points, but both pointed to having Silvagni over TDK (or Pitto) as the backup ruck.


Now, the only legitimate debate that is nothing but opinion goes back to what we started talking about......Development.

Do you 'take a hit' in performance now by playing someone who is not up to the output of an alternative? Using the logic of doing so for developmental reasons, is fair and opinion is divided. Its one thing that can't be tested one way or another as you can never do it both ways at once.
Some will use TDK as an example that it works.
I might use Dow or Obrien as an example that it doesn't.
Truth is, its all anecdotal evidence that can prove nothing one way or another.

Throughout all this i've been accused of being pro pittonet and silvagni and anti tdk.
My comments were made with my head, not my heart.
Stats showed it was an easy decision, but heart meant others couldn't accept it.

I think i've been consistent in my comments through the years.
TDK has (finally) produced what we are believed he had in him and is very much deserving of the #1 ruck. He holds it down without question and i'm as happy as anyone......but it was never about that.

[kruddler]

I assume it will be better in the 1's because it's those players we want Tom to develop an understanding and cohesion with. It's a non-event now anyway...I doubt he'll play VFL again.

I don't see him as only a forward but more a ruck- rover /utility type when he's not rucking-(forward and back). He can also do that Silvagni role now but probably better if we're playing two rucks.

You can get cohesion on the training track though. You want to put that into practice in games, being the #1 target in VFL would get more practice than 3rd banana in the 1's.

In looking at things like wins and pressure ratings have you taken into account the quality of the opposition.
Where was the opposition on the ladder when we played two rucks and lost or played none and won?
What was our pressure ratings when comparing high ladder and low ladder opposition

I've done a million different analysis of these, a lot of it will be littered through these threads. Some of it you can still find the stats and work through the logic of it, some of it are really only relevant at the time.
For instance, pressure ratings are very difficult to find. However, in the moment there is often graphs, stats, trends and discussions around them which can be found highlighting these exact things. I'm sure you could try and find a lot of the analysis from trawling through old footy shows and pre-shows if you had the time.

In terms of opposition and talent you are up against, that is easier to check. I actually did a recent analysis for LP (which he ignored)

R16 - 2023 -
Carlton vs Hawthorn
No Pittonet. No De Koning.
Young, Silvagni, McKay used in the ruck.

Hitouts
Hawthorn - 61
Carlton - 27

Result - Carlton wins by 60 points.

R17 - 2023
Carlton vs Fremantle (@Fremantle)
No Pittonet. No De Koning.
Young, Silvagni, McKay used in the ruck

"We are going to get monstered by Darcy and get spanked"

Hitouts
Fremantle - 70 (Darcy 58!)
Carlton - 18

Result - Carlton wins by 53.

Tell me again why we need 2 rucks to cover for the 1 ruck on the off-chance he gets injured.

We don't even need 1 ruck. In fact we have an average winning margin of over 9 goals when we don't have a ruck.
Just because Geelong lost by the same amount last night and didn't have one doesn't prove anything other than Geelong are crap right now.

So to go back to your quote....
"Heeding the warning of the potentially devastating result of not having a ruck is unequivocal."
The only devastating results i see is on the scoreboard when we demolish the opposition!

That was 'then' would it still be the case that Silvagni offered more. I'm not sure there's a place for Jack other than on the bench

All of your debates above are coming from the 'now' whereas i am summarising from the 'then'.

Thats the thing, its a moving goal post.

Maybe Jack improves? Maybe TDK goes backwards? Maybe we recruit a better 3rd tall forward option or repurpose someone we already have?
What any of that will do to our team balance depends on what our team balance is at the time.

Again, i'm not playing any favourites. If Jack doesn't play again. So be it. If TDK plays the next 200 games straight, so be it.
Whatever is best for the team is best for me.

[Lods]

You can get cohesion on the training track though. You want to put that into practice in games, being the #1 target in VFL would get more practice than 3rd banana in the 1's.
I've done a million different analysis of these, a lot of it will be littered through these threads. Some of it you can still find the stats and work through the logic of it, some of it are really only relevant at the time.
For instance, pressure ratings are very difficult to find. However, in the moment there is often graphs, stats, trends and discussions around them which can be found highlighting these exact things. I'm sure you could try and find a lot of the analysis from trawling through old footy shows and pre-shows if you had the time.

In terms of opposition and talent you are up against, that is easier to check. I actually did a recent analysis for LP (which he ignored)
All of your debates above are coming from the 'now' whereas i am summarising from the 'then'.

Thats the thing, its a moving goal post.

Maybe Jack improves? Maybe TDK goes backwards? Maybe we recruit a better 3rd tall forward option or repurpose someone we already have?
What any of that will do to our team balance depends on what our team balance is at the time.

Again, i'm not playing any favourites. If Jack doesn't play again. So be it. If TDK plays the next 200 games straight, so be it.
Whatever is best for the team is best for me.

It's funny because I often feel you're looking at the 'now' rather than the possibilities of what might be. ;D
Stats certainly are a measure of the 'past'...as soon as they occur.

Just on those two games you mention

No rucks yep
But at the time we played them we were beginning our charge.
The other sides were going backwards or not progressing.

Rnd 16 v Hawthorn
Hawthorn were 16th
They stayed 16th

Rnd 17 v Freo
Freo were 11th.
They fell to 14th were they stayed until the end of the year.

So the quality of the opposition matters.

[kruddler]

It's funny because I often feel you're looking at the 'now' rather than the possibilities of what might be. ;D
Stats certainly are a measure of the 'past'...as soon as they occur.

Just on those two games you mention

No rucks yep
But at the time we played them we were beginning our charge.
The other sides were going backwards or not progressing.

Rnd 16 v Hawthorn
Hawthorn were 16th
They stayed 16th

Rnd 17 v Freo
Freo were 11th.
They fell to 14th were they stayed until the end of the year.

So the quality of the opposition matters.

Yes, and so does the margin that goes along with it.

Go and have a look at the pre-games.....plenty of people were saying we would get smashed in both.
At the time, they were our peers. In fact, we were 16th and Hawks were only 2 points below us on the ladder.

The difference between the then and now, is the NOW is when we are challenging for a flag.

[Lods]

Voss has made one mistake this season.
He said the "ladder doesn't lie."
It does!
Does anyone seriously believe that Brisbane are the tenth best side in the competition, despite where they sit at the moment.
The only ladder that counts is the one at the end of the year...and even that can change after finals.
That's the one that tells you the true standing of a team.

And the fact is that Fremantle and Hawthorn were the 14th and 16th best sides in 2023, and Carlton were no 5 at the end of H&A and equal 3rd after the finals.

[Lods]

Personally, I think the debate is dead already, has been for most of this season.

Do you think so?
I think we've found a pulse.    

[PaulP]

Voss has made one mistake this season.
He said the "ladder doesn't lie."
It does!
Does anyone seriously believe that Brisbane are the tenth best side in the competition, despite where they sit at the moment.
The only ladder that counts is the one at the end of the year...and even that can change after finals.
That's the one that tells you the true standing of a team.

And the fact is that Fremantle and Hawthorn were the 14th and 16th best sides in 2023, and Carlton were no 5 at the end of H&A and equal 3rd after the finals.

The ladder is a fairly neat encapsulation of the body of work a team has produced thus far, but not necessarily a fair representation of where a team is in the moment. The Lions play the Demons tomorrow, and despite the ladder saying the Demons are 9th and the Lions 10th, the form line suggests that these teams are miles apart and seemingly headed in different directions. I would not be at all surprised to see Brisbane win by 10 goals.