Who has the Most dominant Ruck?

[Robelosis]

Originally posted by DaveW
This thread is proof that Adelaide's ruckmen are shockingly underrated.

Weren't Clarke and Biglands 1st and 3rd in hit outs in 2003?

Thank you! Took 3 pages for someone to mention Rhett Biglands and Matthew Clarke!

Clearly the best duo in the league. Rarely get injured (Primus, Gardiner etc), and aren't held to the ground by lack of jumping ability (Primus, King etc).

Rhett Biglands is the next style of ruckman. The height of Primus and King, the leap of Jeff White and the running ability of a poor mans Jim Stynes.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by no1bankteller
Once again the stats show how silly your arguments and assertions are and its about time you treated people around you with a little bit more respect...

I reckon you've been treated with more than you've shown to deserve. How many goes do you want at finding a point you can prove?

 

[ducky]

Originally posted by pav_is_god
Hille...no way!!!

Despite the sholacking the Bombers gave us in the elim final, a rookie in Sandilands gave Hille a ruck lesson (even with Hille taking out his opponent's arms at every chance!).

Hille will be a good ruckman, just give him time. Look at his round 4 against the dogs. He's a big boy and he can have a fair shot at goal, a thing which he will also get better at. He's not the best, but give him a year or two.

 

[Effes]

Originally posted by irel
The question was "Who has the Most dominant Ruck"?
In sport there is only one measurement. How one performs on the ultimate stage at the ultimate game. In our game it's on Grand final day.
The proof is in the pudding.
Three consecutive ruck dominant games.
Macdonald, Keating, Charman
End of argument.
Nothing else to be said.

What he said.

 

[The_Flying_Egg]

With a fit Daniel Bandy the Dogs are right up there.

Darcy had a dissapointing year by his standards and still got 18 touches a game and improved his hitouts on last year when he won the AFLPA MVP. His ruckwork around the ground is not great, but he is a very good centre bounce ruckmen, and he gets more of the footy than any other ruckman in the league

The media started bagging him and gave people the view that he was playing poorly, when in fact he was still very good, just not as good as 2002 when he was one of the top 4 or 5 players in the league, let alone ruckman

Bandy had a shocking year, but despite some stupid Dogs fans who have made him a scapegoat he played 12 games, and of those he was probably fit in about 3 of them. His ankle was basically stuffed for virtually the whole season and 2003 was a total write-off for him

If those 2 can play anywhere near what they've shown they're capable of they are as good a duo as anyones. And while Peter Street ain't great he can tap the ball and could provide good back-up

 

[no1bankteller]

Originally posted by Porthos
I reckon you've been treated with more than you've shown to deserve. How many goes do you want at finding a point you can prove?

I think you have no idea what definition of respect is!

My point is well proven based on any/all criteria that you threw up.

Bottom line is that both ruckman win equal amount of hit outs yet Gardiner has 20% more possessions around the ground and kicks 50% more goals. Ohh and Primus gives away 100% more free kicks.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by no1bankteller
My point is well proven based on any/all criteria that you threw up.

Depending on what it may be at any given time. Its certainly changed from your original point.

Bottom line is that both ruckman win equal amount of hit outs yet Gardiner has 20% more possessions around the ground and kicks 50% more goals.

Now what stats are we using this time?

Ohh and Primus gives away 100% more free kicks.

When free kicks in the ruck start having meaning, the game will have changed forever.

 

[maccas_no1]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Clarke & Biglands aren't that good around the ground I agree, but as for perceptions - I'd venture it is more the case that Clarke & Biglands ruckwork in the taps is outstanding enough to make a good midfield look like stars, rather than the way around that Porthos suggests.

(removed)

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by maccas_no1
removed

And who the **** are you?

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by no1bankteller
Bottom line is that both ruckman win equal amount of hit outs yet Gardiner has 20% more possessions around the ground and kicks 50% more goals. Ohh and Primus gives away 100% more free kicks.

2 possesions and 0.666 goals a game more than Primus does not equal Primus struggling against Gardiner. 10 possesions, 2 goals, 5 marks and 15 hitouts a game more than Primus would equal Primus struggling against Gardiner.....not 2 measly possesions.

 

[maccas_no1]

Originally posted by Porthos
And who the **** are you?

Someone who know's alot more about ruckman than you

 

[no1bankteller]

Originally posted by Porthos
Depending on what it may be at any given time. Its certainly changed from your original point.

Not at all my initial assertion was that Gardiner was more dominant then Primus. What I have done was used data over their total career span and not limiting it to year 2000 on.

Now what stats are we using this time? [/QUOTE]

The same ones I have uses in my prvious post. I guess it was too much to ask for you to work that one out. So let me first restate those stats and then give you a percentage explanation following it.

Kicks 5.25 Marks 3.428 Handballs 4.125 Goals 1 Hitouts17.25

Gardiner during that itme averaged against Pimus;

Kicks 8.42 Marks 4.857 Handballs 3.666 Goals 1.666 Hitout 17.285

Perscentage explianation:

Primus
5,25 kicks + 4.125 handballs = 9.4 posessions

Gardiner

8.42 kicks + 3.66 = 12.08

Therefore in percentage terms 12.08 - 9.4 = 2.68 possessions

Therfore 2.68/9.4 = 28.51% more possessions in favour of Gardiner

As far as goals are concerned:

Primus = 1
Gardiner = 1.66

Therefore Gardiner kicks .66/1.00 = 66% more goals then Primus


When free kicks in the ruck start having meaning, the game will have changed forever. [/QUOTE]

Well free kicks are not only given in the ruck but all over the ground so I dare say that this stat has an impact

Macca 19 also asks the question about what impact does 2 extra possessions really have. Well considering that both of these players only avergage around 10 and both of these players are significant to their team I would suggest that there is a significant impact and hence my point.

 

[no1bankteller]

Originally posted by maccas_no1
Someone who know's alot more about ruckman than you

Nothing better then a self proclaimed expert.

 

[no1bankteller]

Originally posted by no1bankteller
Nothing better then a self proclaimed expert.

At least though you did not have to use abuse to get your point accross...

 

[maccas_no1]

Originally posted by no1bankteller
At least though you did not have to use abuse to get your point accross...

Um you quoted yourself, I am a little worried about you, you are a little strange and weird

 

[anduril]

With a fit Daniel Bandy the Dogs are right up there.

the above is surely taking the p15s????

 

[no1bankteller]

Originally posted by maccas_no1
Um you quoted yourself, I am a little worried about you, you are a little strange and weird

Point well made...sometimes I wonder the same thing...

I actually mis read your previous point and tried very badly to correct that....

ahh well s##t happens...

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by no1bankteller
Not at all my initial assertion was that Gardiner was more dominant then Primus. What I have done was used data over their total career span and not limiting it to year 2000 on.

Your original `point' was that you accused Macca of deliberately leaving out goals stats for the games he listed in order to win an argument, which he did not do. Then you took Gardiner's stats in games against Port Adelaide, not against Primus, which were irrelevant. Now you seem to be almost using accurate stats. Forgive me if I'm unsure what your backing is this time, as it has changed so often.

As Macca has shown, the stats you've managed to present certainly don't show that Primus struggles against Gardiner, which was also an original point, yes?

Well free kicks are not only given in the ruck but all over the ground so I dare say that this stat has an impact

Sure, but you can easily have ruck frees paid against you without it meaning that you're losing in the ruck or even resorting to desperate cheating measures in the ruck. They are the greyest area in the rulebook.

Macca 19 also asks the question about what impact does 2 extra possessions really have. Well considering that both of these players only avergage around 10 and both of these players are significant to their team I would suggest that there is a significant impact and hence my point.

Your point being what exactly these days? It would be good if you come out and state it again, just for clarity.

I also wonder what impact Primus' 2.0 tackles per game compared to Gardiner's 0.14 tackles per game has had, if we're looking at a strictly statistical basis.

 

[no1bankteller]

Originally posted by Porthos
Your original `point' was that you accused Macca of deliberately leaving out goals stats for the games he listed in order to win an argument, which he did not do. Then you took Gardiner's stats in games against Port Adelaide, not against Primus, which were irrelevant.

Once again you are wrong. My original point was as below:

"IMO Primus has always struggled agains Gardiner...infact one year at AMI stadium he puprosfully dislocated his shoulder because he was being given a bath.

I think Primus is a good ruckman but I rate both Gardiner and Stephen King way above him as pure ruckman. Plus Primus always s#its himself in front of goals."

(This information is a matter of public record on this board please review if you have any doubt.)

Macca only weight in after that with his questionable stats, which I have disputed based on valid ground.

I have subsequently accepted his argument that Primus was injured in 98 and 99 and changed the analysis accordingly.

However my numbers have been accurate from day one.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by no1bankteller
Once again you are wrong. My original point was as below:

"IMO Primus has always struggled agains Gardiner...infact one year at AMI stadium he puprosfully dislocated his shoulder because he was being given a bath.

I think Primus is a good ruckman but I rate both Gardiner and Stephen King way above him as pure ruckman. Plus Primus always s#its himself in front of goals."

OK. As far as I can see, you haven't shown any of those comments to be correct. What is your current point?

Macca only weight in after that with his questionable stats, which I have disputed based on valid ground.

Actually, they weren't questionable stats. They were accurate, with no dubious omissions. You haven't shown otherwise - if anything you've come around to accepting this.

I have subsequently accepted his argument that Primus was injured in 98 and 99 and changed the analysis accordingly.

However my numbers have been accurate from day one.

Just because the numbers were accurate for Gardiner vs Port, it doesn't mean that they were accurate for what you were arguing which was Gardiner vs Primus. They have been wrong, as can be seen as public record

 

[maccas_no1]

(removed)

 

[no1bankteller]

Originally posted by Porthos
OK. As far as I can see, you haven't shown any of those comments to be correct. What is your current point?

I think that this is the crux of the matter...you are simply blind and refuse to see the light...

I guess you can lead the horse to water but you cannot make him drink it...

 

[maccas_no1]

Originally posted by no1bankteller
I think that this is the crux of the matter...you are simply blind and refuse to see the light...

I guess you can lead the horse to water but you cannot make him drink it...

LOL @ no1bankteller

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by no1bankteller
I think that this is the crux of the matter...you are simply blind and refuse to see the light...

No, the crux of the matter is that you seem to be incapable of supporting an argument with facts.

1. You've provided nothing to show that Primus `****s himself in front of goals', and his accuracy rating of ~66% in front of goal as contrary evidence damns that statement.

2. You haven't shown Primus to struggle against Gardiner, let alone `always'.

3. You refuse to simply state what your other supposed point is that you claim to have made (though obviously without the knowledge of anyone else reading this thread).

How can a horse drink water that isn't there?

 

[no1bankteller]

Originally posted by Porthos
No, the crux of the matter is that you seem to be incapable of supporting an argument with facts.

1. You've provided nothing to show that Primus `****s himself in front of goals', and his accuracy rating of ~66% in front of goal as contrary evidence damns that statement.

2. You haven't shown Primus to struggle against Gardiner, let alone `always'.

3. You refuse to simply state what your other supposed point is that you claim to have made (though obviously without the knowledge of anyone else reading this thread).

How can a horse drink water that isn't there?

All those questions are answered within this thread and I will not repeat the answers for the umptenth time....

I have provided all the evidence necesserry to support my assertions unlike you who seems to depend on calculation of others to support your evidence.

More likely the rason the horse cannot drink the water is that he is really a horses arse...