Carlton Supporters Club

Just logical that Kerr given a shot at being a KPD - he's the right size, reads the plAY AND is a footballer.

Still only 20. He should be (potentially) groomed to be our Steven May (noting the latter is considrably shorter and lighter).

Big enough to take the gorillas.

He's behind McGovern, Big H, Charlie, Levi and arguably TDK too as a key forward.

By the time he matures - say 23, 24, Jones will be goneski.....

Agree...nothing further to add...

Kerr is smaller than many of the other KPD options, but no doubt he has the grunt to go head to head with bigger bodies.

IMHO, it's Kerr's physicality that sees him in good stead, that period he spent rucking at VFL level(while injured) should see him through.

Unlike many fans, I don't want to see Weitering become a gorilla watcher and languishing on the last line of defense, we are not a good kicking side and I think Weitering is quite probably the best kick and decision maker at the club when he's free to do so.

Weitering has put on some beef but I dont see him being a gorilla minder either, his best role is as an intercept defender....Kerr is more naturally inclined to enjoy the physical contact stuff more
and has a bit of mongrel in his game that you cant teach.
Kerr is 197cm and 97kg now which is very adequate for CHB ....

Kerr is smaller than many of the other KPD options, but no doubt he has the grunt to go head to head with bigger bodies.

IMHO, it's Kerr's physicality that sees him in good stead, that period he spent rucking at VFL level(while injured) should see him through.

Unlike many fans, I don't want to see Weitering become a gorilla watcher and languishing on the last line of defense, we are not a good kicking side and I think Weitering is quite probably the best kick and decision maker at the club when he's free to do so.

I'm yet to see a game plan that can make best use of our playing list, I can't help but feel in recent times we are trading heavily to find "players who fit the plan" rather than "building a plan to fit the players." In this regard I now believe coaching is our weakest link.

x2

That's a chicken and egg argument.

What came first the game plan or the players to play it?

The problem we have had, is having too many different types of player, which resulted in having to change the game plan to suit the players.  This results in sub optimal performance by a team over a longer period of time, due to having to adjust everything and having players have to change the process to get results.

Everyone knows that the definition of madness is to repeat the same process expecting different results.

Therefore, implement a process (a game plan) and then recruit to suit it, and you will then get repeatable results.

The problem you are therefore seeing is, that we have yet to identify a game plan that we believe can work for us to recruit for.




Stripping it right back, the AFL have created this problem, because they implement rule changes to fix symptom A, which result in symptoms of problem B, C, D, which means that the game keeps changing meaning that clubs have to then change things up to suit new rules.


Moving forward, we need to identify a method of playing football, that is repeatable by the majority of different types of player, in order to come up with a game plan, that is going to be succesful irrespective of what the current rules are, in order to achieve anything.  What that means is choosing whom you recruit to suit your game plan and playing group, rather than simply recruiting the best talent available, which is where we have failed in the past.

We put together a group of talented players, that have been lacking in some facets.

Therefore, implement a process (a game plan) and then recruit to suit it, and you will then get repeatable results.

In modern AFL this is an archaic losing strategy, the problem is that by the time you've built the list to suit the plan every opposition club knows what you are doing.

It's almost the exact opposite of what the Bulldogs did, they made rapid changes and reaped benefits.

Also being a follower, copying last years premiers is almost certainly also a losing plan, it's like being 2nd in line!

That’s right LP.  Successful clubs have to be ahead of the game and that means constant change.  It also means that there will be seasons when the gameplan and/or list doesn’t quite work out.  It’s a high risk/high reward strategy but the successful clubs are better at managing the risk.

I think that the Bulldogs lack of success after their premiership was not a hangover but a failure to improve on their gameplan and list.

In modern AFL this is an archaic losing strategy, the problem is that by the time you've built the list to suit "the plan" every opposition club knows what you are doing.

It's almost the exact opposite of what the Bulldogs did, they made rapid changes and reaped benefits, Nthmond could also be described as making radical changes. But I concede their strategies are unlikely to deliver long term repeatable results because the idea of a long term "plan" is obsolete!

Being a follower, like copying the tactics of last years premiers, is almost certainly also a losing plan as it's like being 2nd in line!

Successful clubs have to be ahead of the game and that means constant change.  It also means that there will be seasons when the gameplan and/or list doesn’t quite work out.  It’s a high risk/high reward strategy but the successful clubs are better at managing the risk.

I think that the Bulldogs lack of success after their premiership was not a hangover but a failure to improve on their gameplan and list.