Talking Carlton Index Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington CFC Home CFC Membership CFC Shop CFC Fixture Blueseum
It is currently Sat May 03, 2025 2:38 am

All times are UTC + 10 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 235 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Ruck debate
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2025 10:15 am 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:03 am
Posts: 24658
Location: Bondi Beach
TDK has worked his arse off trying to compete in the ruck for 80% GT.

Regardless of his ability to last 80%, he is not effective for periods when fatigued.

The bigger rucks have worked out how to take away his weapon, run and jump, by taking his jump away. The contest becomes a slug fest, and its energy sapping, no one can deny after seeing this for the last 5 weeks.

From what Ive seen, TDK is not a million dollar ruckman if he isnt hitting the scoreboard, and his opponent takes the points.

Round 1 most effective player was TDK's opponent Nankervis who took away TDK's run and jump
Round 2 Meek applied the same tactics on TDK as Nankervis and had most HO'sto advantage to help nullify the Carlton mids and lost the contested ball
Round 3 English won more HO's when TDK tired in the 2nd half with Young giving him a chopout. English won more HO and HO to advantage
Round 4 most effective player on the ground was Cameron who did the same as Meek and Nankervis and the $450K ruckman

In Round 3, Young had 7 HOs to advantage in 20 minutes, but TDK still took on the majority of ruck and faded, and in Round 5 Harry in the ruck was looking fantastic, but that was with Charlie and Kempy as marking targets there, and the luxury of adding TDK to the rotation.

Despite some posters adamant that TDK can ruck for 80%, with 5 mins a quarter chop out, TDK is proving he is human and when fatigued is ineffective in the ruck for long periods.

Its obvious TDK needs to be rotated, and will be at StKilda with Marshall as the No 1 ruck and TDK as the KPF2/ ruck and King are the 2 targets. TDK will be able to ruck more effectively with the extra energy conserved in the forward line.

Now with Harry injured, its either Young or Pitto who needs to come in and give the chop out.

I think its time for the 2 rucks Pitto and TDK to wax, with TDK spending half the quarter in the forwardline, rotating twice a quarter, and Pitto, who is useless as a forward, can be tried there, and when that doesnt work, on the bench when TDK rucks

Oh yeah, if you think the bigger rucks have given TDK a bit of grief with their physicality, this week TDK taces Xerri. Say no more.

We need TDK in 2026 onwards, but he's not worth $1M, and the luxury of earning $1.7M and snagging a few goals as a KPF/Ruck with saints seems like a fait accompli.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ruck debate
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2025 10:52 am 
Offline
Harry Vallence

Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1284
Location: Melbourne
Unlike most ruckmen TDKs great strength is his running and link up play with Gawn like possession numbers when he is on song. He has broken even for hit outs against his major opponents this year but he’s like an extra midfielder when playing well. He cant be leaping and crashing and bashing all day and then have the energy to run off to space as a marking target or intercept mark in defence. We must look after him. Hes high risk for injury.

These are numbers so far
Rich 28 poss 5 marks 30 HO (Nankervis 35)
Haw 19 poss 3 marks 40 HO (Meek 37)
WB 28 poss 8 marks 28 HO (English 34)
Coll 19 poss 2 marks 31 HO (Cameron 33)
WC 14 poss 3 marks 22 HO (Williams 23)

Traditional ruck play may be overrated. It’s the round the ground stuff that matters most I think.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ruck debate
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2025 12:48 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:03 am
Posts: 24658
Location: Bondi Beach
RickJ wrote:
Unlike most ruckmen TDKs great strength is his running and link up play with Gawn like possession numbers when he is on song. He has broken even for hit outs against his major opponents this year but he’s like an extra midfielder when playing well. He cant be leaping and crashing and bashing all day and then have the energy to run off to space as a marking target or intercept mark in defence. We must look after him. Hes high risk for injury.

These are numbers so far
Rich 28 poss 5 marks 30 HO (Nankervis 35)
Haw 19 poss 3 marks 40 HO (Meek 37)
WB 28 poss 8 marks 28 HO (English 34)
Coll 19 poss 2 marks 31 HO (Cameron 33)
WC 14 poss 3 marks 22 HO (Williams 23)

Traditional ruck play may be overrated. It’s the round the ground stuff that matters most I think.


Agree, for a blig bloke, he gives us more than the traditional ruckman.

But sometimes numbers can be deceiving. Think Tom Mitchell.

This week TDK started hand balling to the midfield group, rather than joining the bombing circus of past 4 rounds.

I'd be interested to look at turnovers from those bombs in the last 4 rounds to determine effectiveness of ground ball gets. TDK has played well, but a ruckman with those sort of numbers you would think was on the winning side. I'm not surprised when I look beyond the stats.

I think what those numbers don't show is the effect his opponent had on the game. Three times out of 5 games, his opponent helped their team win : Nankervis, English Cmeron. Partly because TDK was fatigued and bodying instead of jumping. Hence a good idea to have two different rucks playing to counter the opposition when getting on top.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ruck debate
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2025 1:00 pm 
Offline
John Nicholls

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:52 am
Posts: 9092
Location: Nth Fitzroy
I dont mind playing Pitt and TDK but just as long as H and kemp or Young are not playing at the same time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ruck debate
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2025 11:38 am 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:03 am
Posts: 24658
Location: Bondi Beach
Crusader wrote

Quote:
My thoughts, not that they matter…

We need to get back to a two ruck, two key forward set up. We’re fumbly and inaccurate, but we can move the ball well enough when we control first possession.

Tall targets give away our ball movement, but we’re not quick enough through the middle to gain separation under pressure. We’re not going to out run the opposition, nor run them down.

Pittonet & De Koning would be my first choice combination, by a country mile. But, Pittonet isn’t fit for the task yet. He’ll need a hit out. There’s a lot of the season still to come.

I think the notion that big men need time is shrouded in a veil of cowardice. If words hurt your feelings, then call it analysis paralysis - but it is what it is. Size & the athleticism to carry it does take time. Competitiveness does not. Some blokes look for the biggest dog in the kennel. Others look for their little brothers.

Our two fit rucks are De Koning and O’Keeffe. I think talk of hiding the million dollar man from Xerri is embarrassing for him. Skull can handle himself & I think he offers more to the overall effort than Lemmey would as a key forward.

I get a strong Courtney Johns vibe from Lemmey - in that I was way too excited & now I’m not. He’s improved physically, but a new contract is a fair way off.

SOS has played Young out of the side.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ruck debate
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2025 12:24 pm 
Offline
Wayne Johnston
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:35 am
Posts: 8909
Location: Melbourne
club29 wrote:
I dont mind playing Pitt and TDK but just as long as H and kemp or Young are not playing at the same time.


This is spot on. The issue that I and many other have had with Pitto and TDK both playing is because we had Charlie and Harry in the same lineup, and before last year JSOS as well. Put a resting ruckman there and its way too top heavy.

With Harry and Kemp out and JSOS down back it makes sense to play TDK predominantly forward and bring in the second ruckman.

_________________
:lol: :-D :) :? :( :x :evil:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ruck debate
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2025 12:27 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:03 am
Posts: 24658
Location: Bondi Beach
You can think whatever you want about 2 rucks, or this weeks 2 rucks.

I will make my case for Pittonet over O'Keefe for this week's game vs Xerri. Please note. I want to move away from Pittonet for reasons braithy has mad clear over the journey.

When I first saw O'Keefe in January, like everyone else, I couldn't help notice the size he had put on over the break. Impressive physique for a 20yo.

When I saw O'Keefe in the preseason intra game against Pittonet, he looked really strong in the contest. I wouldn't say O'Keefe beat Pitto, who wasn't fit at the time, but he stood up to Pitto and bullied back. I thought that happened for 3 reasons; the added size, his natural instinct to compete and he has had a lot of practise against Pitto.

I praised O'Keefe at the time at the ground and in posts after that intra club game, and hoped he's got over the hammy off the bone injury, that he could develop quicker than other big men do, and seriously hoping he would pass Pittonet during the year to ensure Pittonet is the past and O'Keefe is the present.

What I also thought was at Kreuzers Ruck school, TDK Pitto and O'Keefe ply their craft week in week out against each other and are familiar with what works and what doesn't work against different 'types'. "Experience against other rucks in the AFL counts for a lot, and helps develop ones craft and tricks that have been tried and tested. Pitto has that experience against Xerri and other bigger rucks, and has good contested clearance numbers against them.

Unfortunately, O'Keefe did his hammy before praccy games started, and has been out since.

In comparing Pittonet with O'Keefe I will firstly say, as is commonly agreed, (and an anomaly to think otherwise) Big men take longer to develop. Have a look at TDK at 20yo, he could jump higher than O'Keefe does now but still struggled against bigger bodies (he does now too at 25yo), and was just starting to develop his ruck craft as is O'Keefe, hence did his developing in the VFL. As for playing against the biggest men in the AFL, imo O'Keefe vs Xerri will be a man vs a boy regardless of the fight in O'Keefe. Its not a fair fight.

Last week, I posted in reply to Crusader's preference, I don't mind throwing O'Keefe into the deep end against the 24yo Williams of the Eagles, only because it was a match I expected us to win, and Williams was still developing, younger than TDK.

I think we can beat North Melbourne this week too, but feel the O'Keefe vs Xerri ruck duel is not a fair duel. Most likely, O'Keefe will get smashed by Xerri (he likes to play unsocial footy), and may give his classy mids gain the ascendency in the middle and TDK struggles against him),. I do not want to take that risk. Then we will need TDK in the ruck and O'Keefe as the KPF2.

There is no evidence that O'Keefe can play KPF in the VFL. He has always struggled there and doesn't kick goals. He's only 20yo so I get it. He seems to have has hard hands like Pittonet.

As for whose more match ready between Pittonet and O'Keefe, against XerriI will start with this:

Pittonet has completed 7 preseasons, 2 interupted preseasons, whereas O'Keefe has only had 2 interupted preseasons with injury. Pittonet has been running for 3 weeks and is ready to resume playing in VFL or AFL, whilst O'Keefe had 3 months off footy last year with a hammy torn off the bone. He also did his hammy again this preseason and started running 4 weeks ago and played his first VFL game last week (in 10 months). Pittonet played 21 AFL games last year, and 23 the year before etc,

It all counts.

Pittonet is a much stronger ruck beast than 20yo O'Keefe. Period. Pittonet is a lumbering ruckman as is Xerri, so Xerri will not be running rings around Pittonet. In a game of attrition, I'm sure Pitto will last longer and be more effective against Xerri than O'Keefe.

I want to move on from Pittonet, for reasons braithy keeps reminding us of, but logically speaking, this week, I cannot see O'Keefe being ready to beat or match Xerri moreso than Pittonet. He's better matched for this game. We can't afford to lose the ruck this week, because if we do, we might lose the game.

I have no doubt that Pittonet will be looked at more seriously to wax the ruck with TDK than O'Keefe, and no way would the MC throw O'Keefe in against Xerri this week. He's not ready yet. Too risky.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue


Last edited by bondiblue on Mon Apr 14, 2025 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ruck debate
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2025 12:32 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:03 am
Posts: 24658
Location: Bondi Beach
jake_h03 wrote:
club29 wrote:
I dont mind playing Pitt and TDK but just as long as H and kemp or Young are not playing at the same time.


This is spot on. The issue that I and many other have had with Pitto and TDK both playing is because we had Charlie and Harry in the same lineup, and before last year JSOS as well. Put a resting ruckman there and its way too top heavy.

With Harry and Kemp out and JSOS down back it makes sense to play TDK predominantly forward and bring in the second ruckman.


I agree with the argument against Pittonet, as long as Charlie isnt one out target in the forwardline.

I really liked the look of Weiters and SOS in the backline KPs and TDK/ Harry combo because we had at least 2 KPFs (well Kemp isnt really a KPF, but a marking target) when Harry went in the ruck, and even better, TDK would give the oppo a bit to think about when he was forward with Charlie (and Kemp at times).

Pittonet's drawback is that he's not a dangerous KPF, he's a lumbering ruckman (as are most), and he doesnt take enough marks around the ground (nor as a KPF).

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ruck debate
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2025 2:48 pm 
Offline
John Nicholls

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:52 am
Posts: 9092
Location: Nth Fitzroy
Id like to...just for a test that might shut me up... play with a team that has the bare minimum talls. Running players every shutting down space and applying pressure for longer...much longer than othewise possible. Score of the back of that. No need for an abundance of long tall targets. Just run it forward. If we get done by being outmarked then so be it. Pretty much the Dogs 2016, Tigers 2017 gameplan.
Curnow , JSOS, Cripps, Weitering and TDK and Pitt if we must. The rest all running players. I want to see us shutdown space and be impossible to play against. Similar to how the pies looked against Swans in the 3rd quarter.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ruck debate
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2025 3:44 pm 
Offline
Craig Bradley
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:42 pm
Posts: 6859
club29 wrote:
Id like to...just for a test that might shut me up... play with a team that has the bare minimum talls. Running players every shutting down space and applying pressure for longer...much longer than othewise possible. Score of the back of that. No need for an abundance of long tall targets. Just run it forward. If we get done by being outmarked then so be it. Pretty much the Dogs 2016, Tigers 2017 gameplan.
Curnow , JSOS, Cripps, Weitering and TDK and Pitt if we must. The rest all running players. I want to see us shutdown space and be impossible to play against. Similar to how the pies looked against Swans in the 3rd quarter.



i think this is the prototype of modern footy.

a skilled & athletic ruck, and a key forward to straighten attack, bring it to the deck, and 2 key defenders. and then a few mobile mediums, and the rest is fast, athletic and endurance footy players. the whole MO is about spoiling contests, swarming the opponent, and running and spreading in the other direction.

pies, hawks, suns, lions do this better than anyone right now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ruck debate
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2025 4:50 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:03 am
Posts: 24658
Location: Bondi Beach
Braithy wrote:
club29 wrote:
Id like to...just for a test that might shut me up... play with a team that has the bare minimum talls. Running players every shutting down space and applying pressure for longer...much longer than othewise possible. Score of the back of that. No need for an abundance of long tall targets. Just run it forward. If we get done by being outmarked then so be it. Pretty much the Dogs 2016, Tigers 2017 gameplan.
Curnow , JSOS, Cripps, Weitering and TDK and Pitt if we must. The rest all running players. I want to see us shutdown space and be impossible to play against. Similar to how the pies looked against Swans in the 3rd quarter.



i think this is the prototype of modern footy.

a skilled & athletic ruck, and a key forward to straighten attack, bring it to the deck, and 2 key defenders. and then a few mobile mediums, and the rest is fast, athletic and endurance footy players. the whole MO is about spoiling contests, swarming the opponent, and running and spreading in the other direction.

pies, hawks, suns, lions do this better than anyone right now.


You could be right. I like club29's thinking.
I've got my Carlton's "fastest" team". I get it.

We all probably think similarly about our favourite style of play.
But our list limits us to 10 years of drafting contested players.
We've been dealt a #@%& , but that's what it is.

I wish we had 2 TDKs. I thought we'd have 2DKs in 2026, but then again, we may have no DKs.

Space is created by speed, and speed closes space.

We've only got TDK, Harry, and in a way Young to ruck as the athletic types. Harry's out, and then we have Xerri to eyeball and clash with.

If it was a GF I'd play Pittonet and tell him its no holds barred and go for the man. There's no next week in GFs. He's either be injured or suspended.

But for North, I'd welcome a surprise from the MC if they went with O'Keefe, or Young. Pittonet is good fresh from injury. Usually lasts a game or two till lame again.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ruck debate
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2025 4:51 pm 
Offline
Craig Bradley

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:04 pm
Posts: 7424
Location: Bendigo
bondiblue wrote:
jake_h03 wrote:
club29 wrote:
I dont mind playing Pitt and TDK but just as long as H and kemp or Young are not playing at the same time.


This is spot on. The issue that I and many other have had with Pitto and TDK both playing is because we had Charlie and Harry in the same lineup, and before last year JSOS as well. Put a resting ruckman there and its way too top heavy.

With Harry and Kemp out and JSOS down back it makes sense to play TDK predominantly forward and bring in the second ruckman.


I agree with the argument against Pittonet, as long as Charlie isnt one out target in the forwardline.

I really liked the look of Weiters and SOS in the backline KPs and TDK/ Harry combo because we had at least 2 KPFs (well Kemp isnt really a KPF, but a marking target) when Harry went in the ruck, and even better, TDK would give the oppo a bit to think about when he was forward with Charlie (and Kemp at times).

Pittonet's drawback is that he's not a dangerous KPF, he's a lumbering ruckman (as are most), and he doesnt take enough marks around the ground (nor as a KPF).

Tom’s had long stints as a forward before and it didn’t go well.

He’s got to be the #1 ruck and take blokes like Xerri, Briggs, Meek, Sean Darcy, etc on.

Surely we’ve seen enough to know that he’s not going to morph into a five goal, ten mark forward… the form guide HAS to count for something.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ruck debate
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2025 5:03 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:03 am
Posts: 24658
Location: Bondi Beach
Crusader wrote:
bondiblue wrote:
jake_h03 wrote:
club29 wrote:
I dont mind playing Pitt and TDK but just as long as H and kemp or Young are not playing at the same time.


This is spot on. The issue that I and many other have had with Pitto and TDK both playing is because we had Charlie and Harry in the same lineup, and before last year JSOS as well. Put a resting ruckman there and its way too top heavy.

With Harry and Kemp out and JSOS down back it makes sense to play TDK predominantly forward and bring in the second ruckman.


I agree with the argument against Pittonet, as long as Charlie isnt one out target in the forwardline.

I really liked the look of Weiters and SOS in the backline KPs and TDK/ Harry combo because we had at least 2 KPFs (well Kemp isnt really a KPF, but a marking target) when Harry went in the ruck, and even better, TDK would give the oppo a bit to think about when he was forward with Charlie (and Kemp at times).

Pittonet's drawback is that he's not a dangerous KPF, he's a lumbering ruckman (as are most), and he doesnt take enough marks around the ground (nor as a KPF).

Tom’s had long stints as a forward before and it didn’t go well.

He’s got to be the #1 ruck and take blokes like Xerri, Briggs, Meek, Sean Darcy, etc on.

Surely we’ve seen enough to know that he’s not going to morph into a five goal, ten mark forward… the form guide HAS to count for something.


No, can't agree.

Tom had his breakthrough last year, and he's only getting better. He knows he's good for 3, when he was younger. Kemp kicked 5.

He's not jumping for marks much this year, but when he seems to have timing better. he's stronger...and a better footballer today than what he was at 22yo, 23yo.

I wish we had two.

TDKs next step is working Xerri types over, not just on the ground, controlling the tap, then making a decision on next year. I'm not counting on him next year, so he's a bit meh with me.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ruck debate
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2025 2:02 pm 
Offline
Craig Bradley
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:42 pm
Posts: 6859
i think tdk could go forward. he looked good forward against the gws defense last season, and his overall marking and pack work has come along in leaps and bounds, imo.

no harry, no kemp. clear the forwardline out for him with charlie working up high and he might deliver. he'd be a nightmare 1 on 1 for a defender. espesh anyone norf could throw at him.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ruck debate
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2025 10:56 am 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:03 am
Posts: 24658
Location: Bondi Beach
Braithy wrote:
i think tdk could go forward. he looked good forward against the gws defense last season, and his overall marking and pack work has come along in leaps and bounds, imo.

no harry, no kemp. clear the forwardline out for him with charlie working up high and he might deliver. he'd be a nightmare 1 on 1 for a defender. espesh anyone norf could throw at him.


Last year vs GWS we had unleashed the 3 headed monster on them, each kicking 3: Charlie Harry and Tom.

Pitto was in form back then involved in 6 score involvements, won centre clearances, and even took contested marks :eek: That allowed TDK to rotate forward and show his wares.

Pitttonet has not played this year, not since the Saints praccy.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 235 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

All times are UTC + 10 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 110 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group