I'll be there if my kidney stones allow it. I'm getting more stones than Casboult gets goals. But, ....
Nobody is giving us much of a chance. My daughter read that 6% of the tipsters are going for us. But we are not that bad.
Remember:
[1] At least 3 players need to get a mention.
[2] No more than 10 votes for any one player.
[3] Give a rating of team performance. It can be anywhere from A+ to F.
[4] Votes must add up to 15.
It is hard to appreciate that the round starts tomorrow night, but we don't play until next month.
You've been in the wars lately matey. Hope this is the last of your health issues for a very long time.
You've been in the wars lately matey. Hope this is the last of your health issues for a very long time.
x2....Friend at work gets kidney stones and its caused him a lot of pain and suffering, has worn him down
a bit mentally to the point it affects other aspects of his life and I take my hat off to Crash who
comes on this site and educates/informs us on potential young players, drafting,modding etc...cant be easy
when you have these type of health problems and I for one appreciate his input as I know from my workmates
condition that it isnt easy to get yourself motivated given the duress you are under...
You've been in the wars lately matey. Hope this is the last of your health issues for a very long time.
Same here!
I really appreciate the effort you put into this and other aspects of CSC, particularly when your not well!
Team D
5 Wright
4 Docherty
3 Murphy
2 E. Curnow
1 Cripps
Team C
3 Wright
3 Murphy
3 cripps
2 Plowman
2 Rowe
1 Gibbs
1 Docherty
Team E:
5: Cripps
4: Rowe
4: Wright
1: MacReadie
1: Plowman
Team C
Cripps 5
Plowman 4
Murphy 3
Rowe 2
Wright 1
Team C
3 Plowman
3 Rowe
3 Cripps
3 Wright
2 Murphy
1 Macreadie
I'd love to have given Murphy more, but those turnovers by hand really hurt us! In both cases all he needed was a second of hesitation, half a side step, and he would have been able to deliver to advantage. I'll post more about this in the Post Game.
4 Cripps
3 Murphy
3 Docherty
3 Plowman
2 Wright
Team. C
4. Cripps
3. Wright
3. Plowman
2. Murphy
1. Marchbank
1. Rowe
1. Ed Curnow
Team performance D
5 - Cripps
3 - Wright
2 - Rowe
1 - Murphy
1 - Kreuzer
1 - Plowman
1 - E.Curnow
1 - Docherty
Team C
3 Cripps
2 Wright
2 Murphy
2 Plowman
2 Rowe
1 Kreuzer
1 Docherty
1 Ed Curnow
1 Thomas
Team c+
4 Cripps
4 Wright
3 Murphy
2 Plowman
1 Marchbank
1 Rowe
Team: D
5 - Murphy
4 - Wright
3 - Kreuzer
2 - Plowman
1 - Cripps
Team C
4: Murphy
3: Cripps
3 Wright
2: Plowman
1: Rowe
1:Docherty
1: Kruezer
HMs Gibbs, SPS, McCreadie and Thomas
Team C-
Murphy 5
Wright 4
Cripps 3
Plowman 2
Docherty 1
Team C+
5 Wright
4 Plowman
3 Crippa
1 Docherty
1 Marchbank
1 McCreadie
D+
5. Cripps
4. Plowman
3. Murphy
2. Wright
1. Kreuzer
5 Murph
4 Cripps
3 Kruezer
2 Plowman
1 Wright
I seem to be apologizing most weeks at the moment. I apologize for that.
However, I do have some good reasons. I shouldn’t burden you with them, as it will look ridiculous.
Anyway, I hope to be back to my best before Carlton is.
Last week’s game – there was a lot to like and a lot of guys who were worthy of a mention, but very few 4 quarter efforts. I can hope to see more consistency in weeks to come.
Team: D+
Votes:
[3] Cripps
[2] Wright
[2] Murphy
[1.5] Ed Curnow
[1.5] Plowman
[1] Rowe
[1] Marchbank
[1] Docherty
[1] Thomas
[0.5] Gibbs
[0.5] Kreuzer
Explanations:
[3] Cripps: Not his best game, especially in the first half, but his attack on the ball and his willingness to get himself into the action really hurt Melbourne. His kicking needs to real work, but if we EVER get control in the ruck, he is going to be unbeatable.
[2] Wright: I admit that I thought recruiting Wright was an error. I was wrong. He has his limitations, especially in the midfield, but his work rate and his goal kicking says a lot as to why I am not Carlton’s #1 recruiter.
[2] Murphy: Like last week, Murphy did a lot and got a lot of the ball, but he just lacked something to make the performance into something special. His disposal was not as pinpoint as it was, which is probably the difference. Get him some more game time and I hope to see the magic back.
[1.5] Ed Curnow: Curnow has been ordinary so far this season, but he lifted for this game and had by a long way his best game. His disposal was not as bad as it can be and his work rate was exceptional.
[1.5] Plowman: He started quite slowly, but his excellent disposal, courage in the air and ability to shut down his opponents stood out.
[1] Rowe: Playing against a much higher ranked player, Rowe had his best game for the year. He was close to his best with his strong play, his intelligent spoiling and ability to concentrate on his man. He got very few possessions, but his opponent did not get a goal and did not make a contribution.
[1] Marchbank: Like Plowman, Marchbank did not start that well, but he really got into the game. His marking was strong and he really shut down his opponents. When we made a move, Marchbank was one of the main reasons
[1] Docherty: Often a game like this from Docherty would often be a considerable vote getter. However this one just didn’t have the effect that he can have. Doc’s disposal and decision making were not at his best: some of his turnovers were crucial. He also leaked goals, which has been the case all year so far with our small defenders. The up side was significant, especially the way he ran off Garlett and left him looking uninterested at times. Unfortunately his final error was not treating Garlett with enough respect in the last quarter, to be run down by him from behind. That killed us.
[1] Thomas: Daisy has been copping a lot in recent times, and not all of that can be considered reasonable. Sure, he has his issues and he is overpaid by an order of magnitude. But that is not his fault, but the fault of our former administrations.
On Sunday we saw what Thomas CAN produce, which was pretty good. He took a huge mark and made some goals. His mistake in playing on and kicking a point unfortunately shows his lack of faith in his own body. A few years ago he would simply have gone back and slotted the goal. Now he cannot trust his kicking on a set shot.
[0.5] Gibbs: With the number of possessions he got it would be reasonable to suggest that Gibbs was one of the best on the ground. He wasn’t bad: he worked very hard to a losing ruck and never gave up. I can recall him going for the ball on hands and knees in the centre and making sure that Melbourne could not get the ball out.
For all of his hard work, his direct opponents probably had more influence. But he was a long way from being a passenger.
[0.5] Kreuzer: Kreuzer worked manfully against a player who is a better tap ruckman. He did a pretty good job and managed to reduce Gawn’s effectiveness a great deal. Unfortunately he couldn’t get the share of the taps we desperately needed. Kreuzer did more around the ground than Gawn as well. It was a solid effort against a top player with a great height and reach advantage. But it wasn’t enough to win the game.
Honourable Mentions:
Macreadie: Solid. It might be time in a week or 2 to give him a spell, but he has shown more than a little intelligence in his play and more than a little poise. He isn’t getting enough of the pill yet, which will be the reason he is spelled in all probability, but he shows signs that he has a future. He does not get flustered when he makes a mistake and rarely gets beaten in the air.
Silvagni: Jack played reasonably, but he appears to be lacking confidence in himself at the moment. His kicking has just lost that little magic and he is fumbling and 2 or 3 grabbing marks. For all that, he offers something and his willingness to get into the action is still good.
Weitering: Jacob failed to kick a goal and was well beaten early, but as the game went on his brilliant marking and decision making were still highlights. He was the ONLY key forward on the ground who consistently took pack marks, even though they were too far from goal to be able to score.
Anyone else want to vote this week? If so, be quick.