Who is to say it didn't, but only 1 was caught on camera. This week him talking with the leaders was caught on camera. Where is the same criticising of that?
I think there is a difference how you speak to senior players, when and where you do it and how you speak to younger players. If Binns wasnt following orders I would have dragged and spoken to him on the phone in private explaining why and what was expected and then later on when I did my video reviews pointing out his errors.
Binns himself said he and vossy are fine. They have had conversations after the fact and talked through everything involved. The supporters are the ones up in arms about this, not the people involved. Binns is a grown man, as is vossy.
Hell, I copped a few sprays in my under-age years and I wasn't the only ones on the receiving end. Sometimes you need to hear it.
I get what you are saying, and most times you'd be very much correct.
I'll ask you this and you decide if that would've matter in this instance.
By NOT making those extra couple of changes, was our team performance better off as a result? Keeping in mind we had our (almost) biggest defeat of the year of 56 points. Was there any benefit by not making 'too many' changes? Would it have matter if it was 50 point defeat or 70-80 point defeat?
Hard to measure.
Its as much a rhetorical question, but lets subtract the needs of the individual slightly and look at the bigger picture.
Lemmey we want to find out whether or not he can compete at AFL level. we are putting him in vs a team who is cruising to a flag, and playing him in a forwardline composing of Lachie Fogarty (one dimensional) Ashton Moir (no dimension to speak of yet), Zac Williams (Good but broken) Tom De koning as the relief ruck, Charlie Curnow, Orazio Fantasia with interchange forwards of Jesse Motlop and Frankie evans.
Evans was the obvious one, but ultimately his VFL form demanded a game, so he wasnt going out. Who does Lemmey come in for?
Its very easy sitting in the arm chair playing team selector, but I wouldn't like to play a forwardline sans curnow when we are already missing Mckay. Moir maybe, but he is running on ball, so Lemmey isnt doing that. TDK? Dropping him in favour of Lemmey when Pittonet has been very patchy at AFL level is risky. You rob the mids if we end up rucking Lemmey at all, because he is ruck sized, but not ruck competitive. you touched on playing Cripps hurt, but that means we cant run Moir on ball because we played Lemmey.
We already carried HOF in, who was coming in cold. Playing Lewis Young instead of HOF doesnt help him either.
Its a balance. IF your goal is to get Lemmey into the team, you can achieve that, but if your goal is to do the right thing by the team, is playing Lemmey the right option?
As per northerns comment, there is no way that is right, and none that is wrong. Had he played I would have said yep, probably time to test him. We have 6 games to go though and he will get a shot, and I dont think its going to be one and done.
For the record, i said the perfect time to play Lemmey was against the Kangas. Instead we played 2 rucks...and well....you know my thoughts on that. The result of that game certainly doesn't hurt my point. Last week was not ideal, but nothing to lose. Similar this week.
We can continue to find excuses to not play certain players, but at the end of the day, we are just hurting ourselves and our long term future but not finding out if he (or anyone) is AFL ready, especially when they are in form.
I have no ties to Lemmey and had him as one of my most likely to be delisted a few months ago. So its no personal agenda. I just think if you have injured players playing and performing blokes in the 2's....and you are not getting wins in the 1's or have much to play for, what are you doing as a football club??
For the record, 12 months ago when we were sitting 2nd and 6 points clear of 3rd i said similar. REST your top liners and give some kids a go. We had a small injury list and were sitting high and mighty. Our MC continued to play our best players who were carrying injuries and those injuries became more and more severe throughout our list to the point that we could barely fill a team and Bradbury'd into finals. So be careful putting too much faith in our all knowing MC. They have a history of making mistakes that cost us. I think they are making more now. Last year it was playing injured players. This year its similar. In this case, i think Lemmey is being the most hard done by....and Ben Campo not too far behind based on recent efforts.
Really glad to read, M, that Binnsy communicated all-good with Vossy.
I wasnt a fan of that conversation in front of the other players who were equally poor and would have preferred it was away from the cameras where people couldnt lip read. Our leaders needed spraying last game and told to play their fecking role as much as Binns imho.
Who is to say it didn't, but only 1 was caught on camera. This week him talking with the leaders was caught on camera. Where is the same criticising of that?
Arguably it does Krudds but as has been said theres no hard and fast right/wrong in any of this. One player will react positively to a spray, another will sulk another might never play again, they all need a tailored relationship and coaching, so to play too many kids at once may very well damage some.
Sure. It MAY damage some. Agree.
Playing injured players IS damaging them (physically and emotionally) and their reputation and the morale of the rest of the players, the club, its supporters.
So its a risk i'd be willing to take. For battle-hardened blokes like Cripps and Charlie who have played 10+ years or more, a 1-week rest is such a luxury. Simply giving them a week and playing a kid in their place for that week will not bring the club to its knees. So just roll the dice. You never know, it may work!
Its not the number of changes its the role and how its played. We are already not well drilled. We have a few blokes trying to learn running patterns and then add too many doing that and you demoralise the rest.
We've only played about 3 to 4 players with minimal afl experience most weeks.
I expect that to continue not because of the names but because its something Carlton hasn't had before. We tend to scorch earth rebuild, so everyone is learning together.
I get what you are saying, and most times you'd be very much correct.
I'll ask you this and you decide if that would've matter in this instance.
By NOT making those extra couple of changes, was our team performance better off as a result? Keeping in mind we had our (almost) biggest defeat of the year of 56 points. Was there any benefit by not making 'too many' changes? Would it have matter if it was 50 point defeat or 70-80 point defeat?
Piastri is correct to be pissed off with the penalty that cost him the race, this is F1 politics at it's finest.
Interesting also that it's again Red Bull involved, because Verstappen did the exact same thing in a race earlier this season and wasn't penalised at all, while last night Piastri got what is probably the maximum penalty for the same action. Who complains makes a difference.
Perhaps karma got even with Max for bleating about Piastri slowing, but it doesn't help McLaren who now have two drivers head to head, but it helps Red Bull to have Piastri and Norris squabbling.
btw., IN case somebody thinks it's spitting chips for Piastri, he was basically the clear best driver on the day, passing Verstappen, maintaining and growing a gap in front. While Norris only gained ground through other driver errors and penalties.
What happened is akin to 'deliberate out of bounds'. Everyone knows what was happening and why it was happening, but its rare someone gets penalised for it. He got penalised for it. Yes, it was harsh, but he 100% did it and tried to cover it up.
Working against him was the fact McLaren have been poking fun at Verstappen being on 11 points knowing 1 more could get him penalised for a race. They have said they will put him in a position to make a call on a 50-50 that could mean he'd lose his last remaining point and a race as a result.
So yes, i feel for Piastri. However, It was dangerous, it has happened plenty of times before and technically the rules were right.
It worked out 'good enough' anyway as verstappen spun a few corners later and all it meant was Norris got a win instead of 2nd place and vice versa.
Piastri is performing better than Lando. Is better at overtaking than Lando. Handles pressure better than Lando. Ultimately should win the championship over Lando we well.
We had 6 changes. What's the difference between 6 and 7 or 8 changes?
Fwiw, Fantasia and fogarty can have a spell. Let them gain some.confidence in the 2s. Output in the 1s hasn't been terrible, but hasn't been top shelf either.
I agree with all you've said here, but there is also the old "to be the best you need to beat the best" and everyone a chance to pit themselves against the reigning premiers. You might find the young kids putting their hands up begging for a crack at them. If they do, it's to be encouraged I reckon. Its all part of the learning.
Yep I'm not overly fussed if they try something like Lemmey and Ben Camporeale this week. As Kruddler mentioned there's not a great deal hanging on it now. We can manage the minutes. If it turns to crap we can move a few magnets. Just wondering though, with the changes last week, and similar changes suggested for this week...is it too much all at once. There's probably a couple of schools of thought operating here. One would be for trying to halting the situation with an element of stability. The other would be for as much youth and experimentation as possible.
A combination would probably be the best approach with a couple of youngsters getting a try each week and replacing a couple of other youngsters. Give them a couple of games each before the end of the year, and we go into the off-eason with a bit of an idea how they perform at senior level.
Couple ways to take it. If the kids can match it, or perform 'good enough then they can gain a huge amount of confidence.
If you save them for Melbourne and they get flogged, then they might feel more flat than if it was against the Lions.
Depends on the type of person they are and what drives them. Was it mick or Denis or said a big game in front of a big crowd is like a final and is like 5 games of experience.
I am a little surprised at some of the strong comments about Friday night (I did end up watching most of it): - it wasn't a great side selected and going to lose by plenty. - there have been doubts for ages about Cripps', Weiters' fitness and chat about Curnow's. Leaving them out for who to come in?
I suggested last week that Ben come in for Cripps and Lemmey come in for Charlie.
What could we lose by giving them a game? Lost by 70 instead of 50-odd? Give them a start and see what happens. Playing an injured and out of form Cripps and Charlie helped us work out.....what exactly?
We are not in a position that we try and win at all costs right now. So lets try and get at least some benefit from it by learning about the kids.
Interesting point from the interview with Power at one of the quarter time breaks. He touched on the backing-up of Young after being a sub the previous night and on other occasions where the needs of the senior team took precedence over the VFL side. Examples-resting O'Farrell last week and Cincotta last night to be ready for next week after a short break.
It's all part of the total process but VFL wins are clearly secondary to the needs of the AFL team (as it should be) and Power should be cut a bit of slack for any results given his side gets turned upside down on a weekly basis. Any injuries to any player on the senior list has an impact on the VFL side. Positional experiments decreed from above also limit his options. He's doing pretty well.
One thing that shouldn't be overlooked in that, is that he must have a system/game plan in place that doesn't matter about the cattle he has out there. Eg, he can't build around a certain player, because that play might be called up to the 1's. He needs a plug and play style that works regardless of who is in the team.
That sounds VERY attractive for our senior side given our overreliance on certain players....who are underperforming.
Lemmey seems to be playing a Harry McKay type role. A bit of rucking and playing up around the wing half-forward at times. Perhaps an audition. Made a really good chase early in the quarter...it probably stood out because you don't often see that from a tall Carlton forward
I think the up and comers in him and HOK are actually very agile for 2m+ blokes. Good to see. Both need to put on size which may hurt that agility somewhat, but its better than not having it to begin with.
Lemmey simply needs to be given a go. 46 VFL games in his career IIRC. He's done his apprenticeship. Get him up to the 1's
