Blue Vain wrote:
bondiblue wrote:
2025 AFL Premiers won with 2 rucks: Fort and McInerney
Lions 64 HO's vs Cats 46 HO's.
Those of you who were adamant the 2 rucks were dead, and a relic of the past have not only been proven wrong on a weekly basis since the debate started prior to the Crows game a couple years ago, yesterday's Premiers reminded everyone that the 2 rucks is not dead, not a thing of the past, has arole to play in the modern game, and led to success in the game that matters most; The Grand Final.
To the contrary, this post just proves what many of us know. You cannot deal with alternate views and every opportunity you get to troll posters with a different view to yours, you cant help yourself. Hence the perfect example above.
Firstly, for the record, I sent a PM to Bondiblue 2 years ago suggesting we don't reply to each others posts on this because it turns into a shitfight that adversely impacts the site. So for 2 years I've ignored his trolling and prodding on numerous occasions. (eg the multiple posts about the ruck "furphy")
However, I thought I'd break the hiatus and highlight the nonsense of this argument, hopefully putting an end to this pointless and incorrect trolling.
Many of us understand that 2 rucks can work on occasion. When you have the right players. And many of us are not against 2 rucks but have more of an issue playing 2 rucks with multiple other tall forwards. eg. Harry, Pitto and TDK. Some of us prefer 1 tall forward/ruck plus 1 specialist ruck but that's just an opinion. One that you cannot seem to handle.
Hence where the 2 ruck debate in yesterday's game is folly. Brisbane played 1 ruck and 1 tall forward. Fort took 85% of the centre bounces and McInerney played as a tall forward ahead of the ball. 85%!
It was the losing team who shared the centre bounce ruck work more evenly amongst 2 players.
Mcinerneys role was to shield the Geelong tall defenders from the contest and the allow the mid forwards an opportunity to compete in the air. His role was as a defensive forward. No different than when Lewis Young did it for us this year.
The other taller/mid forwards were Gallop and Morris who are 194cm and 191cm respectively.
He also took the ruck contests in the front half that many of us want Harry to take. Hence playing as a tall forward relieving the ruck when required.
So there's more nuance than simply looking at the team sheet and seeing McInerney and claiming he's a "ruckman".
And jumping at every opportunity in an attempt to validate your view based upon 1 game is foolish. Especially when the point being made is once again incorrect.
Cue multiple, meaningless essays based on quantity instead of quality that many of us don't bother to read anyway.
I get the 2 ruck debate. Both sides. I appreciate your thoughts on the use of the big boys/ rucks in the GF. I'm glad my post prompted such a good post.
No idea why you want to have a personal dig. Doesn't add value to the site. Just discuss the game for all of us to consume, and enjoy, without needing me to provide us with your valuable insight of the game.
I'm not trolling either. I have never spoken in absolutes as you suggest. I have made a comment, sporadically, after some games where success came from use of 2 rucks, so its not just the one game as you ppoint out. I have also seen many failures with 2 rucks. Doesn't make me right or you wrong or vice versa. Whilst the game goes on year after year, so will this discussion, not just us on TC, but by others who love the game. You can take that to the bank. Its called discussion, not trolling. I'm merely pointing out any of our opinions can be correct on a given weekend, or on the flipside, incorrect. Agree, the nuances are varied and diverse, but the subject remains the same.
You aren't correct when you say I don't accept Harry rucking in the forward line. Not only have I accepted that role, I expect it; I get the reason why. There's a valid argument for that. Number one, he's already there in the forward line and he's tall enough to compete in his area. No need for a ruckman to come into forwardline and create more congestion.
I like a couple others didn't like the idea Harry for 30% in the ruck as a chop out for Pitto or TDK, or for whole game if No 1 ruck was injured. The negative I saw with Harry in the ruck was leaving Charlie to battle against 2 KPDs (which most of us dislike), and secondly we were increasing the risk of injuring our KPF in the ruck. That's all. When he was thrown into the ruck, I thought , so be it, lets enjoy the game. I didn't disagree. It came off, he looked good, I said so, and he didn't get injured. That's where that argument starts and ends...until he gets injured in the ruck, which he didn't.
I've been consistently pointing out that there are no absolutes with the use of 2 rucks or one, because anything is possible. You agree with that. For some the selection of 2 rucks was a surprise when it happened. The point that 2 rucks can work, was only made on TC after the GWS and Crows games, when it proved to work, surprisingly for some, an anomaly for others. I didn't make any comments after those two games, I just let the argument/ debate unfold organically. Prior to those 2 wins, to consider 2 rucks as I did, I was subjected to comments that I was living in the past, that it would never happen in the modern game. Absolutes, no possibilities or match up reasons were forthcoming till after those 2 wins. That was the flaw I saw in the argument for 1 ruck.
You actually are making the same point I have all along. Nothing should be discounted. To suggest that the 2 rucks are a thing of the past, and not the modern game (and don't take that personally, because it wasn't you), or to suggest the debate is a "furphy", that was you, is not correct. The debate continues. Its a valid debate, and will continue to be debated, long after we are gone. I have no qualms with the use of talls as you suggested. Lets be clear, your pm to me was for a different reason than the 2 rucks debate. I prefer to leave that in the past as I explained to you in a pm. We move forward.
Appreciate your comments on yesterday's game, and agree with your summary. Personal dig aside, I enjoyed it a lot. In fact I like most of what you post and consider it food for thought. That's what makes TC a great site. Keep 'em coming.
I hope you're happy you got that off your chest, and hopefully we can continue to debate and discuss whatever comes our way without name calling ie "troll". Keep up the good work, and Go Carlton.
Now TDK is gone we have a real challenge ahead of us finding one No 1 ruck for season 2026, let alone 2 rucks. If Charlie is traded....geez, I hope he isn't....but that throws a spanner in the works for us and how we use Harry in 2026.
Have to wait for another 4 weeks to see what our list looks like.
Login
Register
FAQ
