In my day we dealt with posts that were multiple pages long on TBV! Young people these days just lack resilience….

You did make those comments and made others along the lines of, and I'm not quoting, in saying you preferred to go into the game with the 2 rucks, you didn't want another "war and Peace" discussion.

I'm 100% sure you were referring to me. That's OK. I'm not offended. I was a tad embarrassed to read. But I know you don't have to read what I post.

I didnt realise till the weekend that a lot of people read and post TC from their phones. I don't. Its too small. Reading "War and peace" on a mobile would be difficult for me, and annoying to others. But I'd do it, if I had to. I'm not offended, in fact, I take it as a compliment that some took an interest in my posts and it was a pain reading them. I speak to a lot of people who don't post on TC but are from the wider Carlton community. I get it. A lot of peple know of BB, BV, SB, Cazz, Mick...you'd be really surprised. A lot.

I'm glad you could see virtue in 2 rucks, and are open minded about "horses for courses approach", because the acceptance of the "horses for courses" seemd to happen right after I took a break from TC for a couple months and Pitto was selected a few days later ... I had a laugh reading the posts, but I was told it was going to happen. I'm not Nostradamus. Good on you. Some posters who were in the "Horses for Courses" then weren't, then were no they aren't, then they are, now they wont....their positions on 2 rucks or Pitto only, seem to be dependent on our weekly results, and the theres some posters who talk in absolutes: That Vossy would not go with 2 rucks based on the results in first few rounds, then Voss did, and since Pitto hasn't played the absoluteists think Vossy would never go that way again. Then the status quo changes as results come in, and we read the same again.

Out of respect to you missnaut, let me explain why I came back as a poster, and the" War and peace" from me. I think it is important for posters and readers of this site to know.

I read the following posts after the smashing of Nankervis, Richmond with Pitto in the ruck.







There was also posts along the same vein from Agro and Surrey.....

It saddened me to read.

After being a "visitor only" for 2 months I too noticed the site became a few one liners, no debate, and a decline in content. The site had been taken over by the loudest cynics in their use of vitriol towards Pitto and 2 rucks, and when Pitto showed his value, crickets. Any mention of Pitto or 2 rucks was treated with disdain. It didn't suit their argument. Those who could see the benefit of 2 rucks, or "horses for courses", not the fairweather posters who chopped and changed, didn't state their case, to put themselves in the line of ridicule from the opposition: the close minded.

There was no discussion anymore. The site became the site for one ruck. Even the "Horses for courses" position some had allowed their acceptance of it to dissipate as if it was never a thing for them. In fact, the site was filling up with false facts. That the 2 rucks never happened last year in our 9 in a row and in Finals. That no teams played the 2 rucks anymore, happily referring to teams with an injured first ruck but manipulating the facts to suggest that they chose one ruck over 2 See Freo, and the only empirical evidence that was constant, they used ad nauseum was the number of wins with 1 ruck vs 2 rucks as their crutch. Happy to dismiss the facts which may have influenced the result such as the personnel we had out injured, the form of the opposition, the form of the team and opposition rucks, Weather, Experimentation from the coach etc etc. Form is a fickle thing; something you can;t rely on because as the saying old goes "if you could bottle it, you would".

No one held these posters to account. Only Mickstar and Sydney Blue would write one line posts tthey prefer 2 rucks, only to have them shot down as if it was never going to happen, and then it did happen against the GWS and we won. That occurrence was conveniently avoided after that week as if it never happened, or conveniently dismissed as an anomaly.

So after 2 months of one sided argument, which collated would have been 2 " editions of "War and peace"!. Not only was I saddened, I had enough of this repeat it enough and people will believe it crap, and it was time for the opposing argument to catch up with my offering of "War and Peace".

For me, I wanted TC to be atheplace it was again. A place for discussion, debate amongst open minded intelligent posters who know a bit about footy and understand the footy gods. What do the footy gods say? Shit happens. We all know that. I made my peace with posters. They can take it or leave it, but my hope as a community, we are a great site to visit with facts we can learn from, Hypothesis which are possible and worthy of consideration, bound by respect and a balance of ideas and acceptance of possibility. That's how real life works.

I expect there will be no scepticism at all after yesterday's loss with TDK in the ruck, nor any consideration of the 'horses for courses position" some held 4-8 weeks ago, nor any discussion about the possibility TDK and its impact to the team's structure, by the naysayers and some will be dogmatic in their need to prove they are right and the opposing view is wrong.

Missnaut, have a look at this thread, it has already been a lot of lively fun. It feels like the old TC. Its alive and pumping with both sides of the argument. Lets hope it stays open minded.

I haven't read posts since my last post last night because missnaut, you were on my mind and I felt embarrassed by your comment initially, but felt the need to explain why I was so loud and proud arguing the virtues and possibility for 2 rucks or "Horses for Courses", or Pitto. Not to unleash on people but to bring some balance and hopefully get back to respectful posting.

I saw a few heat maps and a lot of posts since my last post last night. I have a busy day packing but I look forward to reading some posts from some of our most respected posters BV, SB,T79, CK,Cazz, GWS, HP, DB, LB, jake, braithy, daggs.... expecting fireworks, but hoping its respectful and intelligent. I expect mistakes to be made. Its how we respond and handle the mistakes I want to see.

I understand if the length of this post is frustrating to read. Sorry. Like Ive said before it comes from a good place because I really love all my Blue Brethren for sticking Phat over the last 2 decades, especially the TC family. I just want to have fun.

Good news for you, I'm off for holidays tonight and heading to Canberra then the South Coast for a paddle this week, followed by the snow the following week. I hope there's no long posts whilst I'm away, because I may have to read them on my mobile if my tablet runs out of battery, or my son doesn't bring his tablet with him to the snow. If I post they will be short. Yes!!! I hear

Lets get a huge win for Crippas 200th, with one ruck or two. Whatever Vossy decides. Anything is possible. Hopefully I may have a spare day to get to the game at the Dome.

Maybe because our other results with 2 rucks were crap, unless you count the Melbourne game where we barely fell over the line completely out of puff.

Yes, mitigating factors with the injury list, but you could say the same about Saturday with Weiters hobbled.

Whatever the merits of 1 ruck vs. 2 rucks, you can't exactly scoff at people who watched us win 2 lose 4 to be jumping up and down going "I was wrong all along! This is the way!"

Maybe because our other results with 2 rucks were crap, unless you count the Melbourne game where we barely fell over the line completely out of puff.

Carlton losing to the Giants was an upset, but not overly upsetting. At the start of the year you wouldn’t have said that, but the Giants had lost six of their last eight games and then the Blues got 39 points up and were humming.

Carlton will know the Giants were, and are, a very good team that had endured a bad month or so but were always likely to find form again. That they did so after being 39 points down to Carlton speaks more to the Giants and Adam Kingsley challenging them at quarter-time than the Blues. Yes, it’s unsettling to witness a 75-point turnaround within a game, but until that becomes a trend it can be contained as a quirk.

Carlton’s pressure fell away in the second term as they relaxed, feeling the game was in hand. This is like the result itself: upsetting, but not troubling until it becomes a trend. Effort is the biggest controllable in the game.

What will disconcert the Blues most was the thorough job Kieren Briggs did on Tom De Koning in the ruck. This was as astonishing a turnaround in one contest as the 75 points on the scoreboard for the match.
Only a fortnight ago De Koning was merciless against his younger brother. He pushed him around with imperious superiority of … an older brother. He was aggressive and unsparing, bullying his “little” brother and asserting the pecking order.
On Saturday night Tom De Koning started very well and was part of the impetus for the Blues dominant first term. But then he was given the big brother treatment by Briggs whose muscular influence in the ruck from quarter time was the most critical change in turning momentum in the game.
Briggs stepped into De Koning at centre bounces and ball-ups to deny him a jump at the ball, held him at arm’s length at other contests, put his body between De Koning and the ball at others and De Koning was bereft. Keeping De Koning out of the contest brought the Giants’ mids into the frame and helped keep the ball out of Patrick Cripps’ damaging hands.
At one boundary throw-in Briggs bumped De Koning sideways and so thoroughly physically dominated him that at one ball-up in the last quarter, De Koning stood back and got Patrick Cripps to take the ruck instead.

The Blues will be annoyed but not upset with the loss. They will be upset, however, if De Koning can’t find a way to overcome a tactic that all rucks with the strength and nous of Briggs will now apply to him.

The heavy lifting is appreciated, Bondi.

One ruck or two, I’m not really fussed. That said, if we can get this wobble out of the wheels & win our way into the last game of the season, I’ll just about bet my balls that we’ll play two.

I just can’t see Pittonet ever allowing nine tackles & 24 effective pressure acts from the opposition ruck. And, even though I agree with Derm that Tom puts up his best fight when the fighting is safe, there is an offensive advantage when the two are in tandem.

Tom just doesn’t have that chess-boxing competitiveness that makes a good solo ruck. His safe place is back shoulder & reach around. That’s ok if you’re beating their ruck to the ground ball, but not so much when you’re getting mauled like he was. He was rucking against Pittonet, if Pittonet was a couple yards quicker - step across the line & make it a wrestle.

Conversely, Pittonet sees & understands the contest better than he’s able to play it.

The ruck contest is the best thing in footy. An inescapable fight, 100 times a game. There are a LOT of nil-nil contests & the stats are almost always misinterpreted. According to the data, De Koning rated higher than Briggs & if you didn’t watch the game, you’d be inclined to believe that.

For those interested, and don't have acces to The Age. This is Football related.

From Today's Age. Michael Gleeson wrote:











I'm not upset by the loss, because I thought Vossy's selections and magnet moves were made to find out more about the team. Learnings.

We won stoppages and clearances to not much effect. The real issue was that Giants scored 70 points from stoppages.

Like wins and losses there's more to the game than the raw accumulated clearance numbers. We may have won them, but they were not as effective from there as were the Giants. believe what ever you want to believe. Dismiss whatever you want to dismiss. You can look for messages in numbers or use them as bragguing rights.

My educated guess is that Voss wont be bragging about our stoppage and clearance numbers, but he will be looking for learnings. What did you learn from those numbers? Be honest. And if you're not, keep them to yourself. Mums the word.

lol don't buy bondi's assessments of my age. i think we're the same age?

i grew up playing in some rep teams with our current coach, but mostly against him at club level. we hated each other. we had a grand final trilogy as teens, they won 2, we won, one. it was war and my job was to tag him, which made him grumpy. we got a big mutual friend group that are all still in touch. when we catch up it's still headlocks and banter.

anyway, i digress.

Here we go again. You want to paint a picture that I am dismissing opinions. You are so wrong, again, about that.

You're misrepresenting my point again GE. How did you extrapolate your recent conclusion? You are aiming at me, not my POV. So, I'll bite.

I haven't scoffed at people's opinions, re the numbers of wins with 2 rucks. Have a read. Absorb it don't drift off and make up stuff.

I have alot of respect for the ruck role inm Aussie rules.

I should have mentioned you too Cru re re the one or 2 ruck debate. My mistake. Bad mistake. There wasn't many to recall.

Hogan was the difference, marked everything that came his way. Just had one of those games where it all went right for him.
At one point Weitering was about to come in from the side to spoil and Newman inadvertently blocked his run. Mark, goal.

tdk rolled his ankle in the first 10 mins and after he came back on after having it strapped, he wasn't jumping barely at all, and his 2nd efforts dried up - probably bcos he couldn't push off or change direction how he's used to.

he's played against big rucks before and done okay, using his athleticism, leaping, burst and agility to out manoeuvre them.


biggest reason we lost was our overall team pressure rating, even in the 1st qtr when we blitzed them, it wasn't high (by our standard)... and all of that is on the players. and when voss said in the post game, that we strayed away from who we are, that's what he was referring to.

look to come out breathing fire against the dogs - if we're for real, that is.

Mate, you are clearly taking a dig at people for "conveniently overlooking" our win over GWS with two rucks. I am having a little dig at you in return for "conveniently overlooking" all the losses and terrible metrics we had during that six game stretch. That is all.

Noticed the ruck tactics during the game and I'm genuinely confused around the rules when it comes to ruckwork.
Rushing across the line and denying your opponent an attempt at the ball is apparently legal at the centre bounce, yet doing the same around the ground often sees a free kick for a ruck infringement.
.

lol don't buy bondi's assessments of my age. i think we're the same age?

i grew up playing in some rep teams with our current coach, but mostly against him at club level. we hated each other. we had a grand final trilogy as teens, they won 2, we won, one. it was war and my job was to tag him, which made him grumpy. we got a big mutual friend group that are all still in touch. when we catch up it's still headlocks and banter.

anyway, i digress.

Bondi, I was attempting a bit of a joke!!

Wasn't solely aimed at you either, we had plenty of dual ruck discussion so didn't feel the need to really get involved.

If I don't want to read something or certain posters I just scroll past anyway.

70 points from stoppage is a blip? Maybe. Maybe not. I see a leak which needs to be plugged. Asking a friend if they can give me any ideas.
Have you got thoughts on that?