Opinion First Choice Ruck - Pitto vs TDK

Remove this Banner Ad

I also mentioned, marks, tackles, goals.

FWIW - Darcy avg 13th most disposals, 2nd most hitouts, 10th most marks and is around the top 10 in every stat listed on footwire.. the only other rucks listed in the top on all of them are English, Gawn & Witts.. and rightfully they are all better rucks than Darcy.. Probably the most accurate way of comparing a rucks overall impact is supercoach & Dreamteam points.. of course its not without its flaws but does enable all aspects of the game to be ranked. On This Darcy is ranked 5th in DT & 6th in SC, with English, Gawn, Witts, Marshall and surprisingly Briggs ranked higher, but i think most good judges would rank English, Gawn, Darcy, Witts and Marshall the top 5 rucks in the game and the order up for discussion.

This is getting tedious with you, you clearly rate Pittonet highly.. I dont.. Not sure anything we say on here is going to alter either of our opinion so lets move on.
My opinion of Pitto is waning (though I don't think he is remotely fit).

Simply not good enough for a ruck to be entirely useless outside of the centre bounce and stoppage...
 
I also mentioned, marks, tackles, goals.
Not in the post I responded you. You mentioned disposals and only disposals, hence my comment that you used that as the primary metric.
FWIW - Darcy avg 13th most disposals, 2nd most hitouts, 10th most marks and is around the top 10 in every stat listed on footwire.. the only other rucks listed in the top on all of them are English, Gawn & Witts.. and rightfully they are all better rucks than Darcy.. Probably the most accurate way of comparing a rucks overall impact is supercoach & Dreamteam points.. of course its not without its flaws but does enable all aspects of the game to be ranked. On This Darcy is ranked 5th in DT & 6th in SC, with English, Gawn, Witts, Marshall and surprisingly Briggs ranked higher, but i think most good judges would rank English, Gawn, Darcy, Witts and Marshall the top 5 rucks in the game and the order up for discussion.

DT and SC points? This is now getting fanciful.

DT in particular has zero to do with impact. It does though give further insight into why you mentioned disposal numbers initially.

This is getting tedious with you, you clearly rate Pittonet highly.. I dont.. Not sure anything we say on here is going to alter either of our opinion so lets move on.

I don't think I've ever said specifically how I rate Pittonet.

I simply think he gets very harshly rated by some supporters because...you know, disposal numbers.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I don't think I've ever said specifically how I rate Pittonet.

I simply think he gets very harshly rated by some supporters because...you know, disposal numbers.
You dont think disposal numbers are relevant.. having 1 disposal at half time after playing 72% of game time and the bulk of that in the midfield is okay?
 
Pitto and TDK all day for me ........ for this Carlton team.

Pitto has been in really poor nick and form the last 2 weeks, and TDK also for 6 of the 8 quarters, yet still we win. When their form lifts, and it will incrementally, then even better.

I think having 2 proper competitive rucks....Pitto the "wear em down" ruck, and TDK the more athletic to take advantage of the "worn down a bit" oppo ruck works to our midfields advantage.

Cripps is a fairly unique player. He is probably unmatched in helping his team win when he gets a 50/50 crack at getting to the ball first. But when the oppo get the ball first, he becomes almost a liability in defensive transition. A proper ruck works to his advantage immensely.

IMO, and i think vossy's....2 proper rucks, and the elite coverage run of Cotterall, Acres and Hollands, allows everone else to play to their strengths. Our competitive mids can out compete their oppo, and our defenders can defend their oppo, while allowing us to maintain a forward structure.

Team balance....for OUR team.
 
You dont think disposal numbers are relevant.. having 1 disposal at half time after playing 72% of game time and the bulk of that in the midfield is okay?

I never said that.

They have some relevance but are only one small piece of the puzzle.

Using it as the only or even the primary metric is a joke and as shallow as it gets.
 
I get this view and a lot of supporters have it. Not trying to change your view just just use your post to put my own spin forward.

Personally I discount the early years of JSoS playing third tall forward as the inside 50 delivery from Cripps, Ed and Marc Murphy plus others was so bad it gave no one but an absolute freak a chance. I rated those 3 players so bad on the inside 50 kick. Add in a panicked LoB and an early version of Cottrell and it was impossible unless you are Curnow or 204 cm tall.

Since we have started to mature as a side and add quality JSoS has had to split his time elsewhere impacting his stats.

I think he is good enough vs one of TDK/Pitto 'forward' just on marking averages over career. He offers us fight when the chips are down and offers us a player that chases his man upfeild when the other two duffers lose their opponent on quick turnarounds when they play forward.

I think JSoS is our moneyball man that bleeds our cause!
I completely understand the notion that our ball movement and game plan under Bolton/Teague was poor and did our forwards no favours whatsoever, so why did people bash McGovern during that time when he was and still is the 3rd best forward at the club. When forward he was playing injured and still kicked 20+ goals which JSOS has never done. And this was when like you said we were a horrible side. To put that into perspective Motlop has just hit 20 goals and Owies is 1 behind, as they have both been able to cash in on our 7 game winning streak where we have scored well over 100 points in many of those games. Not only that but McGovern ranked #2 at the club for average goal assists (0.7) in 2020 (RANKED ELITE). To put this into perspective, in 2022 McGovern would’ve ranked equal #1 at the club for this stat. And in 2023 he would be ranked top 5 at this current stage. Before round 19 he would've been ranked #3.
 
This is why Voss wants to keep playing Pitto:

1691462688238.png

Even in an interrupted season, he's is elite level at Hit-Outs to Advantage. And consider he's only contesting 58% of ruck contests per match this season. Compare that to those around him. If he can get back to the level of fitness needed to contest 75-80%, he'll be leading the comp in HOtA.

Yes, we'd like to see him be a presence forward. Yes, we'd like to see him make more of an impact around the ground. But he'll keep getting picked because he gives our gun midfield first use of the ball.
 
I never said that.

They have some relevance but are only one small piece of the puzzle.

Using it as the only or even the primary metric is a joke and as shallow as it gets.
Mirkov would win every hit out if we played him in the 1s, but wouldnt touch it around the ground. Of course its a critical metric when judging the performance of any player and comparing against others that play the same position. Also the other thing to consider is the impact of your opponent, and at half time Marshall was probably BOG.
 
Clearly, Voss disagrees.
You are correct but just because Voss likes 2 rucks doesn't mean we should play them. In 2022 when Pitto was pretty much injured all year TDK still got dropped twice because he was a passenger up forward. The same happened this year in R6 but we said 'managed'. However anyone with half a brain knows he was dropped, we just didn't wanna say it because we knew the media would make a story out of it.
 
This was not true the first time you said it a few weeks ago. It is still not true now. Saying it over and over and over again doesn't make it any more accurate.

Pittonet and TDK have now played 21 senior games together, and have lifted the success rate over 50%.

That would indicate...it does work, wouldn't it?



Bizarre to judge a ruck on disposal numbers alone. Completely disingenuous too.
In the voss era TDK has been dropped 3 times because of his poor performances. The muppets in the media like Cornes and Healy can try all they want to trick us into thinking that TDK is a forward but its incredibly obvious that both TDK and pitto are 1st choice rucks and they both play better without the other. Look at TDK's game v Saints. Ranked very well in score launches and score involvements. That is a result of him winning the ball at stoppages and surging it forward. And his tackling intensity and smothers are also as a result of being around the ball. Compare that to when he plays forward and he is just not effective. Not a proven goalkicker, not a good field kick delivering inside F50 and has little/no forward nous. And people that say "oh well he takes away a defender from charlie and harry"; that is a cop-out. Because anyone his height could do that, and if he takes away a defender from charlie then why were the saints able to play 2/3 men on charlie all game? The answer is simple. Because Charlie was the only dangerous tall.
 
In the voss era TDK has been dropped 3 times because of his poor performances. The muppets in the media like Cornes and Healy can try all they want to trick us into thinking that TDK is a forward but its incredibly obvious that both TDK and pitto are 1st choice rucks and they both play better without the other. Look at TDK's game v Saints. Ranked very well in score launches and score involvements. That is a result of him winning the ball at stoppages and surging it forward. And his tackling intensity and smothers are also as a result of being around the ball. Compare that to when he plays forward and he is just not effective. Not a proven goalkicker, not a good field kick delivering inside F50 and has little/no forward nous. And people that say "oh well he takes away a defender from charlie and harry"; that is a cop-out. Because anyone his height could do that, and if he takes away a defender from charlie then why were the saints able to play 2/3 men on charlie all game? The answer is simple. Because Charlie was the only dangerous tall.
Problem was he only attracted Zane Cordy.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Mirkov would win every hit out if we played him in the 1s, but wouldnt touch it around the ground. Of course its a critical metric when judging the performance of any player and comparing against others that play the same position. Also the other thing to consider is the impact of your opponent, and at half time Marshall was probably BOG.

Not sure what Mirkov has to do with the discussion. I wouldn't have him anywhere near the AFL side but it's not solely because he averaged less than 8 touches per game at VFL level before being ruled out for the rest of the season.

Disposal number alone is not a critical metric. Not in isolation nor as a comparison tool.

Ask yourself this - why does Voss see Pittonet as our #1 ruck?

If your answer is as simplistic as we have no better options, don't bother.
And perhaps take some time to consider that Voss is less worried about the 9 touches per game than he is about the broader impact Pittonet can have with our midfield group.
 
This is why Voss wants to keep playing Pitto:

View attachment 1768041

Even in an interrupted season, he's is elite level at Hit-Outs to Advantage. And consider he's only contesting 58% of ruck contests per match this season. Compare that to those around him. If he can get back to the level of fitness needed to contest 75-80%, he'll be leading the comp in HOtA.

Yes, we'd like to see him be a presence forward. Yes, we'd like to see him make more of an impact around the ground. But he'll keep getting picked because he gives our gun midfield first use of the ball.

Wins more hitouts than Gawn. Therefore must be better. Right?
 
For me, we are best when TDK is the solo ruck with support from the 3rd tall forward that partners Curnow & McKay.

The primary reason is because it assists with our team defence (i.e. not have Pittonet tracking 5-10m behind his direct opponent) and also improves our avenues to goal with better forward structure (and an additional player with some forward craft).

I feel TDK is also much better when he is the solo ruck, as he gets involved at the stoppages and around the ground more as he continues to build. We should only be playing one of TDK & Pittonet in the firsts, unless we cop injuries and our hand is forced (like at the moment).

To be honest, I still don't understand why we have Mirkov on the books, especially since he is only 4 months younger than TDK, and he is still well off AFL standard (could be 26-27 by the time he is AFL standard).

Their development, peaks and retirements are likely all to be around the same time. Makes no sense from a planning perspective. If he is to be TDK's long term backup, then why sign Pittonet on for another 4 years. Mirkov projects as 3rd in line until at least 2028, when he may jump up to 2nd in line behind TDK, because he won't end up as our number 1 ahead of him.

O'Keeffe signing makes much more sense, and he is the much more likely prospect of the two. HOK is 5 1/2 years younger than TDK, so there is huge scope for grooming him as the long term replacement. HOK has also shown more around the ground and up forward to be considered a potential ruck/fwd, opening up the possibility of partnering TDK or Pittonet as well.

Mirkov is contracted for 2024, but I just don't see where the value will come from his development and list spot. Our list requires an AFL ready key forward / ruck to round it out, especially now in the years we want to be contending for a flag. We need to redistribute Mirkov's list spot to accommodate that player. Hayden McLean would be my pick, but he is playing himself into a renewal at Sydney at the moment.


#1 Ruck:
  • De Koning (best 22)
  • Pittonet (next man up) - plays if TDK is out

Key Forward / Ruck:
  • <vacant> (best 22) - break glass #1 ruck
  • O'Keeffe (developing) - break glass #1 ruck

  • Curnow (best 22)
  • McKay (best 22)
  • Silvagni (next man up) - break glass back up ruck/fwd
  • Lemmey (developing) - break glass back up ruck/fwd
 
Ask yourself this - why does Voss see Pittonet as our #1 ruck?
I am not sure he does anymore, it was only the injuries to JSOS & Harry that has brought Pittonet back into the side, prior to that TDK was the #1 ruck.. Pitto started in the ruck because TDK is a better forward than Pitto, not because Pitto is seen as a better ruck than TDK.
 
For me, we are best when TDK is the solo ruck with support from the 3rd tall forward that partners Curnow & McKay.

The primary reason is because it assists with our team defence (i.e. not have Pittonet tracking 5-10m behind his direct opponent) and also improves our avenues to goal with better forward structure (and an additional player with some forward craft).

I feel TDK is also much better when he is the solo ruck, as he gets involved at the stoppages and around the ground more as he continues to build. We should only be playing one of TDK & Pittonet in the firsts, unless we cop injuries and our hand is forced (like at the moment).

To be honest, I still don't understand why we have Mirkov on the books, especially since he is only 4 months younger than TDK, and he is still well off AFL standard (could be 26-27 by the time he is AFL standard).

Their development, peaks and retirements are likely all to be around the same time. Makes no sense from a planning perspective. If he is to be TDK's long term backup, then why sign Pittonet on for another 4 years. Mirkov projects as 3rd in line until at least 2028, when he may jump up to 2nd in line behind TDK, because he won't end up as our number 1 ahead of him.

O'Keeffe signing makes much more sense, and he is the much more likely prospect of the two. HOK is 5 1/2 years younger than TDK, so there is huge scope for grooming him as the long term replacement. HOK has also shown more around the ground and up forward to be considered a potential ruck/fwd, opening up the possibility of partnering TDK or Pittonet as well.

Mirkov is contracted for 2024, but I just don't see where the value will come from his development and list spot. Our list requires an AFL ready key forward / ruck to round it out, especially now in the years we want to be contending for a flag. We need to redistribute Mirkov's list spot to accommodate that player. Hayden McLean would be my pick, but he is playing himself into a renewal at Sydney at the moment.


#1 Ruck:
  • De Koning (best 22)
  • Pittonet (next man up) - plays if TDK is out

Key Forward / Ruck:
  • <vacant> (best 22) - break glass #1 ruck
  • O'Keeffe (developing) - break glass #1 ruck

  • Curnow (best 22)
  • McKay (best 22)
  • Silvagni (next man up) - break glass back up ruck/fwd
  • Lemmey (developing) - break glass back up ruck/fwd
Agree re Mirkov, and him playing in the 2s will hinder HOK development. We should look to offload Mirkov, would be on SFA $ and should be able to pay him out or move him to another club for 12 months, perhaps steak knives in a trade.
 
I am not sure he does anymore, it was only the injuries to JSOS & Harry that has brought Pittonet back into the side, prior to that TDK was the #1 ruck.. Pitto started in the ruck because TDK is a better forward than Pitto, not because Pitto is seen as a better ruck than TDK.

And this is why it's difficult to take what you write on this topic with anything other than a massive grain of salt. It's just not true - the bias against Pittonet has blinded you.

Pittonet played 1 game at VFL level after a lengthy injury layoff. He has literally played fewer games at VFL this year than TDK.

You have zero idea why one player starts over another in a specific position - I'm fairly sure coaches look beyond the simplistic disposal count you put up - so why pretend otherwise?

Interestingly Pittonet started forward against Collingwood. I guess that means Voss sees him as a better forward than Pittonet?
 
Genuine question to those in favour of a Pitto / TDK combo: if Melbourne can't make Gawn & Grundy work, both of whom are more accomplished rucks than ours, why do we think we can make Pitto & TDK work?

Is there something different about our list or game style that changes the equation compared to Melbourne?

Is it just that TDK is still quite poor for hit-outs to advantage so we need Pitto for that for now, but if & when TDK ups that aspect of his game then the need for Pitto will be reduced?

Something else?
 
Genuine question to those in favour of a Pitto / TDK combo: if Melbourne can't make Gawn & Grundy work, both of whom are more accomplished rucks than ours, why do we think we can make Pitto & TDK work?

Is there something different about our list or game style that changes the equation compared to Melbourne?

Is it just that TDK is still quite poor for hit-outs to advantage so we need Pitto for that for now, but if & when TDK ups that aspect of his game then the need for Pitto will be reduced?

Something else?
Its not that TDK is poor from hit outs (think he's much improved in the area when pitto was out) but that he's poor up forward. Combine that with pitto who struggles around the ground and we are essentially playing 2 men down.
 
Genuine question to those in favour of a Pitto / TDK combo: if Melbourne can't make Gawn & Grundy work, both of whom are more accomplished rucks than ours, why do we think we can make Pitto & TDK work?

Is there something different about our list or game style that changes the equation compared to Melbourne?

Is it just that TDK is still quite poor for hit-outs to advantage so we need Pitto for that for now, but if & when TDK ups that aspect of his game then the need for Pitto will be reduced?

Something else?

I think TerryWallet is making the case.

I think it is more based on the fact that week to week, we can lose a game directly based on a poor performing TDK or Pitto as a sole ruck with JSoS backup.

Playing both negates that to a degree that if one is bad, the other goes ok keeping us competitive in the middle.

Basically give up an individual area but be competitive, and win the game overall with assets elsewhere.

Both are putrid so we need 2 to cover that area of the game.
 
I am not sure he does anymore, it was only the injuries to JSOS & Harry that has brought Pittonet back into the side, prior to that TDK was the #1 ruck.. Pitto started in the ruck because TDK is a better forward than Pitto, not because Pitto is seen as a better ruck than TDK.
Pitt over a number of years has been our number 1 ruck, the exception being times when he was out injured.
He's recovered from injury & returned to the senior side.
It's been JSOS & TDK dropped from the side for fluctuations in form not Pitt, which certainly doesn't align with the narrative that you're seeking to create.
 
Pitt over a number of years has been our number 1 ruck, the exception being times when he was out injured.
He's recovered from injury & returned to the senior side.
It's been JSOS & TDK dropped from the side for fluctuations in form not Pitt, which certainly doesn't align with the narrative that you're seeking to create.
You are mostly right, and I'm not a big advocate for JSOS as the 3rd tall but when he got dropped last year v Crows that was an absolutely disgusting decision. He wasn't dropped on form, he was dropped because of voss being thick-headed with his 2 ruck obsession, and its no surprise that both pitto and TDK were garbage in that game. That game still angers me to this day because we lost it at selection which ultimately played a huge part in us missing finals.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion First Choice Ruck - Pitto vs TDK

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top