Our style of play I mean ;)
The way we played yesterday seems to suit our playing group...and they seem to enjoy the "freedom of expression"....but there was also an intensity and pressure there as well.
Brendan McCartney wasn't impressed......
"The game was way too open, it was circle work, it was up and back, and that's not what we're about.
"I don't think any team wants to play like that, and we're no different.
"It was a tricky one today. A lot of our boys, we felt, just got caught between, 'Do I attack or do I defend?’ Once you second-guess yourself and hesitate, it's gone.
"There was about a 30-minute patch in the game where we got caught in that nasty zone."
The questions are ....
Mick said he didn't change much yesterday.....What was different?
Did we catch them unexpectedly...there was talk all week we'd play a more free flowing brand of football?
How will it go against the stronger sides of the comp..... Hawthorns and Geelongs?
I didn't notice much difference in the style of play, we still went the boundary the vast majority of the time.
Difference yesterday was our intensity, work rate, we hit targets and converted in front of goal.
Warnock not leaving us a man short after the bounce was also a huge bonus.
Mick talks with fork tongue. I haven't watched all the game as yet but from what little I saw, we seemed to be running through the middle and moving the ball much quicker. Maybe less pressure, weaker defense, we had three forwards for them to contend with who knows.
I haven't watched all the game as yet but from what little I saw
Pretty hard to judge our game style from watching the highlights package.
I haven't watched all the game as yet but from what little I saw
Pretty hard to judge our game style from watching the highlights package.
You're right I shouldn't have commented with a disclaimer, or not back it up with credible facts. I'm sure someone here could also learn from that ::)
I haven't watched all the game as yet but from what little I saw
Pretty hard to judge our game style from watching the highlights package.
Sheesh.
Somebody spit in your coffee today MBB.
We won remember!
As for the game style, I don't remember too many time recently where our guys looked INBOARD FIRST. Still plenty of boundary stuff but not to the exclusion of better options.
I thought we turned into the corridor a bit more but we still went forward plenty of times along the boundary. The fact that we did not turn the ball over anywhere near as much would have made a big difference IMO.
I thought we turned into the corridor a bit more but we still went forward plenty of times along the boundary. The fact that we did not turn the ball over anywhere near as much would have made a big difference IMO.
Didn't turn the ball over because we were not wedded to the boundary.
All of a sudden the opposition can't just flood to the side and pick off your work. Also means the players aren't working in a phone booth for the whole game.
We clearly moved it through the middle from the start, always looked to play on, ALWAYS looked inboard first. Blokes like Gibbs were getting the ball forward of centre but in or around the corridor and we looked way more dangerous.
And in answer to your question lods regardless of the outcome it surely beats the alternative.
Let's remember that we were only playing the Dogs. In time, they could be a good side. ATM, they're not, especially without Morris & Roughead who are their key defenders. Minson's AA form has deserted him and he was an easy kill for Bones.
Every AFL Club has talent, but relentless pressure from the best teams can make good players look like chumps. Under pressure, 20m short passes go straight to opponents.
The win was great, but I'm not sure much can be taken from it. Maybe we went through the corridor for the same reason a dog licks its balls.
Did we move through the middle more because we looked to go through the middle more?
OR
Did we move through the middle more because the dogs allowed us to go through the middle more? Perhaps they were so focussed on stopping us going down the line, that they forgot to plug up the middle of the ground?
We clearly moved it through the middle from the start, always looked to play on, ALWAYS looked inboard first. Blokes like Gibbs were getting the ball forward of centre but in or around the corridor and we looked way more dangerous.
Gibbs was running around by himself for much of the first half.
This is now simply about Mick's ego going forward. It was plain for all to see that the game plan against the Bulldogs is better suited to us, Gibbs was on fire for petes sake. Whether or not Mick can pull his head in and get it through his iron skull is the question.
Mick most probably likes to think of himself as the Fergie of AFL or some sh1t so I''l cite Bill Bellichek the head coach of the New England Patriots as an example. Bellichek has arguably the greatest quarterback ever on his offense but completely changed the teams play into a running offense last year to suit the players he had and got them to one win from a superbowl.
Mick needs to swallow his pride and do what's best for the team and not his ego. Whether or not it stands up is what he is payed to do in my opinion, so he needs to make us a better team playing this way.
Well we'll see how it goes in the next few games I guess - I'd like to think we have more than one avenue into the F50. Last night we used the corridor more than usual, but not exclusively - may have to play it a bit differently in other games depending on the opponent. Don't want to see us stuck with any one hidebound, dogmatic approach whichever way it is.
Can't comment on it myself as I only heard the last little bit of the game plus the commentary afterwards. Don't want to use the R word but they definitely noted a difference. Now I don't know if it will stack up but a style which renders us hapless against Melbourne vs one that causes better opposition headaches with just sticking to their plan has to be better.
Geez, I reckon Mick would be sitting on 5 wins with us if he hadn't thrown out his playbook
Attacking play on at every opportunity style is better through the middle and will hold up vs the midpack to weak teams but the extra pressure from the quality teams will cause turn overs,kicking errors and the good teams will punish us.
Also Henderson and Waite wont get two weaker opponents that Will Young and Tom Williams...they both made Rowe look like quality.
I reamin umconvinced untill we can beat some quality...
Will it Stand up against better sides? I don't know, but better to tweak this current game plan than try and introduce something completely different.
We won't play like that every week, that was so different to 80% of MM coached games, early on going inboard across the HBF, through the corridor to one on ones, long kicks out defence to fast break contests. These are all the things MM would normally be going postal over!
Hopefully MM has swallowed his pride and uses a horses for courses type of approach from here on. The playing group have backed him, time for him to allow them to play to their strengths from time to time. I still have concerns about our defensive model when we come up against a quality forward structure which the Dogs are far from.
Absolutely kidding yourself if you never noticed the difference yesterday.
There was a balance though and the guys with the freedom to run and play on, was made the safer options when they did choose wide. Early on we went all the way down the outer side and murph centered it into hendo 1on1. But we moved it quick and played.
Will it stand up Lods...
Ratts showed that it didnt. But we also had some guys get down and dirty yesterday. Protected Murph and the ball winners.
If... And this Is a big if... Mick can put his ego to one side and get the side to temper it's attacking tendencies with two way running and hardness around the contest, then yes it will stand up. This was my hope with Mick when he came across. Build on Ratts good work but instill his defensive game
Styles to a Group of front runners.
18 months to late but better late than never.
Now having had the chance to watch all the game, we certainly didn't look down the line as a first option. Cut inboard more often and earlier (ie. not take it all the way to the fwd 50 before crossing in).
To answer the question I think if 22 players on field run like they did it would stand up, however against the bigger/harder teams I think they will need to tweak the game. For mick to say nothing changed is BS.
For the first time this year we played four quarters of football and we didn't concede more than 3 goals in a row at any stage of the game. Playing that style there's always the chance you'll concede a few in a row, the main thing is to continue to attack, and I think we did that for the majority of he game. Very entertaining football.
I think to make this style more effective we have to be at least capable of playing the other way and vice versa.
Then we need to nurture the players into growing the game sense to use one plan vs the other.
Watching the Hawks vs Geelong, and these two teams should be the benchmark we are aiming for. Both can play quick and slow. Both can use the corridor both can play the wings and up the line. Both can press both can absorb pressure and counter.
These guys tend to know when to play which way and this is something that makes the difference between winning and losing particularly on grand final day.
Our style of play I mean ;)
The way we played yesterday seems to suit our playing group...and they seem to enjoy the "freedom of expression"....but there was also an intensity and pressure there as well.
Brendan McCartney wasn't impressed......
"The game was way too open, it was circle work, it was up and back, and that's not what we're about.
"I don't think any team wants to play like that, and we're no different.
"It was a tricky one today. A lot of our boys, we felt, just got caught between, 'Do I attack or do I defend?’ Once you second-guess yourself and hesitate, it's gone.
"There was about a 30-minute patch in the game where we got caught in that nasty zone."
The questions are ....
Mick said he didn't change much yesterday.....What was different?
Did we catch them unexpectedly...there was talk all week we'd play a more free flowing brand of football?
How will it go against the stronger sides of the comp..... Hawthorns and Geelongs?
One word Lods, Confidence. Like the "bad" was infectious the previous 4 weeks, the "good" was contagious yesterday. We didn't play 4 solid qtrs yesterday. If we can learn to do the "good" things we did yesterday week in week out, I think our best can trouble anyone. Its minimising the gap or roller coaster between our good and bad thats the key.
http://www.carltonfc.com.au/video/2014-04-20/cfc-tv-malthouse-post-match-r5
During the post-match press conference, Malthouse was asked about the gameplan at 4:57 :
Reporter : "Did you tinker with the gameplan at all during the week or were you guys .... ? "
MM : "NO (talking over the reporter), not one inch".
Surely the players went into a different flight-plan for this match, it was way different to anything else we've seen this year ??
http://www.carltonfc.com.au/video/2014-04-20/cfc-tv-malthouse-post-match-r5
During the post-match press conference, Malthouse was asked about the gameplan at 4:57 :
Reporter : "Did you tinker with the gameplan at all during the week or were you guys .... ? "
MM : "NO (talking over the reporter), not one inch".
Surely the players went into a different flight-plan for this match, it was way different to anything else we've seen this year ??
Of course. You'd be wise to believe a very small amount of what Mick says. As MBB has said, clubs lie all the time. And Mick is at the top of the mountain in this respect.
http://www.carltonfc.com.au/video/2014-04-20/cfc-tv-malthouse-post-match-r5
During the post-match press conference, Malthouse was asked about the gameplan at 4:57 :
Reporter : "Did you tinker with the gameplan at all during the week or were you guys .... ? "
MM : "NO (talking over the reporter), not one inch".
Surely the players went into a different flight-plan for this match, it was way different to anything else we've seen this year ??
Cause and effect.
As i said before. Did we play differently because the game plan changed or did we play differently because the bulldogs forced us too.
A simplistic version of the game plan is as follows....
Unless there is someone clear by themselves in the centre of the ground, always go along the boundary to 50-50 contests.
Now up until now, the centre has been rarely free. So we follow the boundary line. Bulldogs may have over compensated and tried to cut us off along leaving the centre open which we took advantage of.
Just because we played a little different doesn't mean the gameplan actually changed.
We clearly moved it through the middle from the start, always looked to play on, ALWAYS looked inboard first. Blokes like Gibbs were getting the ball forward of centre but in or around the corridor and we looked way more dangerous.
Summed up perfectly PI2C. Most attractive footy we've played this year and clearly the most effective. Mightn't work against every team, but reckon we could've done with it against Melbourne.
@ Krudd RE Cause and Effect
But Krudd don't you think some of that was also caused by our increased run and spread this week? I felt we definitely ran a lot harder this week and created our own opportunities.
It was the old Essendon footy under Hird....attack, play on at all costs, get in front on the scoreboard and then hope you have the legs to hang on.....or in Curnows case..leg.
Doesnt hold up over a whole season as you run out of troops and the ones you have left get tired... then your skills drop off and you you take some real hammering's.
http://www.carltonfc.com.au/video/2014-04-20/cfc-tv-malthouse-post-match-r5
During the post-match press conference, Malthouse was asked about the gameplan at 4:57 :
Reporter : "Did you tinker with the gameplan at all during the week or were you guys .... ? "
MM : "NO (talking over the reporter), not one inch".
Surely the players went into a different flight-plan for this match, it was way different to anything else we've seen this year ??
Mick doesn't always tell the truth :P
If we can use a style of game plan that gets us the win and 4 points, then we are doing the right thing. We can use a different plan when the going gets a bit tough. I hear our tackle rate, intensity for the ball, for the opponent, and running hard was a key to our success in this game, and in any game in the past. If we can execute this strategy better, Mick will have an easier job culling the list to get us what we need quicker. If we carry lazy footballers, than it appears Mick needs to roll over the entire list.
Make his job easier, but making your workload stand out supporting an effort that benefits the entire team. Simple game plan. Not rocket science.
@ Krudd RE Cause and Effect
But Krudd don't you think some of that was also caused by our increased run and spread this week? I felt we definitely ran a lot harder this week and created our own opportunities.
Watching the first 4 weeks of football this year, one thing has stood out to me and it has driven me mad. Disposal.
I have flashbacks from the first 4 weeks of us, usually Walker but sometimes Yarran, streaming through the middle of the ground (much like yesterday) and instead of hitting up a target, they kick directly to the opposition, who kick it back over our heads and usually goal from it.
Some of our kicks inboard to the centre in previous weeks have not hit their target, same result. Others have hit their target, but have made us stop and go back to get the kick, and thus lost our opportunity to continue with the thrust down the centre.
So to answer your question, i think we did run harder this week...i think we did everything harder this week. I think some of the players we had in the side allowed us to, veterans Carrazzo and Scotland didn't tire like kids such as Menzel and Buckley may have previously.
I also think, as mentioned above, that our kicking was much better this week.
We kicked 7.16 last week. 23 scoring shots to get 7 goals.
Yesterday it took us 10 scoring shots to kick 7 goals....we had 7.3 at 1/4 time.
I do think that we ran the bulldogs off their legs and they were unable to clog up the middle of the ground as much as they would've liked....and generally keep track of us.
- How many times did Murphy simply run away from a stoppage with Wallis struggling behind him?
- Why did the keep Wallis on him when he was obviously struggling to stay with him?
- Why did wallis continue to stay boundary side of him and allow him to run through to the centre of the ground?
- Why did they not clog up the centre corridor of the stoppages to help out Wallis and stop Murphy from running through there unopposed?
So...IMO the reasons we won this week as opposed to previously.
1. Overall, a fitter group of players out there.
2. Much better use of the ball all over the ground and in front of goal.
3. Dogs failing to stop us from using the corridor
4. An increased hunger across the players, a lift of 5% from each became infectious. So much so that it enabled us to withstand a last quarter without having much of a bench to play with.
I didn't notice much difference in tactics, what I did notice was that our turnover percentage was way, way down on where it's been.
Confidence is a beautiful thing and yesterday we had it by the bucket load, even Tommy Bell was hitting targets and Knockers was winning the ball at ground level, whether that was down to mediocre opposition or not who knows?
The big question is whether we can play as well against quality opposition, Footscray are very average.
Absolutely kidding yourself if you never noticed the difference yesterday.
This ^^. There was a clear change in direction, players were allowed to run through the corridor into space and the ball carrier was directed to always look in board. You could tell from the start pretty sure I mentioned it about 5 minutes in.
I didn't notice much difference in tactics, what I did notice was that our turnover percentage was way, way down on where it's been.
Confidence is a beautiful thing and yesterday we had it by the bucket load, even Tommy Bell was hitting targets and Knockers was winning the ball at ground level, whether that was down to mediocre opposition or not who knows?
The big question is whether we can play as well against quality opposition, Footscray are very average.
Footscray's midfield is actuaLLY VERY GOOD. Ditto Crameri as a key forward.
They did beat Tigers and Gold Coast.....
No difference in tactics. Whenever we win or play well people say we changed our tactics, when we lose it's Malthouse's bad game plan.
Do people believe in our first quarter of the year against Port Adelaide we didn't play to Mick's game plan? Turn it up.
Do people believe in our first quarter of the year against Port Adelaide we didn't play to Mick's game plan? Turn it up.
Stood up for one quater, that should get us through the marathon that is the season.
No difference in tactics. Whenever we win or play well people say we changed our tactics, when we lose it's Malthouse's bad game plan.
Do people believe in our first quarter of the year against Port Adelaide we didn't play to Mick's game plan? Turn it up.
Isn't that what Malthouse said himself about that game?
I recall him talking about, our good attack on the ball and our desire to compete as being very good, but we played nothing like the game plan! I think he alluded to as much in the FC Hot Seat session, he talked about being good for 3 out of 8 quarters but not adhering to the plan.
OK
Whenever we lose it's Malthouse's game plan, whenever we do well we're not playing his game plan.
OK
Whenever we lose it's Malthouse's game plan, whenever we do well we're not playing his game plan.
It's OK to deride us if you like, I suppose it makes you feel better about things.
But these are comments coming from Malthouse himself, either in TV interviews, post match conferences or on radio! Even on Sunday evening on one of the post match radio grabs he made a similar comment. He said something like our desire, work rate, contests were all much better but.....!
You cannot seriously think that any AFL coach will accept that open style of game, even though it suits our list, have a watch of the losing coaches post match interview to get some perspective.
OK
Whenever we lose it's Malthouse's game plan, whenever we do well we're not playing his game plan.
No at all, it has to be the coach's game plan, but on this occasion it didn't look like the heavy defensive, boundary game plan that he says has served him well for 30 years. Blind Freddie can see that the style was different on Sunday. Kudos to Mick for changing things up and managing to get the team up for a game. He obviously had to change something after the previous 4 weeks.
OK
Whenever we lose it's Malthouse's game plan, whenever we do well we're not playing his game plan.
Nah disagree he gets full credit for changing things up and making it work. Whilst it wasn't his traditional gameplan it was still
his gameplan.
No difference in tactics. Whenever we win or play well people say we changed our tactics, when we lose it's Malthouse's bad game plan.
Do people believe in our first quarter of the year against Port Adelaide we didn't play to Mick's game plan? Turn it up.
Nope, I don't believe that. The first quarter against Port Adelaide was as good a quarter as I have seen, and had Mick Malthouse all over it. I was very excite. Yet we couldn't convert enough early shooting from the pockets and the players fell into old habits. From there, we have lost our drive and flair which makes us a good football side.
Combine the Port First Quarter with the run and carry from Bulldogs and we have a makings of a very good football side. it took Mick 5 rounds last year to tinker (FACT) and it may be the same this year.
MBB you believe the game style played in the first quarter against Port and the Bulldogs game were the same?
MM's style is based on hard running and workrate - he's stated that numerous times. If we try to play his style and don't put in then we get punished. We did put in for part of the games against Port and the Tigers (to a lesser degree admittedly) and for most of the game v. the Dogs. We looked OK at those times and we have to find a way to front up every week and do it. If we can, then we could gain some respectability by year end. There'll still be plenty of change to the list though IMO.
......
Combine the Port First Quarter with the run and carry from Bulldogs and we have a makings of a very good football side. .......
Careful there Shadesy, that would mean that the players are not as bad as many say they are :o
Nah disagree he gets full credit for changing things up and making it work. Whilst it wasn't his traditional gameplan it was still his gameplan.
That is how I see it, and MM can keep stating his plan hasn't changed and that would be consistent. We would hope he hasn't got one plan, and that Sunday's game was part of the overall plan. But countering that, MM looked like a cut snake in the post match presser hardly a happy coach, the Dogs coach was happier describing the game as way too open and out of control.
I think most critical posters are bagging the heavily defensive boundary hugging game plan as not being suitable to our list. Yet it seems to keep rolling out as an apparent default, even moments on Sunday we seemed to slip into that mode. It is hard to tell if that is the cause of the Dogs surge or if it is a symptom of the Dogs surging, from the outside you just cannot tell. But I do suspect it is part of the plan, primarily because the heavy running high work rate is unsustainable for a full match let alone a full season!
http://win-cdn220-is-3.se.bponlinewoc2264.ngcdn.telstra.com/PlatformRelease/653/684/Carrazzo220414web_S_1936465358__326475.mp4
Carrazzo's interview yesterday.
He states that the game plan didn't change but the execution of it did.
IMHO we looked as a group, tired during the first four weeks. Sunday we didn't. Is it possible that our condition has improved and that made a bigger difference to our execution (and by extension the game plan)?
The Doggies have had a taxing first four weeks and looked pretty flat themselves.
For those who are wondering about the quality of the group, at one.stage on the weekend we had Rowe spoil Liam Jones, White picked up the crumbs and cleared to Casboult on the wing. The ball was forced out for a throw, and from the next throw, Casboult got the ball down to Curnow who handballs to Tom Bell. bell kicks to Lucas linking up. Now, I like all these guys for doing what they can but it's a testament to how far off the pace we can be when these guys are linking up and the one thing you keep thinking is please hit a target.
I didn't notice much difference in tactics, what I did notice was that our turnover percentage was way, way down on where it's been.
Confidence is a beautiful thing and yesterday we had it by the bucket load, even Tommy Bell was hitting targets and Knockers was winning the ball at ground level, whether that was down to mediocre opposition or not who knows?
The big question is whether we can play as well against quality opposition, Footscray are very average.
Footscray's midfield is actuaLLY VERY GOOD. Ditto Crameri as a key forward.
They did beat Tigers and Gold Coast.....
Tigers and Gold Coast aren't top sides.
We "held" Boyd to under 30 touches and Murphy, Cooney and Higgins all to under 20, Griffin hurt us but he's top class and hurts a lot of sides.
The big difference was our field kicking and good games from all of our better players, Waite, Murphy, Gibbs, Walker, Carrazzo and Simpson, and a very good one from Warnock in the ruck.
Some of the lesser lights were also good, Bell and Tuohy come to mind but Thomas also got amongst it and Henderson was unstoppable early on.
When the team plays well there's always a noticeable difference and it looks like you're finding more space and run, but a lot of that comes down to hitting targets instead of turning it over and being caught out of position.
We also didn't butcher it in front of goal for a change, which always helps.
MM's style is based on hard running and workrate - he's stated that numerous times. If we try to play his style and don't put in then we get punished. We did put in for part of the games against Port and the Tigers (to a lesser degree admittedly) and for most of the game v. the Dogs. We looked OK at those times and we have to find a way to front up every week and do it. If we can, then we could gain some respectability by year end. There'll still be plenty of change to the list though IMO.
Which is also true. However and this concerned me last year... Collingwood were known for the ridiculous high number of rotations. More than any other club and frequently allowing players to rest and recover to implement a high intensity gameplan. a number i seem to remember is 150 plus.
Now we have a cap limit and a sub.... so surely Malthouse must himself tinker with the Gameplan to fit the rules.
Carrazzo's interview yesterday.
He states that the game plan didn't change but the execution of it did.
Did he say that, or did he say "Didn't change much?"
I would reckon it didn't change much, about the length of the center square! ;)
That is how I see it, and MM can keep stating his plan hasn't changed and that would be consistent. We would hope he hasn't got one plan, and that Sunday's game was part of the overall plan. But countering that, MM looked like a cut snake in the post match presser hardly a happy coach, the Dogs coach was happier describing the game as way too open and out of control.
Sounds to me like he got out coached, that Carlton played the game on our terms.
I think most critical posters are bagging the heavily defensive boundary hugging game plan as not being suitable to our list. Yet it seems to keep rolling out as an apparent default, even moments on Sunday we seemed to slip into that mode.
In Malthouse's last two seasons at Collingwood they were the second highest scoring team in 2010 and the highest in 2011, maybe Mick's "heavily defensive" game plan is a bit of an urban myth.
MM's style is based on hard running and workrate - he's stated that numerous times. If we try to play his style and don't put in then we get punished. We did put in for part of the games against Port and the Tigers (to a lesser degree admittedly) and for most of the game v. the Dogs. We looked OK at those times and we have to find a way to front up every week and do it. If we can, then we could gain some respectability by year end. There'll still be plenty of change to the list though IMO.
Which is also true. However and this concerned me last year... Collingwood were known for the ridiculous high number of rotations. More than any other club and frequently allowing players to rest and recover to implement a high intensity gameplan. a number i seem to remember is 150 plus.
Now we have a cap limit and a sub.... so surely Malthouse must himself tinker with the Gameplan to fit the rules.
You'd have to think so Shadesy. Maybe a bit of tempo footy or keepings off to give the boys a breather at times during the game. That's where we've been falling down a bit though and making mistakes. It was very noticeable v Port and the Tigers. We just didn't get started against the Bummers and the Dees. On Sunday, you could see us come off the gas a bit halfway through the 3Q and into the 4Q before picking it up again. The Dogs couldn't capitalise though.
If our fitness improves we may be able to keep it going longer in a game as the year goes on?
In Malthouse's last two seasons at Collingwood they were the second highest scoring team in 2010 and the highest in 2011, maybe Mick's "heavily defensive" game plan is a bit of an urban myth.
So the seasons Collingwood finished top of the ladder they scored more than most others, feck me it's a miracle, hardly! ;)
In Malthouse's last two seasons at Collingwood they were the second highest scoring team in 2010 and the highest in 2011, maybe Mick's "heavily defensive" game plan is a bit of an urban myth.
So the seasons Collingwood finished top of the ladder they scored more than most others, feck me it's a miracle, hardly! ;)
St Kilda finished on top in 2009 and were the 4th highest scoring but in points against were 360 points behind their nearest rival, Lyon definitely has a defensive game plan. ;)
Even Malthouse says his gameplan is based around defence. Not sure what you're trying to say.
St Kilda finished on top in 2009 and were the 4th highest scoring but in points against were 360 points behind their nearest rival, Lyon definitely has a defensive game plan. ;)
You are effectively arguing against your own points!
Even Malthouse says his gameplan is based around defence. Not sure what you're trying to say.
Every good coach bases his game around defence, I can remember Yabby Jeans saying the same thing 30 years ago and when Parkin coached us to the flag in 1995 we were the second best defensive side in the league, in '87 and '82 we were the best.
Every Premiership team is built on a solid defence, it's nothing new.
Lyon is by far the most defensive coach in the AFL and he's gone close a couple of times, but no one remembers who came second.
Fremantle were the 13th highest scoring team in the AFL last season and played in the GF, but it could be argued that their inability to score cost them the game and the Premiership.
I don't see anything particularly negative in Malthouse's style and never have.
St Kilda finished on top in 2009 and were the 4th highest scoring but in points against were 360 points behind their nearest rival, Lyon definitely has a defensive game plan. ;)
You are effectively arguing against your own points!
How so?
I don't think Malthouse is any more defensive than any other successful coach of recent times, Lyon is much more defensive but so far he hasn't been successful.
As someone else here said, it seems that when we lose we can't play to his game plan or it doesn't suit our players, yet when we win it's because we abandoned the game plan and gave our players their heads.
If it was that simple I think Mick would have thought of it, he's many things but an idiot isn't one of them.
I don't see anything particularly negative in Malthouse's style and never have.
You obviously missed the first four rounds!
I don't see anything particularly negative in Malthouse's style and never have.
I think you are missing the point B4L, because this debate has grown out of the MM game plans suitability to the list. It is not a pure tactical discussion on which method is better, I am sure that given a compatible list any game plan could succeed.
Coaches don't have Carte Blanche, they have to work with what they have got!
For people to be on here arguing the way we played on Sunday, in attacking through the midfield off the HBF, is not significantly different to the way we played in other matches is just bogus!
We need to get the ball forward as quickly as possible, and that means no boundary line stop start chip kicking rubbish! That is how we played on Sunday and that is how we can give our medium sized forwards and pace laden mids a chance against Gorilla defenders and zones!
Spread and run means Nada once an opponent sets up a zone!
I don't see anything particularly negative in Malthouse's style and never have.
You obviously missed the first four rounds!
Hardly, but touche.
The biggest difference was the skills as I saw it, we absolutely butchered the ball in the first quarter against Essendon and the air just went out of our tyres after that, against Richmond we missed at least 7 or 8 simple shots at goal and against Melbourne we couldn't hit the side of a barn.
Somehow, for reasons that will probably never be explained, that all turned around on Sunday and we looked like a completely different football team.
Confidence in yourself and your team mates is a wonderful thing, I wish we could bottle it.
Carrazzo's interview yesterday.
He states that the game plan didn't change but the execution of it did.
Did he say that, or did he say "Didn't change much?"
I would reckon it didn't change much, about the length of the center square! ;)
Warnock also agrees with Carrazzo.
I think our execution of the game plan changed more than the plan did and I can't see how our plan changed remarkably in such a short space of time.
I reckon we are just improving our ability to execute it
http://youtu.be/W1UfRdO8TBo
Coaches don't have Carte Blanche, they have to work with what they have got!
Coaches also need to go with what they know will lead to the ultimate success, there's no point milking wins out of players who ultimately aren't good enough to win a flag, even though a few wins keep the wolves at bay.
For people to be on here arguing the way we played on Sunday, in attacking through the midfield off the HBF, is not significantly different to the way we played in other matches is just bogus!
We need to get the ball forward as quickly as possible, and that means no boundary line stop start chip kicking rubbish! That is how we played on Sunday and that is how we can give our medium sized forwards and pace laden mids a chance against Gorilla defenders and zones!
Spread and run means Nada once an opponent sets up a zone!
Better teams won't let us do what we did on Sunday.
Most people had Footscray bottom four this season and it's not as if we've made huge strides anyway, their losing score was the highest of the round.
There's more pain to come until we can get somewhere near our best 22 on the park.
MM's style is based on hard running and workrate - he's stated that numerous times. If we try to play his style and don't put in then we get punished. We did put in for part of the games against Port and the Tigers (to a lesser degree admittedly) and for most of the game v. the Dogs. We looked OK at those times and we have to find a way to front up every week and do it. If we can, then we could gain some respectability by year end. There'll still be plenty of change to the list though IMO.
Which is also true. However and this concerned me last year... Collingwood were known for the ridiculous high number of rotations. More than any other club and frequently allowing players to rest and recover to implement a high intensity gameplan. a number i seem to remember is 150 plus.
Now we have a cap limit and a sub.... so surely Malthouse must himself tinker with the Gameplan to fit the rules.
You'd have to think so Shadesy. Maybe a bit of tempo footy or keepings off to give the boys a breather at times during the game. That's where we've been falling down a bit though and making mistakes. It was very noticeable v Port and the Tigers. We just didn't get started against the Bummers and the Dees. On Sunday, you could see us come off the gas a bit halfway through the 3Q and into the 4Q before picking it up again. The Dogs couldn't capitalise though.
If our fitness improves we may be able to keep it going longer in a game as the year goes on?
You will never dominate games of footy for 4 quarters but i think Carrots mentioned, we only ever gave up 3 goals in a row. So i dont know if we took the foot off the gas, but you can throw a blanket over 12-14 teams, so they are going to get mini run ons. This Group (under both Ratten and Malthouse) give up multiple 5 goals leads over and over again. So this was a positive. There was some slow ball and boundary line play, so the gameplan "MAY" not have in fact changed, but the run and spread and take the game Attitude from the players and ultimately the coach was a huge difference from the first 4 rounds. And players are going to work harder if they know that they might get a kick at the end of it.. ;-)
What I hope was Malthouse can identify and arrest this. Last year (as Kruddler pointed out and I agree) Malthouse was able to keep the team competitive in almost EVERY game (Collingwood and maybe Sydney in the wet aside) it was either the Fitness, lack of match awareness or just down right dumbness that we gave up leads of over 16 points on 11 occasions last year.
lets hope our fitness does improve as does Malthouses ability to work with the group he has.
@Shadesy
When I said "eased of the gas", I meant that you can't physically keep up a highly intense level of pressure for the whole game and you need to slow things down at times to take a breather. You try to do this in a controlled way without totally handing the initiative over to the opposition. I think we may have done that v. the Dogs, and didn't lose focus or control of the game. That has not been the case in other games, the Port game springs to mind.
@ Cookie.
Sorry mate, understood, I was actually agreeing with your post.
I agree.
Its been a huge problem, getting 4 goals up and letting a team back in where they kick 7-8 goals and then never look back. It was only the bulldogs, but its a start.
@ Cookie.
Sorry mate, understood, I was actually agreeing with your post.
I agree.
Its been a huge problem, getting 4 goals up and letting a team back in where they kick 7-8 goals and then never look back. It was only the bulldogs, but its a start.
And when those runs occur, its the mids in the centre that need to put a stop to it. No use relying on the defenders when it comes streaming in time after time.
@ Shadesy
8)
Both on the same page
Robbo HS 23/4/14
THE armchair critics were wrong about Mick Malthouse’s Blues.
The turnaround from chumps against Melbourne to champs against the Western Bulldogs didn’t come on the back of a radical game-plan change.
They increased their numbers of playing-on from a mark or free kick and increased their tackle count, and other than that it was the same old Blues.
If you categorise a more aggressive attitude as part of the game plan, then Malthouse did change it up.
But when does attitude come under strategy?
Attitude should be commonplace and strategy the cream on top.
If anything, Carlton’s strategy against the Western Bulldogs wasn’t radical at all: Run hard, pressure, defend, have numbers at the contest, move it quick, move it better, and give your forwards an opportunity to go one-one-on.
It’s just that the Blues weren’t able to execute it over the previous two weeks.
Champion Data statistics show Malthouse didn’t avert from his trusted game plan.
Marc Murphy and the Blues got on their bike against the Bulldogs. Picture: Michael Klein Source: News Corp Australia
From Rounds 1-4, his players used the central corridor 25.1 per cent of play.
Against the Bulldogs it was 25.2 per cent.
From Rounds 1-4, they used the wing 34.1 per cent.
Against the Bulldogs it was 35.4 per cent.
From Rounds 1-4, they used the boundary, which has always been Malthouse’s love child, a majority 40.8 per cent.
Against the Bulldogs, it was 39.4 per cent, a drop of just one
It’s hardly a major shift in philosophy from Matlhouse.
The kick to handball ratio wasn’t vastly different either. It was 1.4:1 over the first four weeks to 1.37:1 against the Dogs.
No, Malthouse stuck to his 28-year-old guns and this time he was aided by an edginess from his players.
They played on from the defensive 50 and through the middle 57 per cent of the time, and over the first four weeks it was 46.2 per cent, which by the way were both ranked No.1.
Clearly, the biggest change in Carlton was increased tackling and better use of the pill.
They recorded 88 tackles, almost 20 more than any game they’ve played in this year and hit their targets at a season-high 66.5 per cent.
The forward line worked a lot better.
They goaled 21.8 per cent of the time in the first month, ranked 15th, and against the Dogs it was 36 per cent, the second best of the round.
They are numbers, but a fundamental change was the contribution of players.
What a difference it makes having their best four running defenders _ Kade Simpson, Andrew Walker, Chris Yarran and Zach Tuohy _ in the same team and taking on the game, while Dale Thomas could be seen streaming down the ground with the ball.
Marc Murphy and Bryce Gibbs won the middle, Jarrad Waite and Lachie Henderson benefited up forward, and Sam Rowe and Simon White held down the tall defensive posts.
Indeed, the game style can appear different when attitude is where it should be.
THE STATS THAT MATTER:
R1-4 // v Bulldogs
Corridor 25.1% / 25.2%
Wing 34.1% / 35.4%
Boundary 40.8% / 39.4%
Kick-to-handball 1.44:1 / 1.37:1
Mark play on (D50m/Mid) 46.2% / 57.1%
TACKLES
R1 57
R2 69
R3 57
R4 65
R5 88
Source: CHAMPION DATA
My bold. Stats don't lie.
Good get Goat - thanks for sharing.
Robbo HS 23/4/14
THE armchair critics were wrong about Mick Malthouse’s Blues.
The turnaround from chumps against Melbourne to champs against the Western Bulldogs didn’t come on the back of a radical game-plan change.
They increased their numbers of playing-on from a mark or free kick and increased their tackle count, and other than that it was the same old Blues.
If you categorise a more aggressive attitude as part of the game plan, then Malthouse did change it up.
But when does attitude come under strategy?
Attitude should be commonplace and strategy the cream on top.
If anything, Carlton’s strategy against the Western Bulldogs wasn’t radical at all: Run hard, pressure, defend, have numbers at the contest, move it quick, move it better, and give your forwards an opportunity to go one-one-on.
It’s just that the Blues weren’t able to execute it over the previous two weeks.
Champion Data statistics show Malthouse didn’t avert from his trusted game plan.
Marc Murphy and the Blues got on their bike against the Bulldogs. Picture: Michael Klein Source: News Corp Australia
From Rounds 1-4, his players used the central corridor 25.1 per cent of play.
Against the Bulldogs it was 25.2 per cent.
From Rounds 1-4, they used the wing 34.1 per cent.
Against the Bulldogs it was 35.4 per cent.
From Rounds 1-4, they used the boundary, which has always been Malthouse’s love child, a majority 40.8 per cent.
Against the Bulldogs, it was 39.4 per cent, a drop of just one
It’s hardly a major shift in philosophy from Matlhouse.
The kick to handball ratio wasn’t vastly different either. It was 1.4:1 over the first four weeks to 1.37:1 against the Dogs.
No, Malthouse stuck to his 28-year-old guns and this time he was aided by an edginess from his players.
They played on from the defensive 50 and through the middle 57 per cent of the time, and over the first four weeks it was 46.2 per cent, which by the way were both ranked No.1.
Clearly, the biggest change in Carlton was increased tackling and better use of the pill.
They recorded 88 tackles, almost 20 more than any game they’ve played in this year and hit their targets at a season-high 66.5 per cent.
The forward line worked a lot better.
They goaled 21.8 per cent of the time in the first month, ranked 15th, and against the Dogs it was 36 per cent, the second best of the round.
They are numbers, but a fundamental change was the contribution of players.
What a difference it makes having their best four running defenders _ Kade Simpson, Andrew Walker, Chris Yarran and Zach Tuohy _ in the same team and taking on the game, while Dale Thomas could be seen streaming down the ground with the ball.
Marc Murphy and Bryce Gibbs won the middle, Jarrad Waite and Lachie Henderson benefited up forward, and Sam Rowe and Simon White held down the tall defensive posts.
Indeed, the game style can appear different when attitude is where it should be.
THE STATS THAT MATTER:
R1-4 // v Bulldogs
Corridor 25.1% / 25.2%
Wing 34.1% / 35.4%
Boundary 40.8% / 39.4%
Kick-to-handball 1.44:1 / 1.37:1
Mark play on (D50m/Mid) 46.2% / 57.1%
TACKLES
R1 57
R2 69
R3 57
R4 65
R5 88
Source: CHAMPION DATA
My bold. Stats don't lie.
Mirrored my thoughts also. Better ball use and intensity at the contest was the difference between last week and the previous four weeks.
Malthouse's game plan isn't just to play around the boundary line kicking to 50/50 contests. The 50/50 contest kick is just the fall back option if you don't have something better available to you. In order to be successful, this plan relies on any team Malthouse is coaching to go absolutely hell for leather at that 50/50 contest to ensure you win far more than 50% of them and then keep moving the ball forward.
It's an incredibly logical game plan, really. If you can use the ball well and hit your targets when they are open, you keep control of the game and keep it going in the direction you want it to go. If you win more than 50% of the 50/50 contests you kick long to when you don't have a better option open then you're already ahead of the curve. The more of those contests you win, the more opportunity you have to keep the ball moving forward.
It's not an unattractive style when it is executed properly. As much as I hate to say it, Collingwood were far from an ugly side under Malthouse, and the West Coast Eagles were electric.
We made it ugly because our execution was horrendous from rounds 1-4. We were missing our shorter targets, so we gradually started losing the confidence to look for them. Instead, we fell into the back up option of kicking long to 50/50 contests... which we also lost far more than 50% of during those rounds because we weren't even attacking those contests with the gusto you need to make the game plan effective.
As a result, we saw MASSIVE differentials in the number of possessions our boys were accumulating and the number of possessions our opponents were accumulating. We were effectively giving our opponents control of the game through poor execution of skills and lack of intensity at the contest.
The stats in that HS article clearly show that there wasn't very much overall difference in our basic methodology against the Doggies compared with previous weeks, however most people on here, who watch a hell of a lot of football, felt like they were watching an entirely different side play.
The thing is, they were right but it wasn't because of game plan. We started hitting our shorter targets with more precision, so regained the confidence to use them more. When we did kick long to contests, we busted our rings to win as many of them as we could and therefore continue moving the ball forward.
We still have considerable improvements to make in both of those areas (around the ground ball use and intensity at the contests) which will hopefully result in us winning more games by bigger margins, but it's not Malthouse's game plan that has been holding us back. It has been our rubbish execution of it or inability to understand that it requires two absolute non-negotiables in order to really work.
1. Excellent disposal and decision making so as to make use of the short or running targets as a first option.
2. Explosive intensity at the contest when we kick to a 50/50.
If you're executing item 1 efficiently and effectively, then you only need to win more than 50% of item 2 contests and you SHOULD win a football game.
It's that simple.
The stats don't tell you where they entered the corridor, only how often they go there!
It was obvious compared to the early rounds that the players ran through the center square from HB far more than previous games. Early into the season we ran the ball deep into the HFF and often had a stoppage on the boundary line near the F50 arc.
I suspect the change in game plan comes off the statements early last week implied the players would be freed up and allowed to play football. I liked the term "allowed", it suggests that probably MM didn't believe they were capable of succeeding in that style of game. From MMs perspective given our very poor DE statistics understandably so, I get why the change was so reluctant!
In the first four rounds there was only one clear attacking pass into the midfield off the HBF, it stood out like the proverbial dogs balls, and came from Jammo cutting inboard to a player on the run through the midfield. So I gather he was either the only player following "The Plan", or the only player prepared to defy it!
I suspect the change in game plan comes off the statements early last week implied the players would be freed up and allowed to play football. I liked the term "allowed", it suggests that probably MM didn't believe they were capable of succeeding in that style of game. From MMs perspective given our very poor DE statistics understandably so, I get why the change was so reluctant!
Does anyone honestly believe that public statements made by AFL coaches and football clubs should be taken seriously?
It's all spin and gamesmanship, the general public will never know what's said behind closed doors, or what tactics will be used on game day.
Interesting numbers, perhaps its not as simple as it looked from my viewpoint and the numbers (whilst do not tell everything) contradict what I saw on Sunday. Happy to admit that but Something fundamentally changed though. that much was obvious.
Thought it was clear as day we moved the ball quicker and played on as quick as we could. That was the change I saw.
Also I think the change in play was far more prevalent early in the game, I noticed when we stagnated late in the third quarter we were moving the ball slowly and out wide.
I didn't notice much difference in the style of play, we still went the boundary the vast majority of the time.
Difference yesterday was our intensity, work rate, we hit targets and converted in front of goal.
Warnock not leaving us a man short after the bounce was also a huge bonus.
nailed it.
Also I think the change in play was far more prevalent early in the game, I noticed when we stagnated late in the third quarter we were moving the ball slowly and out wide.
Yes it was pretty self evident, the contrast in one game between two modes of play is obvious.
A good question is could it be deliberate like Nthmond's apparent 30 point brake foot?
It better not be couldn't think of anything worse TBH.
It actually concerns me a bit (a lot) if we didn't do anything radically different ???
It means that a lapse in concentration and intensity and we're back to the Melbourne and Essendon results.
Now subsequent form has shown both those sides are mediocre at best.
Really good sides will test our ability to apply that level of intensity and if we fail to come up that could get really ugly.
Concerns me too Lods. The difference between the dogs and dees game was effort.
It actually concerns me a bit (a lot) f we didn't do anything radically different ???
It means that a lapse in concentration and intensity and we're back to the Melbourne and Essendon results.
Now subsequent form has shown both those sides are mediocre at best.
Really good sides will test our ability to apply that level of intensity and if we fail to come up that could get really ugly.
What concerns me is we should be 3-2 MINIMUM, (possibly even 4-1) with the rest of the season to look forward too.
As it stands the season is just about cooked FOR NO GOOD REASON.
It actually concerns me a bit (a lot) f we didn't do anything radically different ???
It means that a lapse in concentration and intensity and we're back to the Melbourne and Essendon results.
Now subsequent form has shown both those sides are mediocre at best.
Really good sides will test our ability to apply that level of intensity and if we fail to come up that could get really ugly.
A lapse in concentration and intensity costs any side games, the better sides have fewer lapses and more consistent skills.
We played poorly against Essendon and Melbourne, against Richmond we simply failed to convert our opportunities, we did against Footscray and it was our best effort for the year so far but Footscray still managed to kick 90 points.
We are an average or slightly below average team, there will be more losses and some are likely to be heavy.
At the end of this season we'll need to cut the list again but at least now with the likes of Bell, Cripps, Docherty, Buckley and Menzel coming through we have some promising youngsters to build on, if one or two others step up it will be all the better.
A few years ago it was Yarran and Garlett then daylight.
Malthouse is the man for the job, but it will take him a while.
It actually concerns me a bit (a lot) if we didn't do anything radically different ???
It means that a lapse in concentration and intensity and we're back to the Melbourne and Essendon results.
Now subsequent form has shown both those sides are mediocre at best.
Really good sides will test our ability to apply that level of intensity and if we fail to come up that could get really ugly.
Those lapses are my big worry also, and our great challenge is to get them out of our game. We've had the problem for a few years now - one week chocolates, boiled lollies the next - hard to believe its the same team.
It actually concerns me a bit (a lot) if we didn't do anything radically different ???
It means that a lapse in concentration and intensity and we're back to the Melbourne and Essendon results.
Whilst it is worrying that we could slip back without keeping up the intensity, i think it is encouraging to know that
a) The game plan works when the players follow it
b) The focus is put squarely on the players and those who don't put in, will be exposed. Thus, it should discourage lazy efforts.
If we can continue with the effort, we can clearly see which areas we need to target come trade/draft time. With a bit of luck, we won't have to go through rebuild mode and start again.
It actually concerns me a bit (a lot) if we didn't do anything radically different ???
It means that a lapse in concentration and intensity and we're back to the Melbourne and Essendon results.
Whilst it is worrying that we could slip back without keeping up the intensity, i think it is encouraging to know that
a) The game plan works when the players follow it
b) The focus is put squarely on the players and those who don't put in, will be exposed. Thus, it should discourage lazy efforts.
If we can continue with the effort, we can clearly see which areas we need to target come trade/draft time. With a bit of luck, we won't have to go through rebuild mode and start again.
It would appear then that this is a game plan that requires a physically and mentally demanding effort.
Full effort..... it succeeds
A less than full effort and..... it comes unstuck.
No in-between.
We'll certainly find out about the character of our list...those that are left standing.
That in itself presents a problem for the coaching group, and those concerned with list management, because maintaining that type of intensity will put stress on the dynamics of the team as players drop off the pace. There will be some that won't make it........ either through injury or mental fatigue.
On the days when we don't come to play we will be punished.
....and it's perfectly valid reasoning to suggest that this is exactly what we need to know so that we can make decisions on players.
Where it might become a problem is if some of our more skilful players don't handle that pressure, while some of our less skilful prove themselves the best at playing the 'hard' game.
It actually concerns me a bit (a lot) if we didn't do anything radically different ???
It means that a lapse in concentration and intensity and we're back to the Melbourne and Essendon results.
Whilst it is worrying that we could slip back without keeping up the intensity, i think it is encouraging to know that
a) The game plan works when the players follow it
b) The focus is put squarely on the players and those who don't put in, will be exposed. Thus, it should discourage lazy efforts.
If we can continue with the effort, we can clearly see which areas we need to target come trade/draft time. With a bit of luck, we won't have to go through rebuild mode and start again.
It would appear then that this is a game plan that requires a physically and mentally demanding effort.
Full effort..... it succeeds
A less than full effort and..... it comes unstuck.
No in-between.
We'll certainly find out about the character of our list...those that are left standing.
That in itself presents a problem for the coaching group, and those concerned with list management, because maintaining that type of intensity will put stress on the dynamics of the team as players drop off the pace. There will be some that won't make it........ either through injury or mental fatigue.
On the days when we don't come to play we will be punished.
....and it's perfectly valid reasoning to suggest that this is exactly what we need to know so that we can make decisions on players.
Where it might become a problem is if some of our more skilful players don't handle that pressure, while some of our less skilful prove themselves the best at playing the 'hard' game.
I agree that it will stress the players and the team. We might lose some players because of it.
But...
Do we want to molly coddle them like under Ratts and become an ok team without really taking it to the top 4 teams?
or
Do we want to create a group of battle hardened players that are capable of carrying out a game plan that is capable of winning you a flag?
Mick breeds a culture that performs in big games. Something that we have lacked in the last decade. Honourable losses can only take you so far.
What we see from teams like the Cats and Hawks are players who put in each and every week...and they get results. The kids come into that culture and don't know any other way.
This game plan, despite supporter backlash, is capable of winning you a flag. We need to ensure we have the list (players with desire) to carry it out and get us that flag.
But...
Do we want to molly coddle them like under Ratts and become an ok team without really taking it to the top 4 teams?
or
Explain to me where this comes from, I haven't heard this one before?
But...
Do we want to molly coddle them like under Ratts and become an ok team without really taking it to the top 4 teams?
or
Explain to me where this comes from, I haven't heard this one before?
Ratten didn't allow them to tackle in the preseason... No wait....
But...
Do we want to molly coddle them like under Ratts and become an ok team without really taking it to the top 4 teams?
or
Explain to me where this comes from, I haven't heard this one before?
Ratten didn't allow them to tackle in the preseason... No wait....
Actually, I had heard complaints about the opposite from the likes of Garlett and Yarran when they were newbies.
As well as some rumors allegedly spread by the disgruntled TBird about archaic brutal training practices initiated by Ratten. Things like boxing, 100x100s, etc., etc..
I expect the truth probably sits in the middle ground somewhere!
This game plan, despite supporter backlash, is capable of winning you a flag. We need to ensure we have the list (players with desire) to carry it out and get us that flag.
But we supporters and members need to be patient, even though our patience has been well and truly tested, it won't happen overnight.
Historically teams rarely come from outside the eight, which is where we finished last season, and win a flag within two years or even three.
With very few exceptions our players need to learn how to win finals.
Footy shows saying we played on 10% more often.
Does that constitute a change in thinking instead of holding, thinking, kicking. ?
Stats don't lie.
Stats may not lie but they can be misinterpreted, misleading, misrepresent the facts or miss out on critical factors.
Are there comparative stats on the number of times our key forwards mark at halfback and direct the ball through the centre of the ground? How about the percentage of time we play one on one defence? What about the percentage of time we have an extra player behind the ball or how long we play with seven forwards? How often do we play on? How many times do we kick backwards? At what point is the ball transferred from the boundary to the corridor? How many of our forward 50 entries were directed to the pockets and how many were centred?
While the quoted stats indicate that there isn't a great difference between how we played against Footscray and in our losses, Blind Freddie could see that the gamestyle was significantly different.
Yep
A player can go around the boundary line to a contest because it's a directive and the ball comes back over his head.
He can go around the boundary line because a player has run hard to make space and plays on and kicks a goal.
Shows in the stats he's gone around the boundary 100% but two totally different situations with two totally different outcomes.
There are too many variables in statistics.
The more open the ground and at the whim of weather conditions the more variable,
Our two worst performances this year have been at the MCG
Our best at Docklands...right there is a variable
Footy shows saying we played on 10% more often.
Does that constitute a change in thinking instead of holding, thinking, kicking. ?
It can also mean we hit our targets more accurately and players were in space and on the move when they received the ball, and that we ran to support better and gave more options.
I wouldn't read much into it.
Footy shows saying we played on 10% more often.
Does that constitute a change in thinking instead of holding, thinking, kicking. ?
It can also mean we hit our targets more accurately and players were in space and on the move when they received the ball, and that we ran to support better and gave more options.
I wouldn't read much into it.
I just read it as taking the first options and honouring leads and options.
I did note a few times we seemed to play on by hand to a guy running past when it wasn't really a great option.
Don't care really as long as we don't look like dear in the headlights.
Don't care really as long as we don't look like deer in the headlights.*
That pretty well sums it up :)
*edited by spelling police
But...
Do we want to molly coddle them like under Ratts and become an ok team without really taking it to the top 4 teams?
or
Explain to me where this comes from, I haven't heard this one before?
Ratten wanted to be friends with everyone and couldn't make the tough calls.*
We held onto average players too long, didn't drop players for discipline reasons and was generally very 'vanilla'.
Why that is usually god for team harmony, it doesn't do much to increase drive and motivate to the next level.
*Fev was traded as a club decision headed by the board and Swann
Ratten wanted to be friends with everyone and couldn't make the tough calls.*
Not sure Thornton, Russell and Bower are on his Christmas card list
Ratten wanted to be friends with everyone and couldn't make the tough calls.*
Not sure Thornton, Russell and Bower are on his Christmas card list
History showed that none of them had any success at other clubs and that we basically held onto them for too long. If they cracked it with Ratts its because they overrated themselves and didn't like hearing the truth.
But...
Do we want to molly coddle them like under Ratts and become an ok team without really taking it to the top 4 teams?
or
Explain to me where this comes from, I haven't heard this one before?
Ratten wanted to be friends with everyone and couldn't make the tough calls.*
We held onto average players too long, didn't drop players for discipline reasons and was generally very 'vanilla'.
Why that is usually god for team harmony, it doesn't do much to increase drive and motivate to the next level.
*Fev was traded as a club decision headed by the board and Swann
So it's a rumor about Ratten then?
I have no problem people criticising Ratten if that accusation is true, but MM banned tackling in his first pre-season at the club, don't you recall?
A double standard it seems!
Hang on boys it's raining outside let's take training indoors.
The rumour that Kruddler is alluding to has come from many different places over the journey.
Ratten wanted to be friends with everyone and couldn't make the tough calls.*
We held onto average players too long, didn't drop players for discipline reasons and was generally very 'vanilla'.
Why that is usually god for team harmony, it doesn't do much to increase drive and motivate to the next level.
*Fev was traded as a club decision headed by the board and Swann
Talk about re-writing history :o
Ratten was criticised at the time for being too hard on the players.
As for holding on to players for too long, we shed 9, 9, 11, 11 and 6 players in 2007-2012 respectively.
Hang on boys it's raining outside let's take training indoors.
The rumour that Kruddler is alluding to has come from many different places over the journey.
I've no doubt about that.
The problem with rumours is that the elements of truth within them are magnified by those with an agenda to push.
It's all part of the destabilising process.
So yep, anyone with anti Ratten agenda would have attached themselves to that one.
It doesn't just go one way either as I'm sure Malthouse has already found out.
True that Lods, just like every coach will have his favourites and his whipping boys.
Ratten could never win though. Too hard at training and we did shoulders, too soft and we lacked ticker.
The big problem regardless from where i can sit is that its all a matter of opinion. Who has that opinion is whats most important and not necessarily what tgat opinion is.
I.e. If judd though out tackling sessions were tough then they probably were tough. Someone like Lucas though is a different story. The opposite is also true. If judd thought training was too easy, and a Thornton thought it was tough...
Isn't training inside when it rains pretty standard across the competition?
True that Lods, just like every coach will have his favourites and his whipping boys.
Ratten could never win though. Too hard at training and we did shoulders, too soft and we lacked ticker.
The big problem regardless from where i can sit is that its all a matter of opinion. Who has that opinion is whats most important and not necessarily what tgat opinion is.
I.e. If judd though out tackling sessions were tough then they probably were tough. Someone like Lucas though is a different story. The opposite is also true. If judd thought training was too easy, and a Thornton thought it was tough...
Yes........ but if it's a case of "'Bozo" said Judd thought training was too easy, and "Bippo" said Thornton reckons it's too hard..... that's a different story.
It's not the direct information that's the problem.
It's the "clowns" who put their own slant on things, relaying the message.
I actually don't take much that comes out of the club as gospel.
The club tend to spin things a fair bit....but there's an even less credible message that comes from folk on the fringe of things.
Factions and their associates who'll slant things in a way that suits their point of view at the time.
I've a feeling it's done incredible damage to attempts to get this club on the right path over the last decade.
Ratten wanted to be friends with everyone and couldn't make the tough calls.*
Not sure Thornton, Russell and Bower are on his Christmas card list
History showed that none of them had any success at other clubs and that we basically held onto them for too long. If they cracked it with Ratts its because they overrated themselves and didn't like hearing the truth.
But nonetheless, that is an example of Ratten not being buddy buddy with everyone as your opinion suggests.
Ratten wanted to be friends with everyone and couldn't make the tough calls.*
Not sure Thornton, Russell and Bower are on his Christmas card list
History showed that none of them had any success at other clubs and that we basically held onto them for too long. If they cracked it with Ratts its because they overrated themselves and didn't like hearing the truth.
But nonetheless, that is an example of Ratten not being buddy buddy with everyone as your opinion suggests.
Mother Theresa and Ghandi couldn't be buddy buddy with everyone. But they treated everyone the same.
The only players that have question marks over how they were treated under Ratten could clearly be put down to a dose of sour grapes after realising their careers were essentially over.
At the same time, how many disciplinary acts can you recall Ratten dishing out? SFA by my count.
Don't get me wrong, i think Ratten was the exact type of coach we needed at the time. I started the 'Rattens Objectives' thread and he got through 90-95% of them, only falling short in the big categories of Top 4, flag etc. He gave our club what it needed given the history it just came through during the dark ages.
Having said that, the type of coach required to get us through that period and the type of coach the club needed when he was eventually shown the door are 2 different styles.
Ratten brought Carlton back to Carlton without giving us the ultimate success. He gave us a list of decent player, with Judd aside, were not capable of playing the type of elite, consistent football required to take the next step. So we bring in Malthouse who has a history of bringing to his team, exactly what we lacked. His approach can be more alienating compared to Ratten, but the rewards are worth a few casualties along the way.
At the same time, how many disciplinary acts can you recall Ratten dishing out? SFA by my count.
I'm not sure how you can know that Kruds?
Do you know that for sure?
The only players that have question marks over how they were treated under Ratten could clearly be put down to a dose of sour grapes after realising their careers were essentially over.
....and wouldn't the Laidler situation pretty much parallel the Thornton, Russell, Bower ones. The Russell one at least.
Mother Theresa and Ghandi couldn't be buddy buddy with everyone. But they treated everyone the same.
That's just wrong. Russell was playing great football in the seconds to the extent where Alan Richardson mentioned he should have got more opportunity.
At the same time, how many disciplinary acts can you recall Ratten dishing out? SFA by my count.
I'm not sure how you can know that Kruds?
Do you know that for sure?
The only players that have question marks over how they were treated under Ratten could clearly be put down to a dose of sour grapes after realising their careers were essentially over.
....and wouldn't the Laidler situation pretty much parallel the Thornton, Russell, Bower ones. The Russell one at least.
1. You can tell that by the ins and outs as much as anything Lods. How many times was Waite dropped under Ratts? Waite has a history of doing dumb things (especially against Richmond) and certainly isn't known for his consistency. Mick dropped him, forced him to play in the 2's. Did Ratts ever do that? I honestly can't recall Ratts dropping anyone that was clearly best 22 (as Waite is/was).
2. Yes, Laidler is the same, but you're missing the point i believe. The ONLY players Ratten 'treated badly' are players whose career was over. So sure, they might have cracked it with Ratts, but what has followed shows Ratts was right and their inability to accept that is why there is/was a rift between player and coach.
As for Laidler, same could be said for him, if his career turns out to be over. However, i reckon he probably still has a little bit of footy in him. Even so, that just goes back to what i said earlier, i expect to lose the odd player because 'Mick was too harsh' in what he demanded. So if Laidler is the only player, bonus.
We were always known as a pack of front runners, down hill skiers, flat track bullies who couldn't match it with the top sides. We had our moments and close calls, but we never really made it into the top echelon. Mainly, IMO because we were not disciplined enough to do the hard running...and that means both ways. If Mick is to turn that mentality around, i expect there to be a few casualties along the way. Someone like Gibbs for instance who looks good with time, space and a nice haircut, often goes missing in the engine room when the heat is on. I expect Micks style to make him look elsewhere and test FA. Which is fine, we want committed players. Some, i have my doubts over, Gibbs is one. Yarran, despite being one of my favourites, was always one i had question marks on. To his credit though he has really taken it up a level this year, i'm impressed.
1. You can tell that by the ins and outs as much as anything Lods. How many times was Waite dropped under Ratts? Waite has a history of doing dumb things (especially against Richmond) and certainly isn't known for his consistency. Mick dropped him, forced him to play in the 2's. Did Ratts ever do that? I honestly can't recall Ratts dropping anyone that was clearly best 22 (as Waite is/was).
I don't want to waste time going back Kruds....
It's an impossible exercise because we don't know whether Ratten dropped a player for disciplinary reasons, form or injury.
....and my point is, you have know way of knowing that either.
...but just a quick google as an example
April 15 2010-ABC Grandstand
Carlton's Bret Thornton and Jarrad Waite have been left out of the team to play Adelaide on Saturday but Essendon will welcome back Michael Hurley, who's served a club-imposed ban. Geelong's Cameron Mooney, Darren Milburn and Brad Ottens will line up for the home game against Port Adelaide.
COMMENTS
- waite not given the time he deserves
-Yep...fully agree,waite is a tremendous player with a lot of pressure on him now,needs more time.
-Why would they drop him? Seems nearly as silly as getting rid of a champion full forward. Carlton are ridiculous.
-Yeah i think they have lost there way a bit,waite is a big body and is very skilled,it makes no sense to me....they seem to be heading down to the corner of where are we going and what are we doing avenue,lol.
- There must be more to this than meets the eye. Although not outstanding, he certainly hasn't been their worst.
- Thornton??????? Even though I'm highly critical of his defensive abilities, he's the biggest defender they've got.
Was Thonton done and dusted in 2010?
Dropped Yarran after he sooked in one game too (turned out he had turf toe though)
Was Thonton done and dusted in 2010?
No, but a quick trip to the blueseum found this...
When the teams hit the newsstands late on Thursday afternoon there were shocks aplenty. In response to the insipid loss against Essendon the Carlton selectors had omitted a couple of favourite pieces of furniture, Bret Thornton and Jarrad Waite. Thornton had been sadly out of form in the previous two outings, while Waite had looked a little lost as he attempted to find his feet on return from a long, knee-related absence.
Cannot recall much of the team makeup of the time nor how bad they each were at the time. Seems it was a clear form issue rather than a wakeup call. Thornton only played 12 games that year, so maybe he was carrying something?
Anyway, i think the crux of it is, Fev was allowed to be fev and he let that spiral out of hand to the point where he was forced to leave. Perhaps a few disciplinary acts in the mean time may have prevented that, perhaps not. At least give it a try though.
I fear we are going to continue to run around in circles on this.
We will so we might as well stop because it will just be tit for tat.
Hate to be seen to be in conflict with the blueseum...fine site....but
Here's my contribution to the pre-match thread on the 15/4/2010
:))
Dominator_7 wrote:
Word over at TC:
In: Judd, Garlett, White
Out: McLean, Waite, Thornton
IMO the dropping of Waite in absolute insanity.. Is this a sign of Ratts starting to lose the plot ?
Lods wrote-
Total nonsense
Not your post Dom, that action if it were to take place.
Waite more than anything else needs game time and Thornton is a versatile player who should be tried elsewhere....up forward or on a wing.
If Maclean is out Hadley must come in,
Has White been promoted today???/
Believe that rubbish when I actually see it.
...and
Lods wrote
It's amazing.
Two weeks ago Thornton was thought good enough to be matched up on the best player in the league.
Two weeks later he's not good enough for our starting 22.
and
Lods wrote
Obviously someone hasn't been doing what they're told.
The omissions are most likely the result of a failure to follow a plan in last weeks games.
If that's the case fair enough, but it's a big statement.
I called it a 'rubbish' move earlier ......it may be a career defining moment for several folk (not just players).
Pretty ironic eh. ;) :D
and I wasn't the only one critical of the move in that thread by a long shot.
The truth is we don't know how many players Ratten dropped for disciplinary reasons.
If you were the coach you could make a very public display of disciplining a player as seems to have happened with Waite and Garlett
or
You could give them a rocket in private and tell them they won't be back until they toe the line, but publicly it comes out as........... "we asked him to go back to the VFL and work on few things"
The team know exactly what's going on.
Dropped as an example.
....but we (the public) never really know for sure.
The only players that have question marks over how they were treated under Ratten could clearly be put down to a dose of sour grapes after realising Did Ratts ever do that? I honestly can't recall Ratts dropping anyone that was clearly best 22 (as Waite is/was).
Nick Stevens might jog your memory Kruds.
Ratten just didn't have the experience to be a good coach, he played footy for us, did a year as an assistant at the wooden spoon team then coached in the Eastern suburbs, it was madness to appoint him in the first place and suicidal to persevere with him for five years.
At the time it was all about marketing and memberships, we were broke, in that sense the appointment worked but football wise it put us back years.
Malthouse is hardened and experienced, he'll sort out the wheat from the chaff.
The only players that have question marks over how they were treated under Ratten could clearly be put down to a dose of sour grapes after realising Did Ratts ever do that? I honestly can't recall Ratts dropping anyone that was clearly best 22 (as Waite is/was).
Nick Stevens might jog your memory Kruds.
Ratten just didn't have the experience to be a good coach, he played footy for us, did a year as an assistant at the wooden spoon team then coached in the Eastern suburbs, it was madness to appoint him in the first place and suicidal to persevere with him for five years.
At the time it was all about marketing and memberships, we were broke, in that sense the appointment worked but football wise it put us back years.
Malthouse is hardened and experienced, he'll sort out the wheat from the chaff.
Get your facts right, Ratten was an assistant for two years at Melbourne, allegedly left under advice from senior members of the AFL coaches association(Parkin and Sheedy) to get experience managing his own team, Melbourne did not want him to go!
Took that EFL team Norwood from nuffas to a premiership in two years, came back to Carlton for 3/4 of a season under Pagan then coached the last 1/4 of a season under our boards nose as caretaker.
Hardly inexperienced compared to Voss or Hird, both who coached zero actual games before being appointed coaches!
Are you letting your bias colour the facts?
At the same time, how many disciplinary acts can you recall Ratten dishing out? SFA by my count.
I'm not sure how you can know that Kruds?
Do you know that for sure?
The only players that have question marks over how they were treated under Ratten could clearly be put down to a dose of sour grapes after realising their careers were essentially over.
....and wouldn't the Laidler situation pretty much parallel the Thornton, Russell, Bower ones. The Russell one at least.
1. You can tell that by the ins and outs as much as anything Lods. How many times was Waite dropped under Ratts? Waite has a history of doing dumb things (especially against Richmond) and certainly isn't known for his consistency. Mick dropped him, forced him to play in the 2's. Did Ratts ever do that? I honestly can't recall Ratts dropping anyone that was clearly best 22 (as Waite is/was).
2. Yes, Laidler is the same, but you're missing the point i believe. The ONLY players Ratten 'treated badly' are players whose career was over. So sure, they might have cracked it with Ratts, but what has followed shows Ratts was right and their inability to accept that is why there is/was a rift between player and coach.
As for Laidler, same could be said for him, if his career turns out to be over. However, i reckon he probably still has a little bit of footy in him. Even so, that just goes back to what i said earlier, i expect to lose the odd player because 'Mick was too harsh' in what he demanded. So if Laidler is the only player, bonus.
We were always known as a pack of front runners, down hill skiers, flat track bullies who couldn't match it with the top sides. We had our moments and close calls, but we never really made it into the top echelon. Mainly, IMO because we were not disciplined enough to do the hard running...and that means both ways. If Mick is to turn that mentality around, i expect there to be a few casualties along the way. Someone like Gibbs for instance who looks good with time, space and a nice haircut, often goes missing in the engine room when the heat is on. I expect Micks style to make him look elsewhere and test FA. Which is fine, we want committed players. Some, i have my doubts over, Gibbs is one. Yarran, despite being one of my favourites, was always one i had question marks on. To his credit though he has really taken it up a level this year, i'm impressed.
I do agree, but we were feared by every team bar one (hawks) when we were at our speedy best, wasn't there a year ( 2010 or 2011) where we beat both the grand finalists, i want to say Geelong and Collingwood. If not for a dodgy free kick that wasn't paid to 1AW for being manhandled in the square against the eagles, i wonder where we would be now?
Hardly inexperienced compared to Voss or Hird, both who coached zero actual games before being appointed coaches!
Are you letting your bias colour the facts?
Are you?
Voss has been sacked, Hird is currently suspended, neither could be claimed to have been resounding successes.
Ratten had been coaching in the second division of a suburban football league for two years before he came to Carlton, where he spent 6 months as an assistant before he was appointed as the senior coach, he was hopelessly under qualified no matter how you look at it.
He was good for memberships and he kept the supporters sweet, which is the main reason he was appointed.
@blueavenger, our wins against Geelong and Collingwood didn't come in 2011. We beat Geelong in 2010, and we notched up our wins vs the Pies in 2012.
In our good year, the Pies beat us easily twice, and Geelong spanked us at Etihad. We got an almost win against Geelong with Warnock missing from thirty out at the G with the last kick of the game.
Warnock was actually around 10m out e should have won that game.
Warnock was actually around 10m out e should have won that game.
IIRC, that was the game he copped a heavy whack on the scone. Nevertheless, that kick was beyond terrible. Wonder if the boys give him a gentle reminder from time to time.
Warnock was actually around 10m out e should have won that game.
IIRC, that was the game he copped a heavy whack on the scone. Nevertheless, that kick was beyond terrible. Wonder if the boys give him a gentle reminder from time to time.
He ended up being concussed and missed the next week.
How the Geelong player wasn't cited for the crude "spoil" was beyond me at the time. No wonder he was concussed.
It's true the Cats player (I think it may have been Corey) realised he could get nowhere near the ball to spoil so just whacked him in the face. Warnock being the big dufuss he is wanted to play hero and take the kick. Betts was next in line, he would've eaten that shot for breakfast.
The bloke who hit Warnock was Jimmy Bartel.
I was in that pocket with a Geelong member mate of mine and she went sick that he even received a free kick. It wasn't until the replay that we saw the contact, it wasn't until afterwards we realised how bad he was. Spent 2 nights in hospital and missed the next week.
Would've been a good idea to NOT take the kick, but if you were in the situation to win the game would you pass it up? You'd generally back yourself every time.
It's true the Cats player (I think it may have been Corey) realised he could get nowhere near the ball to spoil so just whacked him in the face. Warnock being the big dufuss he is wanted to play hero and take the kick. Betts was next in line, he would've eaten that shot for breakfast.
You are correct it was a Corey Enright, a round arm spoil from behind copped Warnock in the side of the head.
Linked HERE. (http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne/sport/afl/news/warnock-doesnt-remember-missed-goal/)
In any case, I think Warnock's hospital stay was due to fainting under pressure and not related to the hit! He is just a spud kick for goal under pressure as has been proven multiple times since! Sphincter tightens, limbs go wobbly and gravity does the job leaving no blood at brain level! ;)
Warnock was actually around 10m out e should have won that game.
IIRC, that was the game he copped a heavy whack on the scone. Nevertheless, that kick was beyond terrible. .
Recent evidence suggests the whack to the head probably had little to do with the miss.
Warnock was actually around 10m out e should have won that game.
IIRC, that was the game he copped a heavy whack on the scone. Nevertheless, that kick was beyond terrible. .
Recent evidence suggests the whack to the head probably had little to do with the miss.
I actually LOL'd at that.
Interesting Andrew Walker said on SEN this morning that after the Melbourne game they all got together and agreed they play their best football when they take the game on and vowed to do so from now on. So there is the change I guess.
Interesting Andrew Walker said on SEN this morning that after the Melbourne game they all got together and agreed they play their best football when they take the game on and vowed to do so from now on. So there is the change I guess.
Thats not a change in the game plan, that is a change in the execution of it. Which is essentially the players pulling their fingers out and having a go.
Mick never said, take it slow. The players were low on confidence and didn't want to make mistakes, so they didn't take any risks and tried playing it safe.
The moment they got on the same page and ran to make position, the easier it got for them to take the game on.
You don't know what Mick said. From my perspective he was holding them back, he gave them some leeway and look at the results. Well done to Mick.
Interesting Andrew Walker said on SEN this morning that after the Melbourne game they all got together and agreed they play their best football when they take the game on and vowed to do so from now on. So there is the change I guess.
Thats not a change in the game plan, that is a change in the execution of it. Which is essentially the players pulling their fingers out and having a go.
Mick never said, take it slow. The players were low on confidence and didn't want to make mistakes, so they didn't take any risks and tried playing it safe.
The moment they got on the same page and ran to make position, the easier it got for them to take the game on.
Why would they think like that in the first place? ;)
"The beatings will contiue until morale improves"
Unknown
Interesting Andrew Walker said on SEN this morning that after the Melbourne game they all got together and agreed they play their best football when they take the game on and vowed to do so from now on. So there is the change I guess.
Thats not a change in the game plan, that is a change in the execution of it. Which is essentially the players pulling their fingers out and having a go.
Mick never said, take it slow. The players were low on confidence and didn't want to make mistakes, so they didn't take any risks and tried playing it safe.
The moment they got on the same page and ran to make position, the easier it got for them to take the game on.
Why would they think like that in the first place? ;)
"The beatings will contiue until morale improves"
Unknown
22 players having surgery and limited pre-season as a result may have had something to do with it. All it takes is 1 loss and things start heading downhill. An embarrassing 1.8 in the last against the tigers compounded the problem.
You don't know what Mick said. From my perspective he was holding them back, he gave them some leeway and look at the results. Well done to Mick.
Ironic really, that i usually take the side which defends Mick, now you are pumping him up and i disagree.
My opinion is that the players were lacking previously. As just mentioned, low on confidence, and low on fitness together with some embarrassing efforts really put them under the pump.
They suffered and copped many a whack from the media and didn't like it. They took it upon themselves to pull their finger out and put in.
Same thing happened under Pagan. We'd lose by 10+ goals, Pagan would throw his hands up the air and say i don't know what to do so this week the players are in charge of their own preperation etc....they'd win. Made Pagan look like a fool on one hand because he steps back, and the players win. On the other hand, he produced the win BY stepping back. Problem he had was that it usually only worked for one week.
Reason for that is, under Pagan, the players had little respect for him. Under Mick, they give him more respect, they've just been through a rough patch, rather than rough years.
Interesting Andrew Walker said on SEN this morning that after the Melbourne game they all got together and agreed they play their best football when they take the game on and vowed to do so from now on. So there is the change I guess.
Thats not a change in the game plan, that is a change in the execution of it. Which is essentially the players pulling their fingers out and having a go.
Mick never said, take it slow. The players were low on confidence and didn't want to make mistakes, so they didn't take any risks and tried playing it safe.
The moment they got on the same page and ran to make position, the easier it got for them to take the game on.
Why would they think like that in the first place? ;)
"The beatings will contiue until morale improves"
Unknown
22 players having surgery and limited pre-season as a result may have had something to do with it. All it takes is 1 loss and things start heading downhill. An embarrassing 1.8 in the last against the tigers compounded the problem.
22 players had surgery - you still believe that :-\
22 players had surgery - you still believe that :-\
Believe it
http://www.carltonsc.com/index.php?topic=10.15
Interesting Andrew Walker said on SEN this morning that after the Melbourne game they all got together and agreed they play their best football when they take the game on and vowed to do so from now on. So there is the change I guess.
Thats not a change in the game plan, that is a change in the execution of it. Which is essentially the players pulling their fingers out and having a go.
Mick never said, take it slow. The players were low on confidence and didn't want to make mistakes, so they didn't take any risks and tried playing it safe.
The moment they got on the same page and ran to make position, the easier it got for them to take the game on.
Why would they think like that in the first place? ;)
"The beatings will contiue until morale improves"
Unknown
22 players having surgery and limited pre-season as a result may have had something to do with it. All it takes is 1 loss and things start heading downhill. An embarrassing 1.8 in the last against the tigers compounded the problem.
22 players had surgery - you still believe that :-\
The question is why is it that you do not.
It has been reported by everyone in the media, both in print and on tv. Including backed up by our president.
Sure Mick said something like there was only 6....i believe he was talking about players who played that game he was questioned about.
Is 22 players a lot? If they are back in training before Xmas does it matter?
The number alone tells us nothing.
Is 22 players a lot? If they are back in training before Xmas does it matter?
The number alone tells us nothing.
Yes it's a lot, it's a whole team who have an interrupted preseason.
Is 22 players a lot? If they are back in training before Xmas does it matter?
The number alone tells us nothing.
Yes it's a lot, it's a whole team who have an interrupted preseason.
What do other teams have? What have we and others had in the past? How long were the players out and when?
Is 22 players a lot? If they are back in training before Xmas does it matter?
The number alone tells us nothing.
It's a huge amount, when you refer to MINOR surgery, of ingrown toe nail, laser hair removal, :P
Is 22 players a lot? If they are back in training before Xmas does it matter?
The number alone tells us nothing.
It's a huge amount, when you refer to MINOR surgery, of ingrown toe nail, laser hair removal, :P
You guys would still argue even if you were presented with each player's medical record.
Is 22 players a lot? If they are back in training before Xmas does it matter?
The number alone tells us nothing.
It's a huge amount, when you refer to MINOR surgery, of ingrown toe nail, laser hair removal, :P
You guys would still argue even if you were presented with each player's medical record.
http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2013-11-12/blues-heading-back-to-flagstaff. 34 players fit and ready for Flagstaff
http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2013-11-18/blues-hit-the-track 16 1-4 year players ready for preseason
So all the post season surgery which causes interruptions to preseason must be >4 year players.
Can understand your faith but we are not all that naive to believe what the club says verbatim. It's not like they don't history.
20+ players had surgery, what's so hard to understand?
20+ players had surgery, what's so hard to understand?
Exactly, minor.
http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2013-11-12/blues-heading-back-to-flagstaff. 34 players fit and ready for Flagstaff
We have a list of 45 players, so if that is true, 11 players were not 'fit and ready'. So immediately that shows almost double the amount that Mick said in an interview which you hold as gospel.
So the only bit of 'evidence' you have has been disproven.
Does it take into account the players that DID have surgery but came along as well? What about players that may have had surgery AFTER that trip?
17, 22, 45 players...whatever. We have had more players than the norm have surgery in the off-season. Fact.
20+ players had surgery, what's so hard to understand?
Exactly, minor.
Minor, as in not life threatening. Doesn't mean it will not effect a players pre-season.
- Major surgery – such as surgery to the organs of the head, chest and abdomen. Examples of major surgery include organ transplant, removal of a brain tumour, removal of a damaged kidney or open-heart surgery. The person will need to stay in hospital for some time. The risk of complications may be high and the person will take a longer time to recover.
- Minor surgery – presents a low risk of complications and fast recovery time. The person can usually go home the same day. Examples of minor surgery include tonsillectomy, sewing up a cut or biopsy of a breast lump.
http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2013-11-12/blues-heading-back-to-flagstaff. 34 players fit and ready for Flagstaff
We have a list of 45 players, so if that is true, 11 players were not 'fit and ready'. So immediately that shows almost double the amount that Mick said in an interview which you hold as gospel.
So the only bit of 'evidence' you have has been disproven.
Does it take into account the players that DID have surgery but came along as well? What about players that may have had surgery AFTER that trip?
17, 22, 45 players...whatever. We have had more players than the norm have surgery in the off-season. Fact.
By memory the season before we had 19ish. You take it as a big impact I don't. Out of the 11 you it includes family commitments.
I'd be curious as to what other clubs had especially the top four. A few years back I attended the Hawks B&F and I could have counted on one hand the players who had no bandage, crutch, limp, of some sort or other.
I do t need to prove anything. As I said I'm not naive enough to accept everything the club says.
Forget the surgery argument.
How many of our guys were in tip top condition come round 1?
I'll give you a hint, Kreuzer, Judd, Murphy, Gibbs, Tuohy, Carrazzo and Henderson all were in trouble. Of these names, most have shown decreased form, decreased ability to impact the game, and in some cases have not been able to get on the park at all.
Now, you tell me if you were their teamates how confident you would be in our ability to win games knowing there were questions over the aforementioned?
Walker's comments suggest that the players were being held back somewhat. He doesn't mention injury or confidence as an excuse. They got together and decided how they play their best footy, the rest is history.
Is 22 players a lot? If they are back in training before Xmas does it matter?
The number alone tells us nothing.
It's a huge amount, when you refer to MINOR surgery, of ingrown toe nail, laser hair removal, :P
You guys would still argue even if you were presented with each player's medical record.
Not really, just want to know what we are talking about? Did 22 players miss because they had knee recos or did they miss having a clean out straight after the season which they recover from before they start training? Were the 22 players ones who get games or rookies?
Did our opponents also have 20+ players out with surgery too, if so why are ours important but theirs aren't? Or is 22 typical? Ratten's last year had 25+ post season surgeries (from memory) for example. Maybe 22 is actually pretty good.
Without a reference point the number is meaningless.
That's just detail I suppose?
@IOT the number of surgeries you have I think is probably irrelevant. You could have 44 minor scar tissue cleanups and probably go forth without a hitch in your preparations.
Where it gains context and relevance is combining our surgeries with how badly we fell away vs Port Adelaide and then further supported by our overall conditioning of players in our senior list.
The overall landscape of our team is that we are having real problems playing four quarters. It indicates its been an issue for us where we havent got bodies right be it due to the surgery, due to not having booked the indoor stadium in Arizona, or even just due to the fact that we are coming off a historically lower fitness base combined with an average pre-season. If 2012 was an injury interupted year, 2013 was not remarkably better and 2014 is the 3rd year in a row where bodies havent done the amount of work we would like them to have done to be in tip top condition. (thinking of blokes like Carrazzo, Murphy and Judd).
It may not be the case, but I flash back to round 1, and I remember Henderson and Murphy having taken marks from within scoring range (30-50 metres out) and electing to pass off to people in poorer positions to score, and with arguably less chance of hitting the target. Where that occurs it points to a lack of confidence in the body.
At the end of the day, as time goes on we are seeing a better ability to run as well as contest. Tells us some information regarding our pre season not being a good one, and that is something that I would hope gets rectified going into next season as this is no way to begin a season. One thing I do know of is that we have a few blokes that have had injury interrupted years sequentially. This is not something that can be fixed in one pre season. You lose lots of running power in that process. Think back to Brock Mclean. It took him roughly 2+ years to get going.
Personally, i dont like using injuries as an excuse. If your good enough, odds are you will win anyway. The only thing I can use it as is a reason for why we were so down on confidence. Thats understandable. The boys need to gather the mental fortitude to not drop their heads because of a bit of adversity and just keep motoring on.
Not really, just want to know what we are talking about? Did 22 players miss because they had knee recos or did they miss having a clean out straight after the season which they recover from before they start training? Were the 22 players ones who get games or rookies?
Did our opponents also have 20+ players out with surgery too, if so why are ours important but theirs aren't? Or is 22 typical? Ratten's last year had 25+ post season surgeries (from memory) for example. Maybe 22 is actually pretty good.
Without a reference point the number is meaningless.
That's just detail I suppose?
If you want to know so badly then do your own research. I'm not going to waste my time so you can just make some humorous comment about Kreuzer being in a moon boot because of a broken toe nail.
It's reasonable to ask for proof.
All this would not be under discussion if the club had not contradicted itself. Now after about half a dozen attempts they are handing out the same story, but which version was true the first or the last?
It's a reasonable question.
Don't forget they trotted out the ol' 'list is no good argument' last season as well.
Not really, just want to know what we are talking about? Did 22 players miss because they had knee recos or did they miss having a clean out straight after the season which they recover from before they start training? Were the 22 players ones who get games or rookies?
Did our opponents also have 20+ players out with surgery too, if so why are ours important but theirs aren't? Or is 22 typical? Ratten's last year had 25+ post season surgeries (from memory) for example. Maybe 22 is actually pretty good.
Without a reference point the number is meaningless.
That's just detail I suppose?
If you want to know so badly then do your own research. I'm not going to waste my time so you can just make some humorous comment about Kreuzer being in a moon boot because of a broken toe nail.
I'm not the one who brought it up or said the surgeries are one reason we are playing better. Why should I do the research to support the claim? Seems it's unfounded and meaningless and I am happy to leave it as that.
It's fact, not a claim.
From this forum on October 17th 2013
"Carlton CEO Greg Swann has been interviewed on Melbourne radio station SEN 1116 this morning. To summarise:
- He said Matthew Kreuzer was among 17 Blues to have minor post-season surgery, on his foot and knee. He will be fine for round one of next season."
Never said surgeries weren't fact. The claim is on their impact and if it's atypical.
Don't forget they trotted out the ol' 'list is no good argument' last season as well.
No not the 'ol list Carrots - just some of it! ;)
Never said surgeries weren't fact. The claim is on their impact and if it's atypical.
The fact that they were
post season as opposed to preseason suggests they shouldn't have affected the players. But who would believe the self server Swann anyway? He's got no reason to make excuses has he??
I believe there were 36/37 players who went to Arizona... That suggests a fair amount were fit in December.
It's fact, not a claim.
From this forum on October 17th 2013
"Carlton CEO Greg Swann has been interviewed on Melbourne radio station SEN 1116 this morning. To summarise:
- He said Matthew Kreuzer was among 17 Blues to have minor post-season surgery, on his foot and knee. He will be fine for round one of next season."
He was right. He was fine for round 1. Unfortunately he was not fine for anything else. Obviously his surgery was a raging success.
Id say he wasnt the lone ranger in not having a succesful operation either.
Not by my mail he wasn't right. Allegedly, he didn't want to play at all.
Looks like last night we got our answer. Pies stifled our run by simply marking every catch, free not allowing a quick play on. Also missed Yarran's run out of the back line.
That plus the pi$$ poor effort.