Carlton Supporters Club

Young has been our only tall key defender in both games.  In Round Zero, he had Daniher, Hipwood and, occasionally, McInerney to contend with.  Daniher managed 14 disposals and one goal and Hipwood had 9 disposals and one goal.  Young had 14 disposals, took 6 marks and made 7 spoils. 

Young played mostly on Lynch in Round One and, yes, you could argue that Lynch was underdone but he is still one of the premier key forwards in the game.  Lynch had 10 disposals and kicked two goals, both from soft free kicks (one against De Koning).  Young had 17 disposals (at 94%), took 10 marks and made six spoils. 

People remember the good things he does, but remember them happening more than they actually do. His actual output has been relatively poor considering the hype.
Thats why i come across as negative, because i point out he hasn't been as good as people say. Showing potential, absolutely. Not maximising it......yet.

Weiters for all his attributes is not a dasher, if Young stays in then one of McGovern or kemp goes out… therefore attack is reduced

How many of Young's 16 marks were contested or intercept marks compared with short pass-uncontested marks provided by teammates?

It's the old 'unholy trinity' of player evaluation.
Observation, Statistics and Bias

Each has it's limitations.
Observation-What someone sees at the ground is different to what someone views on the television. Small efforts/ one percenters can be picked up on the vision or totally missed through both mediums depending on your concentration at the time or your position in the stands.

Statistics- are useful but are notoriously dubious because they are a raw figure that can describe a number of sceanrios.
As an example10 effective kicks that go to a team-mate don't necessarily advantage a team in the same way as another ten. It's situational

and finally
Bias-even the best of us if, we have a pre-determined opinion of a player, will give a greater emphasis to the strengths or faults we see.

As an example
Poster 'A' will say-
Harry had a good game played well around the ground, missed a couple, but the good outweighed the bad."
Poster 'B' will say-
Harry missed two sitters, nearly cost us the game, momentum killer"
 (You won't hear a peep about the good aspects of his game.)

It's why we see players differently....and neither is completlely right or wrong.
They're just different opinions.
And they're our opinions at different times in a player's career.

So if some say early in 2023 that TDK isn't quite reaching expectations...it's probably a fair comment.
Ask the question early in 2024 and a few folks have probably changed sides.
The trick is not to take too long before you come around or you might miss the boat.  

You made good points on the Silvagni v TDK issue. I understood them. I could see merit in them.
But looking big picture/future what was the best option.
Who had the most upside-Tom or Jack.
Which player did we think was going to end up the better and more valuable player?
Who needed game time at senior level?

If Young's teammates lack confidence in him, why would they short pass to him?

Marchbank will be delisted at years end and shouldn't be on our plans. Too unreliable from the point of view of getting on the park.

But Weiters enables rebounding from defence by his individual defensive efforts, his defensive generalship, his ability to be a target when we get possession and his creative use of the ball.  Weiters may not run and carry himself but he enables his teammates to run and carry.

There's no point having an attacking defender if he can't beat his opponent and Kemp will struggle against Larkey or Coleman-Jones and Treacy or Amiss the following round.  

Yeah yeah, you think i'm very biased against TDK, i get it. I disagree, but you would expect me to say that.
Its hard to keep track of a particular posters thoughts on an issue on here, ironically, similar to your take on here.
Observation - some posts you might not read. Some posts you might not comprehend, or at least not fully understand....and part of that could be on me for not explaining well enough.

Statistics - a lot of 'negative' posts by me gets attention, but thats because they end up in a thread of arguments because there might be a lot of people who disagree. Whereas the positive stuff gets glossed over because its the same as everyone else.

Bias - Similar to the above, but you look for the negative and ignore the positive, or at least focus on that more.

Its funny, the whole TDK debate took 2 shapes.
1. Pittonet > TDK in pure rucking ability.
2. TDK < Silvagni (or others) around the ground.

1. People debated that 1 didn't matter. So Pittonet shouldn't play as hitouts don't matter.
2. People ignored the fact that Silvagni (or others) did better around the ground.....although slightly less in the ruck.....which people decided didn't matter anyway.

People wanted it both ways. Its why the argument kept going round in circles.

All of this was off the back of my contention that the team only needs 1 ruck to reach peak performance. Some disagreed with that, which is fine, but results seem to prove otherwise (when taking opponent into account).

I would say admirably rather than adequately.

Individually, we had our fair share of blokes down, well down - Fantasia, Hollands, Cuningham.