The Great Ruck Debate.

[Lods]

Wrong.

See Paul's quote as an actual snapshot in time.

https://www.carltonsc.com/index.php?topic=6480.60
You yourself made no predictions or comments on the relative strengths of the side

People take some time to adjust to the reality of what is happening in a teams performance.
At that point of time we were all probably a bit gun shy.
Was the turnaround sustainable...or just a flash in the pan.
Anyone thinking top 6 was probably considered a supreme optimist.

We had a bottom 4 mentality as supporters....but our team had already gone past that.
We weren't on a par with Hawthorn and Freo any longer.
We were better, much better.
And with one of our ruckman back the following week we didn't just beat the 14th or 16th side by 50 points
We beat the 'second' placed side by 50 points.

[kruddler]

People take some time to adjust to the reality of what is happening in a teams performance.
At that point of time we were all probably a bit gun shy.
Was the turnaround sustainable...or just a flash in the pan.
Anyone thinking top 6 was probably considered a supreme optimist.

We had a bottom 4 mentality as supporters....but our team had already gone past that.
We weren't on a par with Hawthorn and Freo any longer.
We were better, much better.
And with one of our ruckman back the following week we didn't just beat the 14th or 16th side by 50 points
We beat the 'second' placed side by 50 points.

OK, so the ladder is wrong.
Which makes Vossy wrong.
I am wrong.
PaulP was wrong.
The bookies were wrong.

You were right.

Yeah, nah.

At that point in time, everyone was right......and you didn't voice an opinion.

[Lods]

OK, so the ladder is wrong.
Which makes Vossy wrong.
I am wrong.
PaulP was wrong.
The bookies were wrong.

You were right.

Yeah, nah.

At that point in time, everyone was right......and you didn't voice an opinion.

I wasn't right...I was careful.
As you say I probably didn't voice an opinion.

I'll tell you who probably did think the ladder didn't reflect our true ability...the players      

[kruddler]

I wasn't right...I was careful.
As you say I probably didn't voice an opinion.
I'll tell you who probably did think the ladder didn't reflect our true ability...the players      

Poor example.
Name me 2 teams that the players think there ladder position reflects their true ability.
Sydney is one....
Everyone else thinks they are better than their ladder position reflects.

[Lods]

Poor example.
Name me 2 teams that the players think there ladder position reflects their true ability.
Sydney is one....
Everyone else thinks they are better than their ladder position reflects.

You saying it's a poor  example doesn't make it so.
Some teams are better than their ladder position. Brisbane last week is a good example.
But your desire to have the the last word has us going around in circles and getting us off topic so it's over too you for the final say then back to the rucks

[kruddler]

You can rewrite history to back up your argument. Thats fine.
Even IF we take your side of the debate, what we did with no rucks would not have been expected by you, or anyone else in the AFL....certainly nowhere near the margin it is.

Going back and reading the pre-matches, the in-games and post games at that time gives us great insight.

In fact MBB laid down the gauntlett in terms of importance of rucks going into those game and turned around with how (un)important they are based off those efforts.

The fact that occured with 0 rucks shows its possible.
Obviously, when you have 1 ruck its better.
Having additional rucks after that simply has diminishing returns in terms of how much influence they have in the ruck. (simply spend less time there by comparison to 1).
So it comes down to a matter of how good are they around the ground.
Which comes down to how much better (or worse) are the 2nd ruck compared to a specialised position player who would be getting squeezed out as a result.
Almost by definition, shoehorning a ruck into another position is going to be less effective.
So why do it for limited improvement in the actual ruck......when we can dominate sides without one at all?

[LP]

Even IF we take your side of the debate, what we did with no rucks would not have been expected by you, or anyone else in the AFL....certainly nowhere near the margin it is.

I think you confuse short term and long term, it's why you keep arguing for long term change based on short term statistics.

Short term changes, forced or planned, come with a benefit, they aren't predicted or prepared for by opposition. Like playing a bunch of kids or when a caretaker coach is put in place. They can bring some success but that is not certain, they can also fail dismally. A great example of success is the 1970 Grand Final and the birth of modern football, unplanned and an unequivocal success back then, ground-breaking, but now a predictable and planned for tactic that wouldn't even rate a special comment.

But those short term results are quite different from the long term, when opponents have the time to study and prepare. Some tactics built around no rucks or placeholder rucks might work here or there occasionally, but they are unlikely to succeed once opponents have opportunity to plan and leverage the inherent weakness that such a setup brings.

Actually, the most recent Geelong game is another great example of that, how much easier it would have been for SDK and Blicavs if we only had SoJ or Young as ruck, or if TDK had gone down early leaving BigH, Cripps or Kennedy as our Ruck. It's no longer shock and awe, they've seen it before!

[kruddler]

Did we know Geelong were not going to play any rucks?
Did we practice for that eventuality?
Why didn't they catch us by suprise?

Simple. We are not Geelong. Geelong are not us.

I've argued what is best for OUR team. Not what is best for Geelong, or Freo and Port Melbourne....

You say i'm looking for long term.
Lods says i'm looking at the now.

I'm looking at both.

Its always been about our team balance. Who we have available and how they are performing......and how we are performing as a team and if we are fighting for a flag.

I'm always talking about drafting for the future.
I'm always talking about picking a team based on how players are currently playing....and nobody is safe.

Before Pittonet got injured, he was in career best form.
TDK is currently in career best form.

Despite this, we simply do not need them both in the team.

The team is working with Harry, Charlie and Kenendy playing backup ruck for 20% of the time, which translates to about 25 ruck contests, which translates to about 5 centre bounces......which is something that is VERY manageable and gives us an element of surprise as well.

Honestly, the focus that people are putting into this 2nd ruck position far outweighs the benefits to the team.

IMO, we should spend more time focussing on our forward setup, specifically small forwards/half forwards.....and the long term goals in this regard.

Owies/Durdin/Fantasia/Motlop/Williams/Moir
and
Cottrell/Martin/Fogarty/Cuningham/Cincotta/Kennedy

There is way too many unknowns from that group. Way too many variables there. Way too many questions need to be answered there.

[ElwoodBlues1]

Did we know Geelong were not going to play any rucks?
Did we practice for that eventuality?
Why didn't they catch us by suprise?

Simple. We are not Geelong. Geelong are not us.

I've argued what is best for OUR team. Not what is best for Geelong, or Freo and Port Melbourne....

You say i'm looking for long term.
Lods says i'm looking at the now.

I'm looking at both.

Its always been about our team balance. Who we have available and how they are performing......and how we are performing as a team and if we are fighting for a flag.

I'm always talking about drafting for the future.
I'm always talking about picking a team based on how players are currently playing....and nobody is safe.

Before Pittonet got injured, he was in career best form.
TDK is currently in career best form.

Despite this, we simply do not need them both in the team.

The team is working with Harry, Charlie and Kenendy playing backup ruck for 20% of the time, which translates to about 25 ruck contests, which translates to about 5 centre bounces......which is something that is VERY manageable and gives us an element of surprise as well.

Honestly, the focus that people are putting into this 2nd ruck position far outweighs the benefits to the team.

IMO, we should spend more time focussing on our forward setup, specifically small forwards/half forwards.....and the long term goals in this regard.

Owies/Durdin/Fantasia/Motlop/Williams/Moir
and
Cottrell/Martin/Fogarty/Cuningham/Cincotta/Kennedy

There is way too many unknowns from that group. Way too many variables there. Way too many questions need to be answered there.

Id agree with all that...the backup ruck only plays in that position for around 5 minutes a quarter usually so your main ruck can rest and the opposition usually do the same with their main ruck at the same time. Two amatuer rucks usually have zero bearing on clearances and its down to who are the mids you have at the stoppage to win the ball without any ruck help.
Its more down to your system and style of play and having that extra runner/mid or utility overrides what a second specialist ruckman can give you in a value sense in most cases.
Am I going to reduce TDKs time on the field the way he is playing to play Pittonet for half a quarter every quarter.???...Im sure the opposition coach would love seeing TDK leave the field for that length of time so why would you do it?
Kennedy, Cripps can assist Harry in a Shaun Grigg role as the backup ruck combo and having that extra mid/runner rather than a slower tall helps offset probably our only team negative which is lack of pace vs some teams.
No brainer that one specialist ruck with a few others chipping in as that 2nd ruck backup works best for us and our gamestyle.

[DJC]

I think you confuse short term and long term, it's why you keep arguing for long term change based on short term statistics.

Short term changes, forced or planned, come with a benefit, they aren't predicted or prepared for by opposition. Like playing a bunch of kids or when a caretaker coach is put in place. They can bring some success but that is not certain, they can also fail dismally. A great example of success is the 1970 Grand Final and the birth of modern football, unplanned and an unequivocal success back then, ground-breaking, but now a predictable and planned for tactic that wouldn't even rate a special comment.

But those short term results are quite different from the long term, when opponents have the time to study and prepare. Some tactics built around no rucks or placeholder rucks might work here or there occasionally, but they are unlikely to succeed once opponents have opportunity to plan and leverage the inherent weakness that such a setup brings.

Actually, the most recent Geelong game is another great example of that, how much easier it would have been for SDK and Blicavs if we only had SoJ or Young as ruck, or if TDK had gone down early leaving BigH, Cripps or Kennedy as our Ruck. It's no longer shock and awe, they've seen it before!

Nice work getting the thread back on topic LP ?

Let’s say Geelong goes into a game with SDK at fullback, Blicavs on the wing and Stanley in the ruck.  SDK and Blicavs are competent, capable ruckmen and Geelong intends to use one or both as Stanley’s backup(s).  They have plans in place to cover them when they go into the ruck and they don’t lose much when Stanley takes a break. 

If Stanley has to be subbed out, either or both of SDK and Blicavs can cover for him and the plans to cover them simply switch from temporary to ongoing.  Geelong’s structure and game plan aren’t thrown out by Stanley’s loss.

If we are playing one ruckman with McKay as backup with cameos from Cripps and Kennedy, we are in trouble if our ruckman is subbed off.  Yes, we have plans to cover our backups but only for five minutes or so in the case of McKay and contest by contest for the other two.  McKay rucking for 80% of the game significantly weakens both our ruck and forward line and Cripps and/or Kennedy rucking for 20% of the game makes it a no contest in the ruck and compromises our midfield and our game plan.  The scenario is completely different if Silvagni is playing.

We take a risk when we go into a game with one ruckman and a part timer, particularly if the opposition has more ruck options.  One ruckman and two part timers, as per the Geelong example above, is less of a risk.  Playing two ruckman virtually eliminates that risk but compromises our structure and game plan unless at least one of the rucks can fill another role.  That role may be as a KPP or as a midfielder such as when we had Kreuzer in the midfield with Hampson taking the hitouts.

One ruck or two depends on how versatile your rucks are, how competent your backups are and how well they can be covered, and what the opposition’s ruck strengths are.