Carlton Supporters Club

Quote from: PassIt2Carrots on March 17, 2015, 09:50:58 pm

Wasn't that Ratts' gameplan?

It was...Ratten didnt have the equipment to get the job done every week and he was too busy trying to turn the likes of Hampson into a key forward, we ran the ball well enough
but had no one up forward to mark or convert when they did take a mark,  the three amigos didnt work,  but he did send Yarran to half back which gave us a rebounding weapon. ...very hard to score winning totals when your best key marking forward was about 5'8...

Walker is over 6 foot EB

Ive been analysing game plans in light of some of the recent comments.

Regarding game plans, under Ratts, the game plan was tailored around individuals doing individually brilliant things to win games in roles tailored to take advantage of those inidividual brilliant skills.  When those players were stopped, teams stopped us, and hit us (hard) going back the other way often.

Under Mick, it seems to be a rigid game style, "perfect army" scenario where the roles players play, are more important than their abilities.  You play your role, then it will function to make everyone win.  If you are not able to play a role for one week for reason xyz, then you can be moved into a different role, and someone else into yours in order to break the contest open, and allow everyone to start winning their role.

Which you prefer is purely philosophical, and from where I can sit, I see the merit (and pitfalls) in both approaches, and I think the ideal scenario would be a mix of both.  You can go too far in both directions.

Quote from: Thryleon on March 18, 2015, 10:57:23 am

Ive been analysing game plans in light of some of the recent comments.

Regarding game plans, under Ratts, the game plan was tailored around individuals doing individually brilliant things to win games in roles tailored to take advantage of those inidividual brilliant skills.  When those players were stopped, teams stopped us, and hit us (hard) going back the other way often.

Under Mick, it seems to be a rigid game style, "perfect army" scenario where the roles players play, are more important than their abilities.  You play your role, then it will function to make everyone win.  If you are not able to play a role for one week for reason xyz, then you can be moved into a different role, and someone else into yours in order to break the contest open, and allow everyone to start winning their role.

Which you prefer is purely philosophical, and from where I can sit, I see the merit (and pitfalls) in both approaches, and I think the ideal scenario would be a mix of both.  You can go too far in both directions.

I think this is basically the point several posters have been making and you will probably find quite a bit of agreement on here.

The issue of game plan is not black and white, the way we treated Ratten we actually threw the baby out with the bath water, now MM having spent years telling us the bath was no good is refilling it for the baby.

Ratten was foolish because he refused to bend despite glaring examples of inexperience, it cost him his job.

MM seemed similarly stubborn when he first joined Carlton, hell bent on implementing a game plan that did not suit the playing list with an "I know best" attitude. In the end MM has started to change the game plan, but not before offering some significant resistance and I suspect getting some home truths about the pitfalls of being "The Oracle".

Somewhere down the track it is going to arrive at the middle ground, where Ratten should have been heading and where MM should have started.

Quote from: shadesy on March 17, 2015, 10:51:48 pm

Walker is over 6 foot EB

Shades...Eddie was a more consistent  and regular target IMO, Walker had the one break out year when Ratten pushed him forward and he kicked 50 goals but has never
been a regular forward since...

Henderson, Casboult, Menzel, Everitt, Walker and Eddie would be a very balanced setup, Tutt, Ellard or Buckley in place of Eddie doesnt give me the same confidence.....I dont like the Henderson, Casboult, Jones or Watson format....too top heavy and too easy to run the ball out of our defense..

Walker has to play forward IMO....

Yep Great Post LP..

Not a conspiracy in site as well :-)

Quote from: LP on March 18, 2015, 11:24:01 am

Quote from: Thryleon on March 18, 2015, 10:57:23 am

Ive been analysing game plans in light of some of the recent comments.

Regarding game plans, under Ratts, the game plan was tailored around individuals doing individually brilliant things to win games in roles tailored to take advantage of those inidividual brilliant skills.  When those players were stopped, teams stopped us, and hit us (hard) going back the other way often.

Under Mick, it seems to be a rigid game style, "perfect army" scenario where the roles players play, are more important than their abilities.  You play your role, then it will function to make everyone win.  If you are not able to play a role for one week for reason xyz, then you can be moved into a different role, and someone else into yours in order to break the contest open, and allow everyone to start winning their role.

Which you prefer is purely philosophical, and from where I can sit, I see the merit (and pitfalls) in both approaches, and I think the ideal scenario would be a mix of both.  You can go too far in both directions.

I think this is basically the point several posters have been making and you will probably find quite a bit of agreement on here.

The issue of game plan is not black and white, the way we treated Ratten we actually threw the baby out with the bath water, now MM having spent years telling us the bath was no good is refilling it for the baby.

Ratten was foolish because he refused to bend despite glaring examples of inexperience, it cost him his job.

MM seemed similarly stubborn when he first joined Carlton, hell bent on implementing a game plan that did not suit the playing list with an "I know best" attitude. In the end MM has started to change the game plan, but not before offering some significant resistance and I suspect getting some home truths about the pitfalls of being "The Oracle".

Somewhere down the track it is going to arrive at the middle ground, where Ratten should have been heading and where MM should have started.

Great couple of posts guys !!

Totally agree with LP's conclusion !!

@Cookie, the guy coached against us for as long as is relevant. He then had a media role watching 3 games per week and probably more. He had spots on analysis shows so not only could he form his own view, he could get general consensus from experts and fans via talk back and the media.

I can't see how this could be the case.