And there we have it......everyone bagging the crap out of White when he's having to play totally out of position opposed to key forwards, yet when he gets the chance to play his best position (a run-with negating role), we get to see that he actually can add to this team in a very positive way.....think back to round 1 & the job he did on Dusty Martin, got injured when playing on LeCras in round 2 & hasn't played that role again since his return from injury until tonight and BINGO - we have a winner!!!
Beat me to it Brettie.
White has had to plug too many holes and they have been some BIG holes he's attempted to plug. He gives his all no matter what.
When he can play the way he we know he can, he dominates against the unbackable brownlow favourite.
If only we had a decent key forward or 2, we could play Hendo back, white as a 'small' and our side is 100% better.
Some of the match comments suggest Jaksch did well when he went forward in the latter bit of the game. Might be time to give him another run in the top side.
They did say they hoped to turn him into a good key forward when he was recruited.
Don't expect any favours from the fixture next season. It's TV rights negotiation time again, so expect 2 games against Richmond, Collingwood and Essendon. Expect more Saturday night games against the Hawthorns, Norths and Geelong and Sunday games interstate against non Victorian clubs, as that swells the TV numbers.
Hawthorn, Collingwood, Richmond and Bulldogs to get the lions share of Friday night games.
I also wonder if Fox Footy will tip in as much money again? With the world wide trend being streaming and Australia changing to the NBN as well as the massive take up of Netflix, over the next 5 years I can see the main way we watch football at home is a streamed internet game.
Conspiracy theory time... The AFL 'expirimented' with the fixture last season and to a lesser extent this season (Thursdays) in order to test the market. Usually, increasing $'s is their main focus. However, given the players are asking for more and more money, and the media rights are up at the end of next year, the AFL now has a leg to stand on to knock them back for an excessive increase.
In short, the AFL don't want to pay increasing salaries to clubs, so they took a hit in the hip pocket
Don't get me wrong, I am not sacking him now, but you have to ask the following question:
Off early exposure, of Cripps, Graham, Boekhorst, Menzel, ill add Smith and ill put in Matthew Kreuzer, Chris Yarran, Marc Murphy and Bryce Gibbs in here for a measured bit of a litmus test (thinking of their early games), which one of them concerns you the most regarding their ability to make the grade?
My answer is Boekhorst.
That can and hopefully will change, but what I have adjusted regarding Boekhorst in my mindset.
For reference, of that lot, even Smith or Gibbs would be the next one I would list, which means he can make it, but Im not expecting him to.
As another reference point, Simpson is another who we would have in the same boat. Boekhorst may very well be a 200 game player. No one knows what happens from here, but the expectation HAS to shift based on his early football.
So, I am stating my position that I dont think he'll make it. Lets hope he does a Simpson, but I doubt it particularly in a game plan that asks for a bit of effort and thats about it.
See, with the Gibbs thing, i saw him play U18's and saw plenty from him. He just knew how to play football. Sure he had times where people had doubts, but there was enough in the early stages to keep you interested. Whilst Boeky hasn't quite shown Gibbs like talent early, he has certainly shown more than Kane Lucas IMO.
We've given players like Rowe more time on the list before trying to crucify him and he was 27 when we recruited him!
I think the whole 'culture' thing is a furphy, when it comes to football, at least in the sense of a 'winning' culture that 'refuses to accept' losing. Whether a player or a team wins or aims to win is not a matter of 'culture'. I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that winning is not the ultimate aim of everyone on our list, yet that has nothing to do with culture - its simply the nature of competitive sport. Further, we have to acknowledge that losing is, in fact, sometimes acceptable. This year for example, I think most of would agree that our losses under Barks have been in that category, at least to a greater extent than those earlier in the year. I think we need to allow that such acceptance might be ok within the team itself too. If culture plays a role, it must be about a whole lot of intangibles that equate to an environment of improving individuals and their relationships with each other - such things are so vague and difficult to define that they don't warrant discussion, IMHO. That seems to be what happened at Geelong, for example, but I couldn't say how they fostered it. But it isn't enough anyway, its a red herring. Culture can't change the simplest, most obvious failing we have - we can't kick. Honestly, 90% of the problem is that 90% of our players just can't.
Welcome and good post.
I can't say i agree with it all though.
Nobody is doubted the fact that we can't kick. Nobody is suggested that a good culture will solve that problem. These things are not connected.
We have a poor culture AND we have a poorly skilled list. Fixing both is important to our success in the future. Fixing only one, will still leave us struggling for success.
You say you don't know how to define and thus fix the culture....so its not worth discussing. Disagree. I think its a major problem with our club and it MUST be fixed. We should be doing and trying everything possible to fix it.
As we've all seen a change in coach led to a change in performance. Fleeting or otherwise is yet to be seen, but the initial change is obvious. Why not apply the same logic to the board? Yes we have a new president, but he's not really new is he. He's just stepped up.
Sorry Kruds, I am one who would normally give players time, but the deer in the headlights impersonation with hands on the footy is the most concerning aspect of his play.
The things you want to see as a bare minimum in a recruit, is hardness or smarts (if not both). Boeky has not really shown much of either.
Only thing that is working in his favour in terms of patience, is the fact that he has had two coaches with potentially two sets of different demands since he arrived here which can effect the ability for anyone to perform as required.
I reckon you should go watch a pre-season game or 2. He put in quite a few hard tackles and looked very comfortable at stages. So much so, that i had him as my 23rd player on the list at the start of the year based on those qualities you listed.
Sure, he hasn't shown a whole lot of them during the year, but he hasn't had much going for him. Yazz hasn't shown much of those qualities of late, and he's a 'seasoned pro'. This kid has played half a season.....under 2 senior coaches plus 1 VFL coach. Give the kid a chance!
That's still not an ideal situation for a bloke with a crook back, particularly with the weather we had.
Of course its not ideal. He is injured, there is nothing ideal about it.
What happens if he didn't play in the NBs. Comes straight back into the 1's this week? Maybe he's lost match fitness with 2 weeks of not playing....so you play him in the 2's....but thats not ideal.
Boekhorst is Kane Lucas incognito. He and Jones shaping up as monumental flops from last year's draft.
Geez we turn quick on our blokes. Boeky has only done 1 real preseason. Give the bloke a chance. Yes he is 'mature aged' to a degree, but tell me 1 team outside the AFL that trains up to AFL standard??
Lucas had 4 years on our list...Boeky has had half a year.
If his back was suspect, he shouldn't have played with the NBs, particularly given the conditions.
By the way, what's 'gone postal'? It sounds serious
The NB's played a day later than the seniors. Perhaps that, along with the 50-50 nature of his back, made the difference to playing or not.
Backs are hard to predict and look after. Maybe Thursday night when they did the teams, he was a bit stiff. Maybe he woke up friday and it was much better. Saturday it was fine. Who knows.
The question is, why risk it? What have we got to gain? We are not playing for finals.
Rowe was a late withdrawal with a back problem. Not something that would require our best key defender - apart from Henderson - to come back through the NBs. A very strange decision to say the least, particularly when an underdone and under performing Menzel was rushed straight back.
I would be more sympathetic if Rowe was left out to give one of the up and coming tall defenders a shot. Oh! that's right, we don't have any (with apologies to Jacksh who probably should get another game).
If Rowe had've been played, and his back played up on him and had to be subbed in the first quarter....everyone would've gone postal. The club gave him a chance in the 2's to test it out. He got through. Yay.
He had more clearances than any other CARLTON player. Again. Without him we lose by more no doubt. Three of those frees were paid off the ball when he was tagging. More terrible umpiring.
EFA.
Tigers also had 2 players with 7 clearances. One of them was Grigg, who had more touches than carrots at about the same DE%
Carrots wasn't the worst, but to say he was the best is stretching it (as the AFL website did).
You are big on tackle numbers and criticise Hendo for only having 1....well guess who else had 1. Way too low for a midefielder.
- to come back through the NBs. A very strange decision to say the least, particularly when an underdone and under performing Menzel was rushed straight back.
