Skip to main content
Topic: Baby Blues vs. Essendon at Windy Hill Sunday (Read 24622 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Baby Blues vs. Essendon at Windy Hill Sunday

Reply #30
Took me this long to work out how to to get on the new site - promising layout.

Nice report Shakin - I got nothin to add because I didn't bother going this week - hard to believe Watson was our best player - Gumby must be as slow as Mitchell.

Sounds like the only good thing to say about NBs is that they were more competitive than the ressies were against Pt Melb.

To be fair the majority of the contests where long balls into full forward that seemed to work for Watson.   Gumbleton didn't do a lot on the lead and the Bombers didn't really honor the very few time he did lead. 

Saying that Watson spoiled every one one one contest.  Just belted him all day.   If he didn't spoil he read the play better and marked.

At one stage Gumbleton led out and doubled back and Watson really trailed him into D50.   I was the only time I noticed his lack of pace.

Re: Baby Blues vs. Essendon at Windy Hill Sunday

Reply #31
Fair enough on McCarthy.  I would give him an extra pre-season and to be honest has shown as much as Mitchell

I reckon we have long list that should go before him.

Re: Baby Blues vs. Essendon at Windy Hill Sunday

Reply #32
McCarthy plays like a 6'6" flanker - seems to have no idea what to when the ball comes in high and can look a little ungainly due to his height at times... but he doesn't possess the game or the mass to play a key post, or the pace to go with leading forwards.  So he is really a player without a position - where do you play him?  And his confidence looks shot, and has looked so for a long time.

Given that he was a seriously talented youngster who played all manner of positions for Glenelg's seconds (ruck and wing are two I can remember), where his running ability, clean hands and touch below his knees really stood out he is a prima facie case of the abject lack of development of kids at Carlton.  Why he wasn't assessed early on, a role decided for him, and then groomed for that role absolutely staggers me. Three, albeit injury interrupted seasons,  and we still have a kid struggling to contribute in defence.  So why hasn't he been tried elsewhere eg on a wing or across half forward?  Like I said, the lack of development of a kid like that is bordering on the criminal and serious question need to be asked of the so-called "development" staff.

DrE is no more... you ok with that harmonica man?

Re: Baby Blues vs. Essendon at Windy Hill Sunday

Reply #33
McCarthy plays like a 6'6" flanker - seems to have no idea what to when the ball comes in high and can look a little ungainly due to his height at times... but he doesn't possess the game or the mass to play a key post, or the pace to go with leading forwards.  So he is really a player without a position - where do you play him?  And his confidence looks shot, and has looked so for a long time.

Given that he was a seriously talented youngster who played all manner of positions for Glenelg's seconds (ruck and wing are two I can remember), where his running ability, clean hands and touch below his knees really stood out he is a prima facie case of the abject lack of development of kids at Carlton.  Why he wasn't assessed early on, a role decided for him, and then groomed for that role absolutely staggers me. Three, albeit injury interrupted seasons,  and we still have a kid struggling to contribute in defence.  So why hasn't he been tried elsewhere eg on a wing or across half forward?  Like I said, the lack of development of a kid like that is bordering on the criminal and serious question need to be asked of the so-called "development" staff.

Excellent post Professor and excellent questions - and we have no answers. Why is it so? It hasn't just been McCarthy it goes back to Adam Hartlett!

Re: Baby Blues vs. Essendon at Windy Hill Sunday

Reply #34
You'd have to think about all of those hopeful kids waiting for the draft picks to be made, fingers crossed, hoping they don't get picked by us!  :( ::)
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: Baby Blues vs. Essendon at Windy Hill Sunday

Reply #35
You'd have to think about all of those hopeful kids waiting for the draft picks to be made, fingers crossed, hoping they don't get picked by us!  :( ::)

Apparently we're the kiss of death for most draftees.

Re: Baby Blues vs. Essendon at Windy Hill Sunday

Reply #36
Won't get alot of enthusiasm from the NBs now given many have a fair idea they'll get the @rse at year's end.

Well then if they are willing to just throw it in because they wont get picked for our seniors they can feck off then!

I hate losing more than i like winning.  These guys are just moping rather than concentrating on playing roles to win games of footy.  If they just did that they might actually get a senior giv.  Just goes to show how pea hearted our players are if what you are saying here is true.  I dont believe Mick would ever write off a trier but i think he wouldnt waste his time on players who just believe it should happen rather than make it happen.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Baby Blues vs. Essendon at Windy Hill Sunday

Reply #37
Won't get alot of enthusiasm from the NBs now given many have a fair idea they'll get the @rse at year's end.

Well then if they are willing to just throw it in because they wont get picked for our seniors they can feck off then!

I hate losing more than i like winning.  These guys are just moping rather than concentrating on playing roles to win games of footy.  If they just did that they might actually get a senior giv.  Just goes to show how pea hearted our players are if what you are saying here is true.  I dont believe Mick would ever write off a trier but i think he wouldnt waste his time on players who just believe it should happen rather than make it happen.

Duigan and Laidler are triers and they seem to be on the outer. I know he's not quick Duigan but he gives his all.

Re: Baby Blues vs. Essendon at Windy Hill Sunday

Reply #38
There are plenty of logical reasons for Duigan and Laidler not to get picked.  Could be the single dimension factor.  I reckon Laids is being given the year to recover and both of them are pretty safe and have just been asked to concentrate on fitness and adding another dimension to their games.  Duigans alternative is pretty much no AFL footy anyway so may as well keep him as depth, until we find better.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Baby Blues vs. Essendon at Windy Hill Sunday

Reply #39
Won't get alot of enthusiasm from the NBs now given many have a fair idea they'll get the @rse at year's end.

Many playing for the NB's should have thought about that weeks ago. Not happy with all the reports I read of players struggling in the NB side, and these are guys we need to be in the firsts. Can't develop all our players in the seconds.

Read CIMMs theory with regards to player performance after MM basically labelled a quarter of our list as not good enough. It has plenty of merit and is almost straight out of the Pagan textbook.
Ignorance is bliss.

ONWARDS AND UPWARDS!

Re: Baby Blues vs. Essendon at Windy Hill Sunday

Reply #40

Read CIMMs theory with regards to player performance after MM basically labelled a quarter of our list as not good enough. It has plenty of merit and is almost straight out of the Pagan textbook.

I am still trying to work that out - reverse psychology? To me that's an all or nothing result and your forked if it doesn't motivate.

Re: Baby Blues vs. Essendon at Windy Hill Sunday

Reply #41
re: Duigan and Laidler.......reckon Mick wants more pace in the team and these two lack a yard.

Re: Baby Blues vs. Essendon at Windy Hill Sunday

Reply #42
re: Duigan and Laidler.......reckon Mick wants more pace in the team and these two lack a yard.

Whilst I agree they lack a yard they were effective in our structure a year ago. Duigan can get exposed when he's made to chase but so can Harry O at Collingwood.

Re: Baby Blues vs. Essendon at Windy Hill Sunday

Reply #43
McCarthy plays like a 6'6" flanker - seems to have no idea what to when the ball comes in high and can look a little ungainly due to his height at times... but he doesn't possess the game or the mass to play a key post, or the pace to go with leading forwards.  So he is really a player without a position - where do you play him?  And his confidence looks shot, and has looked so for a long time.

Given that he was a seriously talented youngster who played all manner of positions for Glenelg's seconds (ruck and wing are two I can remember), where his running ability, clean hands and touch below his knees really stood out he is a prima facie case of the abject lack of development of kids at Carlton.  Why he wasn't assessed early on, a role decided for him, and then groomed for that role absolutely staggers me. Three, albeit injury interrupted seasons,  and we still have a kid struggling to contribute in defence.  So why hasn't he been tried elsewhere eg on a wing or across half forward

Darren Harris tried him there last year and he looked like he might be up to VFL standard, which is more than he has shown as a defender, and it was those games that led to him getting one AFL game late last year.