Can we keep the debate around 1 ruck vs 2 rucks to this thread, rather than every other thread?

_________________
my last one was rubbish

Bondi, get in here


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

_________________

there is no debate. we're 10-1 with one ruck.


we can't be compared to other teams with 2 rucks, bcos we're the only team in the comp with two top 5 key forwards ... adding a resting tdk to that, messes up our turnover and giving up rebound scores.

so either we find another ruck like Lobbe who can play CHB ... or we run with one ruck and Harry chopping them out

I don't get this argument. In today's game you dont go with your traditional ruck set up. Other posters have said silvagni is a big loss and imn thinking that's correct.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

@#$%&! I miss jsos

_________________
The only way for some people to understand is for them to be on the receiving end

Left wing moralists
In self serving denial
They shit me no end

RIP Charlie Kirk (was/were)

The "ruck debate" isn't a knock on Pitto the player, not from me... I don't mind him

I just don't like the balance of the team when we do play two rucks and two big forwards

He makes a slow midfield, slower... especially when the ball hits the ground... TDK makes an extra mid

It results in a resting ruckman making our forward structure, slower and too predictable.. two big forwards and a ruck will do that to any team.
I like how Harry pinch hitting in the ruck changes our forward structure for a while and forces the opposition defenders to adjust.

We miss Jack... just my opinion

_________________
“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” ― Richard Feynman

That's it, Hornet. There's maybe one or two posters on here, tops, who doesn't think Pitto is a good ruckman. It's all about team balance and agility. Yet somehow the debate always descends into a catfight over one man. Just like at high school, right guys? Guys?

Until he's given a role that’s mostly extra mid and forward.

They’re both premium ruckmen, when opposed to other ruckmen.

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

The contingency for one ruck going to pot should be to just concede the contest.

Shark the hitouts, and/or goad the bloke into taking it clean & bring him down. Leave Harry forward & make it up in the first & second possession.

It’s not that Harry’s no good in the ruck, it’s just that if we take him out of the forward set up, we’ll have two parts of our game that don’t work.

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

i don't agree with that at all. when harry is further up the field it gives us a different look. add martin or williams forward yday to owies and motlop, and we're difficult to contain.

adds an extra wrinkle and makes other teams have to adjust, especially if they're a tall backline.

with owies and motlop back with the fog, i think our forward line will be buzzing.

If TDK is an extra mid he is a mid that is very sloppy with his disposal. If we are going with one ruck he edges out Pitto - but it is a slim margin. We'd be brave not to play both against a team like Freo

_________________
Between our dreams and actions lies this world

Depends if we want to go with 1 thread or 2.

_________________
#DonTheStash

The problem I as I see it - It is ok to run with 1 ruck if you have the 3rd banana up forward who can take a grab.
When we use Harry as 2nd ruck and TDK or Pitto go to the bench it leaves Charlie 1 out in the forward 50 and he gets defended to easily .
When we go with two rucks neither TDK or Pitto are viable options as that forward 50 target or they are not very good at drifting back a kick behind play to cut out the ball coming into back Half.
TDK is up with the best with his follow up after the ruck contest and is good at taking the ball from boundary throw ins and sending it forward. Pitto tap work is good and his abilty to block and create space for the midfield is also very good.

When you look at the Dogs their forward structure is Naughton, Ugle and Darcey - When English has a rest and Darcey rucks they still have two forward fifty targets.
Same applies to Swans - they have Macdonald Armarty and Maclean and throw in Heywood - so when Grundy comes off they still have options in attack .
These two sides still manage to defend the ball coming out of their front half and create repeat entries so either our smalls are not getting to work when we have 3 tall forwards - Or our talls are giving up once the initial marking contest is lost.

We are going to get found out with only one genuine ruck - but with out JSOS I am not sure what the solution is

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

1 ruck it is then - Pitto best of luck!

_________________
This type of slight is alien in the more cultured part of the world - Walsh. Its up there with mad dogs, Englishmen and the midday sun!

Debate over

TDK out for the rest of the home and away season

_________________
*(grow - fun - gah)

Yeah but whatabout your whataboutism.

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

@Syd: Yes, I think that's a fair analysis. It's the deficiencies in Pitto, TDK, CC and H's respective games - and the midfielders, and the small forwards - that makes the 2R+2KPF system sub-optimal for us, it's not that the approach is fundamentally impossible.

Based on what you're saying, Syd, it shows that Jack Martin getting fit and firing will make a huge difference too. I happened to be watching highlights of R22-24 and finals last year, and I had forgotten just how pivotal he was to our success (lest we forget how he nailed the Charlie defensive intercept role to clinch the EF win v. Swans).

@#$%&! we're really going to miss JSOS.

And Lewis Young .

_________________
All my dangerous friends