Carlton Supporters Club

Durdin and motlop kicked 4 goals and registered 10 tackles between them against the lions.

Not sure why they're getting targeted for our loss against Brisbane.

Even honey who I thought was pretty ordinary registered 3 tackles. 

They're not good enough to pick up the slack when talls are down.
Brisbanes Cameron and Bailey kicked 8 goals between them while their talls were ineffectual. They picked up the slack.
If Charlie and H are tied down we are screwed as small forwards simply not good enough to step up.
We either accept mediocrity or gun for a flag.

You forgot goal assists, an important stat.
But they were, based on disposals and goals twice as effective as our two  = contributed 24 points more   =  essentially the margin.

  I think it comes down to impact (a hard thing to measure), not just flitting in and out of the game.  What are blokes doing when they don't have the ball is the question ? Are they consistently presenting or getting to good positions.... because I'm not the only one who doesn't think they do it often enough.

One of our real problems is consistency, we have no bankable players.  For example, Newman was close to BOG for us versus the Giants, yet he stunk on Friday.  Why does output vary so much from game to game,?

They're not good enough to pick up the slack when talls are down.
Brisbanes Cameron and Bailey kicked 8 goals between them while their talls were ineffectual. They picked up the slack.
If Charlie and H are tied down we are screwed as small forwards simply not good enough to step up.
We either accept mediocrity or gun for a flag.

You know I've waited two days, and I've seen all manner of blunder and bluster about our game Friday night, and not one person has mentioned that where we cost ourselves the most is in footy basics. 

We coughed up one goal to Charlie Cameron.  Kemp had the ball deep in defence, started to feel heat, dished it off by by hand to acres who wasn't that far away and rather than put body between acres and Cameron, kemp then threw an arm out in the worst attempt to shepherd I've seen, so much so it was completely ineffective when he really should have held it for maybe 2 seconds longer, run closer to the man bearing down and worn the tackle or handed off then shepherded properly, acres doesn't get caught and we don't concede.

This is the stuff that separates us from the best.  Not the game plan or the inability to hit targets (IMHO this is choosing the wrong target not execution errors) and I think we could be much cleaner in general and it would reflect better.

We are getting burnt on the turnover because like all teams we are spreading choosing the wrong target then turning it over and aren't quick enough to correct it because of when and where we turn it over. 

We aren't actually as bad as everyone thinks, and I reckon we can beat the bulldogs with a correction in execution and no wild fantastic changes required.

You forgot goal assists, an important stat.
But they were, based on disposals and goals twice as effective as our two  = contributed 24 points more   =  essentially the margin.

  I think it comes down to impact (a hard thing to measure), not just flitting in and out of the game.  What are blokes doing when they don't have the ball is the question ? Are they consistently presenting or getting to good positions.... because I'm not the only one who doesn't think they do it often enough.

One of our real problems is consistency, we have no bankable players.  For example, Newman was close to BOG for us versus the Giants, yet he stunk on Friday.  Why does output vary so much from game to game,?

Sorry, I'm not into hypotheticals or "they would have kicked more if they played the same time on ground", that's speculation. 

The raw stats say that yhe other pair kicked twice as many goals plus two goal assists, so they contributed 10 goals as opposed to 4.  Ergo they were at least twice as effective as our pair.