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.
22 hardened senior players to be exact EB! Doubt we'll ever see that again.
We'll never see it again because they built that outstanding list courtesy of the concessions granted to them when they 'merged' with Fitzroy. They had a 52 man list for a few years after that, and a massively inflated salary cap. It won them three flags in a row before Collingwood cracked the sads and convinced the AFL to scrap the concessions. Brisbane haven't even been close to a force since they lost the 2004 Grand Final to Port Adelaide.
So how did Geelong do it?
Geelong won three flags in a row and should have won a fourth?
I must have been pretty high during those years to have missed it
22 hardened senior players to be exact EB! Doubt we'll ever see that again.
We'll never see it again because they built that outstanding list courtesy of the concessions granted to them when they 'merged' with Fitzroy. They had a 52 man list for a few years after that, and a massively inflated salary cap. It won them three flags in a row before Collingwood cracked the sads and convinced the AFL to scrap the concessions. Brisbane haven't even been close to a force since they lost the 2004 Grand Final to Port Adelaide.
Firstly, many of you have short memories. There were numerous times that the players didn't turn up to play under Ratten. We lost to bunches of teams that we should have beaten comfortably, sometimes even by large margins. The blow out loss was due every 3-4 weeks under Ratts, it seemed.
It'd be fantastic to be a Carlton player. When you do well, you're a hero and when you don't do well, it's the coach's fault. Absolutely zero accountability at a player level, must be a nice feeling to know that everything is peachy no matter what you do.
Secondly, Walker was asked directly if he thought Carlton could win a Premiership during his current contract. What did you expect him to say? He was on national television, he is hardly going to come out and say 'You know what? I think we suck and won't win a flag while my kids are playing for Carlton, let alone while I am'.
I'm not even defending Malthouse, there are heaps of things I would do differently to him if I had the Carlton playing list to use, but all of you coming out and saying that everything is his fault or that Walker is stupid for saying we could win a flag should really think things through before you post those thoughts.
There's a lot of emotion and not a lot of logical thought flying around at the moment, both inside and outside the club.
Surely some heavy changes to the Senior side on the back of this weekend's results at every level?
I'd go for:
IN: Scotland, Casboult, Cripps, Wood, Graham OUT: Rowe, Warnock, Bell, Ellard, White
I'm sick of our rucks offering nothing around the ground and none of Rowe, Bell, Ellard or White would get a game at any other club, so why do we keep picking them?
If we don't start doing something differently, the only positive we'll take out of this season is a top 5 draft pick.
The only thing sapping my enthusiasm for the season is you guys and your depressing predictions!! Haha
I'm pumped, just like I always am, and think we're going to cause all sorts of drama for teams this season. Bit of luck with injuries and we can match it with anyone!
Last time Walker played a full season up forward, he booted 56 goals. That's elite from a guy who wasn't even the main target (and wouldn't be again) no matter which way you look at it. Why he then went back to defense is a bit of a mystery, despite the fact that he had an excellent year in 2013. With additional runners and quality ball users added to the squad this year, I'd love to see 1AW back up forward where, IMO, he plays his best football and belongs. He's an incredibly tough match up for any opposing team.
Back on topic, though, the NAB Challenge should give opportunity to all of our new players to push for a spot in the Round 1 side. We, Mick, and everyone else knows what the rest of our squad can do when they play together, so this is really the only bonafide opportunity to test out new blood without any risk of losing Premiership points.
If every single draftee, FA and Trade acquisition doesn't get a run over the next few weeks, I'll be extremely disappointed.
NicNat not turning a game? How about his absolute screamer and goal after the siren last year?
Kreuzer never turned a game either? How about Port Adelaide when he booted three last quarter goals to get us over the line in a come from behind win?
They're both excellent players and both play positions that typically take until your late 20's at the earliest to really dominate. Even Sandilands was rubbish for the first 5-6 years of his career.
I'm happy we have Kreuzer, but I'd take NicNat in a heartbeat.
As a club, we failed to embrace the draft & strategic trades option for many years and as such, have not been able to develop a strong enough list with the necessary depth to take us back to the top.
Thankfully, the wheel has turned significantly in this direction and the list is now starting to take some impressive shape. The midfield fleet is stronger again with the various additions over the past 12-months, the only thing stopping us now is our ability to kick winning scores.
We all know that key position players do take a little longer to reach their zenith, question is, will Casboult ever ?? In what may sound like a weird sort of Twilight Zone moment, Casboult holds the key to our immediate success. If he can become a consistent goal-kicker in a key post (by that I'm suggesting 60-70 per year) then the rest will fall into place. If he doesn't, the stocks are going to be spread way too thin for another season and Henderson is going to be shuffled up and down the ground in most games.
If Casboult can't make that transition, then we are going to be waiting another 12-months for the club to "find" one elsewhere.
I get where you're coming from with that, mate, but it doesn't really hold true in all cases in the modern game anymore. Here are the leading goal scorers for last year's top 4 just to illustrate:
Hawthorn: Roughead (72), Franklin (60) - Yep, definitely supports your theory there. Fremantle: Michael Walters (46), Chris Mayne (37) - Neither are key position players, and they played in the GF. It was their game plan that got them there. Geelong: Hawkins (49) - He's a key forward, sure, but he didn't have to boot 60-70 goals to get Geelong into the top 4 and a breath from another GF. Sydney: Tippett (35... in 12 games), McGlynn (30) - The Swans were winning plenty of games without any sort of bonafide key forward. They only got Tippett back for the second half of the season.
Surely that shows you that it's more about the game plan and contributions from all over the park, with everyone doing their jobs, than it is about having a big fella boot 70+ goals in a season. Plain and simple, we obviously don't absolutely have to have Casboult stand up and win a Coleman Medal, we need a team that buys into a winning plan and we need to execute that plan to an elite level week after week.
We do that, with the talent that we have available to us, and we have a good run with injuries then we are every chance to finish top 4 and challenge for a flag. We have the cattle and the structure now, I think.
Kreuzer's biggest strength is his attack on the contest, where he uses his big body to bust open packs and dish handballs out to our running players. That's why he's far better suited as the #1 ruck, in my opinion, it gets him to more contests and therefore allows him more opportunities to showcase his strengths.
Problem being this is not what we got him for, nor what we need him for. We need him to take contested marks around the ground and at least break even in the ruck and take marks and score goals when up forward. Anything that happens when the ball hits the deck is a bonus with ruckmen nothing more.
This is the only highlights reel I could find of Kreuze at U/18 level. It was back in 2006, so I guess there isn't much still around from him back then.
He didn't clunk a single contested mark on that tape (and it/s 6:30 long) so if that's what we drafted him for then we were watching the wrong player and called the wrong name. It's his around the ground and around the contest work that really stands out, which is exactly what we've gotten from him in his career thus far.
Collingwood drafted a very similar style of player at the 2012 Draft in Brodie Grundy, so will be very interesting to see how the two of them compare to each other, career-wise.
Kreuzer's biggest strength is his attack on the contest, where he uses his big body to bust open packs and dish handballs out to our running players. That's why he's far better suited as the #1 ruck, in my opinion, it gets him to more contests and therefore allows him more opportunities to showcase his strengths.
I'm hoping that 2014 gives us the opportunity to play both Henderson and Waite in the key forward posts more often than not, which means that when Kreuzer is resting forward, he gets the third best defender rather than one of the top opposing guys. Playing/resting out of the goal square, Kreuzer is a huge threat as he doesn't get any shorter, plus his ability around the stoppages will bring in our smaller forwards.
