that’s true. reckon he’s the type to drop back and stop the rot for us when the oppo get up too much momentum as well.

but which Forward are you dropping for JSOS?

Owies? no way.
Martin? not if he’s fit and flying.
Zac Williams? Don’t think so.
Motlop? Fog? Cunners? Fantasia? Cottrell? they’re all different players in their own right and not like for like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

my solution medium term is recruit another elite level tall defender who is maybe a bit more mobile than weiters who can run with the Jarmarra’s and J Cameron types. but who can also do second ruck in the centre and in defensive half.

i’m not sure how that works structurally for D50 stoppage goals which we are worst in the AFL at defending.

it’s one solution to the problem that we don’t have a ruckman who can can play solo for a season as a solo ruck yet.

Pitto plus TDK does come with bench and “running out the game” issues, otherwise we’d stick with it as a hybrid solution to not having a dominant and durable ruck of the Justin Madden, Matthew Allen, Kruz build and physical ability to take the knocks for a whole season. and who can take on the bigger bodied rucks in the league on his own.

TDK plays better without Pitto. Litton plays better without TDK i’d suggest too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another option could be to have a ruck who can be a defender. So he takes the ruck in d50, another takes it between the arcs including CBA and is a release avenue from defense / counter to their releases from our F50, and finally H takes the ruck in our F50.

_________________
░L░I░N░K░I░N░B░I░O ░

I agree with Cru re negatively impacting 2 parts of our game.

Harry running upfield is very different to running upfield as a ruck in outcome and function imo. Harry runs upfield and presents whether he is 2nd ruck or CHF, not exclusively in the ruck role.

You only have to look at Harry's heat maps and kms playing solely as CHF to see that. He drags his KPD out of our forward line ala Nick reiwoldt to provide a marking option down the line, even when we have 2 rucks opening up our forwardline for Charlie to do his thing one on one. They both kick goals when playing KPFs simultaneously. Perhaps similar to Nick Reiwoldt he tries to fatigue his opponent then sprint back to create a second marking option in the forwardline leaving his opponent upfield.

What is empirically obvious is that Charlie has not kicked a goal this year when Harry is playing in the ruck. That supports Cru's point.

As for wrinkles, I like that word and analogy a lot, but unfortunately our biggest issue with smalls is that they do not stay on their line as you would hope. You will find the main criticism of our smalls this year has been that they are too far up the ground and not at the feet of Charlie, or Harry's more often than not.

When Harry is in the ruck, Charlie will have his opponent and usually a 2nd defender who stays home and doesn't get sucked into the midfield and defensive half following their opponents; our smalls.

When Harry is rucking upfield he has an opponent to mind, so its not all on his terms as you'd like to think, and his opponent in the ruck has kicked goals against him whilst in the ruck. Lets not blame him for that and remember ruck for Harry is a fill in role, when he has to, not a position he has mastered.

I don't mind when Harry roams upfield as a CHF as long as there's 2 marking talls in the forwardline to stop opposition double teaming or bodying Charlie to stop him leading or jumping. Furthermore, an extra tall in the backline to mind our 2 talls is one less quicker ball carrier/ line breaker for the opposition. 3 talls in the forward line strtches teams. The issue we have had is that TDK's marking and goal kicking isnt consistent but when it clicks, and he is still developing, the 3 talls are a handful and a huge danger for the oppostion.

Have a look at what North did last week with the 3 talls. Comden, named at Full Back where he has been all year wasn't required in the backline given we only had 2 talls, and one of them (Harry) needed to give a chop out in the ruck, which for a while there looked to be permanent for the rest of the game. Nick Larkey took Weitering on a merry dance and out of the full back line and Comden took marks close to goal and kicked goals to keep them in front. Teakle was the 2nd ruck for Xerri and he also marked and goaled.

Our structure without our CHF becomes, lets say, spineless, when you consider how the term "spine" is used and highly regarded. Cliche as it is, but losing your CHF, which Cru is alluding to is exactly what you are doing.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

That's what you say and believe. That is the be all to end all. Its not that hard and fast imo.

Not when we are in sync as a team. I don't blame the 2 rucks for our ball movement.

I know you think 2 rucks heavily impacts our running power in the long game, but I don't think its anywhere as bad or the cause as you allude to. We are a fit running team.

Its not impossible as we saw in the GWS game.

Its a case of finding the middle ground. We have shown we can do it (turnover scoring) with the 2 rucks, and I also noticed the players this year know how to make our turnover game work and know how it works as opposed to last year.

When we have one ruck off the ground, on the bench, and play "one ruck" and no 3rd tall, our players know how to get our turnover game going. That's because the players know how. Sometimes we dont get that side of our game with one ruck, so its not exclusively an issue with the 2 rucks as you allude imo.

Our turnover game is not exclusive to TDK being the sole ruck on the ground, it could be Pittonet. Last year with Pitto in the ruck and TDK as the 3rd tall we kicked our record score from turnover. Much bigger than this year's hiughest turnover game. As mentioned it also happened against GWS this year too, our highest for this year. With 2 rucks. Proof it is possible.

Vossy has been chopping and changing, all year, since Pitto returned from injury. Vossy and his line coaches have been teaching and trialling different players playing different roles by the week, and not as they have been named on the team sheet in order to find the middle ground. He's told us that all year. Players get injured, or lose form or have opponents that stretch our desired positioning. Its not the 2 rucks or one ruck whuich hinders ourv turnover game, otherwise it would be there every single game with one ruck and we wouldnt lose a game. it doesn't work in such utopiuan ideals.

We are not the finished product, and now TDK is out on the sidelines with SOS the 2 rucks as I hoped isn't going to happen in the H & A, but I will not be surprised to see it happen through necessity in the Finals and maybe in a different way over the next 5 weeks. I'm thinking Young is the next man up. I'm not saying it will happen, but nothing surprises me as it does for some.

The pointy end of the season, and we are all on edge. I have a feeling the boys will click as they did last year, and we didn't have a turnover game last year. I'm actually excited by the challenge. I think we are made of the right stuff.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

Get rid of the stupid sub rule and have 5 on the bench and the entire discussion is over

Sent from my SM-F926B using Tapatalk

_________________
If you allow the Government to change the Laws in an emergency
They will create an Emergency to change the Laws

Sanity , at last .

_________________
All my dangerous friends

Score from turnover +/- points & scoring shots.

R5 L v Crows: 6.8 to 9.1 (-11pts, +4ss)
R6 W v GWS: 8.7 to 8.4 (+3pts, +3ss)
R7 L v Cats: 5.6 to 9.5 (-23pts, -3ss)
R8 L v Filth: 8.3 to 6.5 (+10pts, +0ss)
R9 W v Dees: 5.2 to 5.6 (-4pts, -4ss)
R10 L v Swans: 7.4 to 7.12 (-8pts, -8ss)
R18 L v Dogs: 7.8 to 7.8 (+0pts, +0ss)

Overall: 2W 5L: -32pts, -8ss

_________________
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" - Winston Churchill.

Good research. And completing the data:

Score from turnover +/- points playing 1 ruck.

R.0. 9.4.58 to 7.6.48 (+10pts)
R.1. 9.9.63 to 4.5.29 (+34pts)
R.2. Bye
R.3. 12.4.76 to 5.5.35 (+41pts)
R.4. 7.9.51 to 4.3.27 (+24pts
R.11. 10.5.65 to 6.4.40 (+25 points)
R.12. 7.7.49 to 4.4.28 (+21 points)
R.13. 9.2.56 to 4.8.32 (+24 points)
R.14. Bye
R.15. 12.7.79 to 4.5.29 (+50 points)
R.16. 15.6.96 to 5.6.36 (+60 points)
R.17. 8.3.51 to 7.4.46 (+5 points)
R.19. 9.4.58 to 7.2.44 (+14 points)

So if my conclusion is correct, we have -

10 wins, 1 loss playing 1 ruck with us winning the turnover score in every match. At an average of +28 points per match.
2 wins, 5 losses playing 2 rucks with us winning the turnover game in 2 matches out of 7. At an average of -4.6 points per match.

Statistically it appears the assertion that our turnover profile is significantly diminished from a points for/points against when playing 2 rucks is obvious.
And as the article correctly states, this is the statistic that has produced 17 of the past 18 premiers. Plenty for the coaches to work with.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

bang on.

close the thread, our job here is done.

Until we have 5 + sub

_________________
░L░I░N░K░I░N░B░I░O ░

Why Pittonet’s inclusion is business as usual for the Blues

https://chloekatie.wordpress.com/2024/0 ... the-blues/

_________________
░L░I░N░K░I░N░B░I░O ░

Yep. What's obvious is we have 2 very high quality ruckman to choose from. Any other team would be jealous of the situation our list managers have created.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

Nathan Buckley agrees with you
Jordan Lewis agrees with you

No need for links

I agree with you

Does braithy?

Half of the conjecture regarding the 2 rucks discussion from me has been a response to the derogatory comments braithy has consistently made about Pitto. It was good to see a post from braithy since TDK went down changing his tune, and showing some confidence in Pittonet. Like Great Ex posted, there's only one maybe two TC posters who have no faith ihn Pitto.

There's pros and cons in every debate, and intelligent debate should be respectful of both sides. As Ive said in the past, we have a fantastic list, with cover on every line. There's players we can never replace like for like (Cripps, Weitering, Curnow, McKay, Walsh...) but we can fill their position with a competent alternative. I've always maintained "in Vossy I trust"; something braithy finds absurd and ridicules me for believing in. I have no reason not too. I have never said that Vossy is an idiot going in with one ruck. I can't say the same for braithy when Vossy has gone with 2 rucks.

There's no absolutes in AFL, because in a footy game anything can happen, and one should expect the unexpected in a do or die final. That's been my position. Such is my respect for the world of statistics and probability I cannot allow myself to convinced we have lost the games we did because of the 2 rucks. There's 23 players and if a just a few don't bring the pressure they become the weak links and it doesn't matter if there's 1 or 2 rucks we will fail, just as you noted against North in post match.

I loved what TDK did when Pitto was out in the early part of the year, as he forged his reputation, as I have when Pitto played sole ruck. I also acknowledge and admire what was achieved by the combo when TDK held his marks and kicked goals.

PS I sent you a PM.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

braithy if you want to close the thread, I ask you why?
Are you judge jury and executioner?

The world doesn't revolve around your absolutes. You should know that.

I couldn't give a rats if you close the thread. If you do, you fail to see that TC was a place for open intelligent discussion.

I can see your point of view, but can you see the virtues of the opposite? We are not stupid, and we don't have rocks in our head as you suggest.

IIRC you are studying Law, not Statistics.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

It’s not nothing, but it’s not everything either.

Take that first Cats game - two rucks and three tall defenders.
We’ve (narrowly) won the intercepts 65/64 and contested ground ball 89/86. We’ve created 66 entries to their 45, and racked up 24 tackles inside 50.
We’re not lacking forward half pressure and we’ve destroyed them at stoppage. Yet, they’ve outscored us from turnovers by four goals from three extra scores.
2.8 to open the game. Good kicking is good footy.

Filth & Crows - won the battle, lost the game.

Giants 2nd time. Ignoring the fact that they’ve had their way with us at stoppage (if you can get that image out of your head), they’ve won the intercepts and ground balls. Eleven scores apiece.

Scum - 11 scores to their 12 from turnover. 10 to 12 from stoppages. Tom’s the most influential player on the ground with FOUR score involvements. His opponents combine for double that.

And so on…

“Lies, damn lies & statistics.”

_________________
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" - Winston Churchill.

I agree if that's the case. I haven't seen that here at TC. Who was it BV?

I took great offence to Great Ex's post suggesting I would "gloat" if TDK was injured in the match day thread, and I responded to that slanderous remark.
Why I took offense to the comment is that shit sticks, and I didn't appreciate it one single bit. Its not what TC is about...imo

What I was pointing out in the match thread was the comments made by all 5 commentators when TDK went off re Carlton's exposure if we lose the sole ruck to injury, which is a point about the risk that exists playing one ruck. IMO we wouldn't have won the game if TDK didn't return. Thank god he did, because I shat myself when I saw him hobbling off.

I met Tom's dad, TDK Terry, through my neighbour Teddy Whitten Snr early '81, and when I told him I barracked for Carlton, he told me he did too. I've loved the fam ever since.

The last thing I would want to see any injury to our list, especially this year. We have a flag to win one ruck or two. I'll be happy with just one.

https://twitter.com/intent/follow?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1815563472186573195%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=&screen_name=1116sen



TDK was hit several times. Just because you didn't see all the hits, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Where's there's smoke there's fire. Sydney Blue didn't make it up.

"Unsociable Football" is a term associated with Alistair Clarkson. You don't think Clarkson would ask his young players to play "unsociable football" especially against a team he has a history of hate towards with a passion?

I've watched the replay a few times looking for clues, and TDK did cop a few hits that were accidental, but like Walshy, quite a few of the "hits" weren't accidents, but did "impact" IMHO.

I think a dozen posters saw that and posted the same during the game. Since the game, it has been common conversation that should be expected from a bully like Clarkson, the Leopard who can't change his stripes.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

urghh. i'm allowed to have my opinions. i just want to win meaningful games of footy, not blow wind on a forum board about the bleeding obvious, or have to read journal sized documents from posters who obsess about their point


pittonet is fine for the list as a back up, he can't play with tdk; as match results indicate. he's either on the on the ball or tdk is. we need more versatility from our Two.


i don't have a huge amount of faith in pittonet for the duration ... he's played well in spurts all thru his career, ultimately the hawks let him go, bcos he never gave more than that. spurts.

we have 5+ games for pittonet to finally prove he's more than a spurts player and can be a consistent number one. at what, 29 years old? history is the best determiner for his future.

he'll drop marks, lose hit outs, not get to stoppages, and cost us free kicks from fatigue. let's re-visit this in late august. happy to be corrected from his play.

You’re a deadset embarrassment, champ.

_________________
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" - Winston Churchill.

Good to see nothings changed BV
Still firing on all cylinders
All this stuff about 2 rucks or one ruck
Too much of it
With Acres out Binns surely gets arum
47 possessions 3 goals should be a decent qualify mark
He would be more value than Cuningham