Some damning vision on Fox the other night, Doc and Jonesy not doing the basics. It's good to play high scoring footy but the defensive structures need to be able to support that and the defenders need to be switched on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Btbqn7l2v6U&t=544s
Premierships are built of rock solid defences, we need to address this pronto.
They like potting us, today they are potting Teague for denying the Cripps injury.
I've said before, the more they pot us the closer we are, most in the media seriously hate us because they blame the lack of success during their own playing career on our TPP violations!
btw., I think the problem is still more about our mids not defending, the Melbourne example they show proved that, the Dees had 9 in D50.
We just need to put Liam Jones' head on a swivel, and we'll be right lol.
We just need to put Liam Jones' head on a swivel, and we'll be right lol.
What Jones did was wrong, whether that is through ignorance or design, but that is clearly not the issue, we have less numbers in D50 than the opposition. The lack of urgency in particular from both Doc and Jones.
But you could argue that Jones may been instructed not to be dragged back to the square eliminating his intercept marking, so are the comments from Lyon and Healy deliberately naivé just to stir the pot?
I fear this is again Barker's mates helping him dodge a bullet!
Ive just watched the footage.
Jones 100% gets "sucked into" the contest. Its not design, we don't want him doing that. Had it been a small id say we wanted that to occur to stop the easy out. Still Jones saw something that made him head that way and a backline general should be directing traffic and telling him to stay on his man (which might be the problem as he didn't have his opponent he had a small). The fact Lipinski is the loose one actually means he has cheated, because Jones is probably searching for his direct opponent.
The docherty footage is different. I think this is design. Sure make him charge back, but I think the idea is to try and make someone accountable for him with the only problem being we didn't get our hands on the footy. Maybe he misread the situation and could have done more to fix it, but I heard a spot on the radio regarding a stoppage and how Geelong beat Richmond on Friday and it discussed Mitch Duncan's positioning at a defensive contest and how he chose to line up attacking side of it because the Tigers want you to defend and this is a weak spot if you make them do it. The bulldogs aren't dissimilar. Make them defend and they'll struggle a bit.
For the plowman bashers keep an eye on how these plays both unfold. You'll notice he's stuck covering two men by himself in both circumstances. It happens a lot and thats why the opposition score through his man frequently. Its not because he's crap, its because he's covering too many.
The end of the footy told the story better of why we lost to the bulldogs. We had Judd once. Would win games by himself against opposition frequently irrespective of how good they were. The bont did it again to us. His last quarter was kouta sequence from the 99 preliminary final.
It's a bit of a Catch22 with Jones.
Yep they highlighted his mistakes.
He backed himself and got caught out.
How many times does he back himself and it pays off with a spoil or an intercept mark?
There's 'stuff' he could do better...but we don't want to eradicate a strength.
What Jones did was wrong, whether that is through ignorance or design, but that is clearly not the issue, we have less numbers in D50 than the opposition. The lack of urgency in particular from both Doc and Jones.
But you could argue that Jones may been instructed not to be dragged back to the square eliminating his intercept marking, so are the comments from Lyon and Healy deliberately naivé just to stir the pot?
I fear this is again Barker's mates helping him dodge a bullet!
As I said elsewhere, we simply don't know if he stuffed up or if he's playing to instruction, because we don't have access to behind the scenes information. I like Jones, and him getting to 150 games is Lazarus-like IMO. But I think he's the type of player that really needs a simple task, and he will stick to it diligently and do a good job. I'm not convinced that he has a high footy IQ, or that he's good at thinking on his feet.
I think we can say after the first 8 rounds that Teague simply believing he can outscore the opposition, how matter how many goals they kick, is flawed, at least with the personnel we have available. The concentration of goals among too few players is a big concern of mine. If Harry has an off day, or Betts is injured / rested, then we're stuffed IMO.
It's a bit of a Catch22 with Jones.
Yep they highlighted his mistakes.
He backed himself and got caught out.
How many times does he back himself and it pays off with a spoil or an intercept mark?
There's 'stuff' he could do better...but we don't want to eradicate a strength.
Yes, I agree. I wouldn't worry too much about Fox Footy. Their stock in trade is to sensationalise and exaggerate the negatives.
Jones leaks goals.... If a forward kicks three on you he has done his job imo.
Weitering aside our defense doesn't get the basics right often enough and that is stop your man getting the ball and scoring.
I never mark defenders on possessions it's who they played on and what their opponent did during the game.
The end of the footy told the story better of why we lost to the bulldogs. We had Judd once. Would win games by himself against opposition frequently irrespective of how good they were. The bont did it again to us. His last quarter was kouta sequence from the 99 preliminary final.
That's exactly what Cripps has been trying to do - go up a gear, inspire his team mates and lead his team to victory. Except Bont is labelled a hero and Cripps is labelled selfish.
That's exactly what Cripps has been trying to do - go up a gear, inspire his team mates and lead his team to victory. Except Bont is labelled a hero and Cripps is labelled selfish.
As Dirty Harry once said "A man has to know his limitations ".
That's exactly what Cripps has been trying to do - go up a gear, inspire his team mates and lead his team to victory. Except Bont is labelled a hero and Cripps is labelled selfish.
Sometimes its as simple as you aren't as good as him and we don't need you to be.
Cripps game this season has been a bit more sacrificial and I'd wager him out and someone else in would result in negating the influence of walsh more to get a net go backwards.
Cripps has had a couple of ordinary weeks in what is his worst season yet so if he stuck to the basics and did those well he'd draw less ire and criticism for it. Get the ball and give it.
He got the monkey off his back against the bombers and then put it straight back on against the bulldogs. I still don't know why we don't use him like we did kouta through his struggle years. Put him back not forward. Its a place where he'll win more contests and build some confidence.
That's exactly what Cripps has been trying to do - go up a gear, inspire his team mates and lead his team to victory. Except Bont is labelled a hero and Cripps is labelled selfish.
Cripps role is to get the ball to the players who can be the match winners.. Bont can do both roles and be the provider and the finisher.
As Dirty Harry once said "A man has to know his limitations ".
"Well do ya ..
punk?"
In that video clip when Jones jogs across the CHB, our left-hand HFF, Wing & HBF has been sucked across the centre into the contest way before Jones floats across.
If they want Jones and Weitering to keep intercept marking those utilities who operate in the flank to flank zone need to float back to make up defensive numbers, or else at every contest we'll be outnumbered in defence.
If we want to maintain numbers at the contest, then it's up to our forwards to float down and potentially leave their opponents behind, but we better stop bombing the ball into F50 if we do that!
Owies gave us a perfect example of that concept of rolling back to assist in D50, and it stood out like dogs balls because we just never see Carlton players doing it!
Does all this sound familiar?
In that video clip when Jones jogs across the CHB, our left-hand HFF, Wing & HBF has been sucked across the centre into the contest way before Jones floats across.
If they want Jones and Weitering to keep intercept marking those utilities who operate in the flank to flank zone need to float back to make up defensive numbers, or else at every contest we'll be outnumbered in defence.
If we want to maintain numbers at the contest, then it's up to our forwards to float down and potentially leave their opponents behind, but we better stop bombing the ball into F50 if we do that!
Owies gave us a perfect example of that, and it stood out like dogs balls because we just never see Carlton players doing it!
Does all this sound familiar?
Spot on, this is what happens every week.........ie I saw Stocker last week forced to man Bruce up deep down back...real smart.
Spot on, this is what happens every week.........ie I saw Stocker last week forced to man Bruce up deep down back...real smart.
Carlton fans have to be more cynical about the motives of guys like Healy and Lyon, the week before we play the Dees they are basically calling for Jones and Weitering to stop intercept marking, that is the direct consequence of doing what Healy and Lyon demand, stop doing what Lever/May do.
I'd assert that would be a worse outcome, and the best case is to have the utilities even up the numbers and leave Jones and Weitering doing a Lever/May!
PS; Above I stated what Jones did was wrong, but not wrong because of action, wrong because of location. He was in no-mans land, not deep enough off the stoppage to get an intercept mark, and too far forward to get back on his opponent. A clearing kick was going over his head and short kick wouldn't give him time to close. All he had to do was push back 10m and he'd be in a better position for covering both options and for a turnover spread if we won the footy. Of course if one of our flanks or wing had dropped D50 side across CHB that space he was guarding would have been covered forcing the Dogs to run the footy!
For the plowman bashers keep an eye on how these plays both unfold. You'll notice he's stuck covering two men by himself in both circumstances. It happens a lot and thats why the opposition score through his man frequently. Its not because he's crap, its because he's covering too many.
Thank you.
I was going to say the same thing. Plowman always gets the short straw and covers for blokes. That's why he polls well in the best and fairest, because he does team things and puts amaretto on his back in the process...
But continues to do them.
@LP Sure Jones might be playing to instruction...(I doubt it because being 25m out from the contest is in no man's land. Can't tackle players coming out of the contest because he's too far away.....but he's too close so the ball can still be kicked over his head.)
But...even if he is playing to instruction...he needs to be smart enough to know the risk/reward result of his positioning.
If it comes on, we get the turnover, great...but chance of us getting a turnover from THAT position is highly unlikely as I mentioned before.
If it doesn't come off, then we pay the ultimate price more often than not...a goal. So he's got to play the %s.
If that was plowman in that position, you can bet your butt he'd run back to cover.
Maybe if C. Curnow gets back, McGovern can be that intercept marker across half back. Kemp also when fit and ready can fit the role but both him and Parks are still learning the game and you can't expect them to be the next Jeremy Howe yet..
@LP
Sure Jones might be playing to instruction...(I doubt it because being 25m out from the contest is in no man's land. Can't tackle players coming out of the contest because he's too far away.....but he's too close so the ball can still be kicked over his head.)
But...even if he is playing to instruction...he needs to be smart enough to know the risk/reward result of his positioning.
As I stated, what he did in that instance was wrong, but worng in implementation not necessarily in tactic if he is instructed to intercept at all costs.
If he was instructed to hold that ground at that spacing it was tactically wrong, but I'd assert the bigger error was for the fat side players to get sucked across the middle into the contest was a even bigger evil. I note our VFL coach stated as much about LOB last weekend, failing to hold his ground wide of the contest, it's a fundamental error.
A bigger question for Carlton fans might be. Are we doing this because of the shortcomings of our midfield, do our outside players feel obliged to get in and help the slower types in Cripps, Walsh and Ed? Do we have the midfield balance wrong?
What Healy and Lyon complain about is a smokescreen, a diversion from the truth, I've no idea why but we can speculate.
As a Plowman basher I think he has been okay the last couple of weeks however....
From level 3 at Marvel I watched him closely against the dogs and he was deliberately giving his man 15 metres to dare them to kick it to him, backing himself to get to the contest and spoil.
That works fine if you're playing on fringe players but that's not going to work on the elite guys who always smash him
As a Plowman basher I think he has been okay the last couple of weeks however....
From level 3 at Marvel I watched him closely against the dogs and he was deliberately giving his man 15 metres to dare them to kick it to him, backing himself to get to the contest and spoil.
That works fine if you're playing on fringe players but that's not going to work on the elite guys who always smash him
Its also a tactic to get your opponent further away from goal.
Give them some space and they will increase it.... close up that space again... and they will increase it again. Eventually they are up around the wing and will not hurt you on the scoreboard.
What Healy and Lyon complain about is a smokescreen, a diversion from the truth, I've no idea why but we can speculate.
Where do I start with this??
I don't know what their agenda is, but they must have one. What they are talking about (although we all agree is a problem) cannot be the real problem. Why would someone be speaking the truth with no hidden agenda? :o ::) :D
Teague has stated many times that he wants the boys playing on instinct, and that he believes they have good skills and wants them to take advantage of that. It has been discussed that he keeps strategy and game plan mechanics to a minimum (Diesel joked when he was working for us recently that "Teaguey doesn't do too much."). One potential problem with that is too many of the players want to do the flashy stuff, and not enough want to get their hands dirty.
The other issue is that you would hope the players have good instincts if you want them playing on that level. I think Teague has gone too far in the freedom direction, and maybe not all the boys have good enough instincts, and may need more comprehensive instructions.
Where do I start with this??
I don't know what their agenda is, but they must have one. What they are talking about (although we all agree is a problem) cannot be the real problem. Why would someone be speaking the truth with no hidden agenda?
That's where your gross assumption goes wrong, you assume we agree! ;)
As mentioned earlier, the stark difference between what the critics say and what a club like Melbourne do is exposed in the two very video clips they offer as a comparison between Carlton and Melbourne, as evidence those clips are not referentially consistent with the verbal complaints and critiques that Healy and Lyon make. It's obvious that Melbourne have excess defensive numbers, they even highlight it the Melbourne numbers in the clip!
That observation by the way is quite consistent with what both of us have been saying in defence of Plowman for weeks and weeks now. If Lyon and Healy are deemed to be right we must be at least partially wrong about Plowman.
I doubt we are wrong about Plowman, and I'm sure no matter what Jones or Doc do they more often than not will lose if the contest is 4 versus 6, regardless of where they position themselves!
Lyon is crowing because the Dees are flying and its down back where they have improved so he can use May and Lever to compare with our defense which is still work in progress and not settled.
You usually have to build a good defensive unit first before you can really push up the ladder and we are still getting the pieces together with newbies like Stocker, Parks learning the ropes.
Marchbank is probably the missing link in terms of inbetween size defenders to help cover for Jones wandering around and like I said it may be time when McGovern is fit and maybe Charlie is back to bite the bullet and get McGovern down back in that Jeremy Howe type role so Jones can stay stay at home more.
Plowman does get some tough gigs because he is that inbetween size defender at 191cm and its probably time some of that work got shared with other players ie McGovern 191cm and Parks 192cm when he is ready and learned more about senior AFL footy.
A bit off topic I know, but related in a way.
AFL / AFL Media and AFL Coaching has become so nepotistic I can't trust any of it any more. The AFL Executive was hell bent on breaking this trend, bloated past players earning bloated wages for life in burgeoning jobs for the boys scenarios. Now it seems the AFL has given up and put it in the too hard basket, and is perhaps in a situation that is even worse than before, of course it may never have been a genuine attempt!
Noble will be the next to fall!
Fans will claim that is proof blokes like Noble, Bolton and Fagan are high risk and are likely to fail. But I'd assert they fail not purely because of ability, but because they are working within a system that doesn't favour them, they are outsiders, they will always be outsiders! The AFL perhaps missed a trick, in that it should have put them all at one club and removed the influence of the old boys! Maybe this is Tasmania's way in!
How do you get access to an unequivocal unbiased opinion in the AFL media?
This whole thread is built on the argy-bargy between two former Melbourne FC greats, the week before we play them!
Who should we trust?
You can keep moving the goalposts until doomsday finding a reason(s) why coaches fail. Plenty of coaches that have played at the top level have failed. If the old boys were that keen for their mates to coach, there's plenty of them around. Wasn't the Shinboner of the Century on the committee that selected Noble ?
There is no logical reason why someone who has played up to SANFL, WAFL etc. level can't be a successful coach. Certain dubious types whose idea of football knowledge is essentially a bunch of rote learned sporting cliches from 1973 will tell you that the players won't "respect" someone who hasn't played AFL, but if that's the case I suggest the problem is the immaturity and naivety of the players themselves. Why would they respect this type of person if they are an assistant coach, instead of senior coach ? What's the difference ?
That's where your gross assumption goes wrong, you assume we agree! ;)
What we all agree on is that what Jones did was wrong.
If you can't agree on that, then i don't know what to say.
I watched the replay last night and paused it after the very first bounce. I could not believe it. Pittonet taps fwd not down. SO if he wins the very first tap fwd you would expect we would set up to have at least 1 CFC player in that area. NO!! Bulldogs had 2 there! Alone! And one was Bont. Sorry don't care if its Barker or Teague setting that up. You wouldn't set up like that in under 12's. Pretty sure they killed us in first 10 minutes. And this was the first bounce. You have to see it to believe it.
My disappointment is in the thinking behind this. Pitt is against there 3rd ruck man. You should expect to win the tap. He hits fwd. Not back or sideways. Beggars Belief
Sometimes its as simple as you aren't as good as him and we don't need you to be.
Cripps game this season has been a bit more sacrificial and I'd wager him out and someone else in would result in negating the influence of walsh more to get a net go backwards.
Cripps has had a couple of ordinary weeks in what is his worst season yet so if he stuck to the basics and did those well he'd draw less ire and criticism for it. Get the ball and give it.
He got the monkey off his back against the bombers and then put it straight back on against the bulldogs. I still don't know why we don't use him like we did kouta through his struggle years. Put him back not forward. Its a place where he'll win more contests and build some confidence.
Yes, I’ve been wondering if there’s a way to engineer him behind the ball to use his height/marking strength to push us back into F50, god knows his strength isn’t kicking it between the big sticks…
The end of the footy told the story better of why we lost to the bulldogs. We had Judd once. Would win games by himself against opposition frequently irrespective of how good they were. The bont did it again to us. His last quarter was kouta sequence from the 99 preliminary final.
Okay, sell Cripps and buy Bont.
Okay, sell Cripps and buy Bont.
Sell cripps and buy a cloning machine and use it on Sam Walsh.
Is Cripps to dominate every thread?
News of Cripps demise shows just how shallow many fans are!
The rock throwers are as weak minded, easily flipped and shallow as those CheatsFC recruiters that laughed at the fat kid!
Blues midfield the easiest apart from Nth to play against according to afl.com.
Zero manning up and accountability from our mids just means extra pressure on the defense. Its either a fail on the players or the coaching staff and we won't improve until we fix it and its hard then to criticise a overwhelmed defense.
Blues midfield the easiest apart from Nth to play against according to afl.com.
Zero manning up and accountability from our mids just means extra pressure on the defense. Its either a fail on the players or the coaching staff and we won't improve until we fix it and its hard then to criticise a overwhelmed defense.
Yep.
https://www.afl.com.au/news/612654/got-the-blues-the-numbers-behind-carlton-s-midfield-malaise
I watched the replay last night and paused it after the very first bounce. I could not believe it. Pittonet taps fwd not down. SO if he wins the very first tap fwd you would expect we would set up to have at least 1 CFC player in that area. NO!! Bulldogs had 2 there! Alone! And one was Bont. Sorry don't care if its Barker or Teague setting that up. You wouldn't set up like that in under 12's. Pretty sure they killed us in first 10 minutes. And this was the first bounce. You have to see it to believe it.
My disappointment is in the thinking behind this. Pitt is against there 3rd ruck man. You should expect to win the tap. He hits fwd. Not back or sideways. Beggars Belief
110% agree. When you watch the actual game like you and I obviously did there is no doubting we are crying out for a ruckman who actually knows how to ruck and not just tap it forward blindly. Even against as you say a third backup ruckman who played 2 games he still at times when he had a clear unopposed tap would just hit it forward. Numb nuts.
Only one more week to get frustrated about it then TDK gets his turn. Watch Cripps form improve when he get some direct taps his way. Our midfield is undermanned as it is so having to fight and bash for every takeaway at every contest is bloody draining on even the best midfield groups.
@ Shawny
Cripps may benefit around the stoppages with better ruck service but he still will have the major problem of getting to contested ball situations to overcome. He is too often too far behind the play to be effective and just can't seem to make up the ground quickly enough.
110% agree. When you watch the actual game like you and I obviously did there is no doubting we are crying out for a ruckman who actually knows how to ruck and not just tap it forward blindly. Even against as you say a third backup ruckman who played 2 games he still at times when he had a clear unopposed tap would just hit it forward. Numb nuts.
You imbicile.
Perhaps YOU should watch the game again. He is saying that Pittonets 'go-to' is to tap it forward.
At the very first bounce, we didn't have anyone forward to tap it too. That is a midfield set up problem.
So Pittonet attempted to tap it down to to his right side, where Cuningham and Cripps had the space between them covered. Despite getting his body taken out and falling flat on his back, Pittonet still got the hitout to the spot were it was the most benificial to the way our mids had set up.
However, Cripps failed to pick the ball up off the ground, and the bulldogs swooped in and got the clearance.
What hitman is saying, and its what i was saying, Pittonet was NOT the problem, but our midfield was the problem. We set up in a way that took away one of Pittonets strengths, that is hitting it forward.
You have been on his back peddling BS like the above, the facts are there for all to see.
Go watch the first bounce again, and reread Hitmans post.
I watched the replay last night and paused it after the very first bounce. I could not believe it. Pittonet taps fwd not down. SO if he wins the very first tap fwd you would expect we would set up to have at least 1 CFC player in that area. NO!! Bulldogs had 2 there! Alone! And one was Bont. Sorry don't care if its Barker or Teague setting that up. You wouldn't set up like that in under 12's. Pretty sure they killed us in first 10 minutes. And this was the first bounce. You have to see it to believe it.
My disappointment is in the thinking behind this. Pitt is against there 3rd ruck man. You should expect to win the tap. He hits fwd. Not back or sideways. Beggars Belief
Just on this, and i explained it to numbnuts (his word), I've just had a scan of centre bounce hitouts and the bulldogs clearly won the 'setup' battle at them. Funnily enough, when Sweet got hands on the ball first (usually at bounces that should've been recalled mind you) we got the clearance. When Pittonet got it, our players were slow to react and/or fumbled.
There was a couple of times where Pittonet grabbed it out of the ruck himself. Usually because the way the ball was bounced meant he couldn't hit it to where our players was, so he took it upon himself to get the clearance.
On a couple of other occassions he belted the ball forward.
- One almost reached the corner of the centre square before the dogs flankers/wings got to the loose ball first.
- One was headed towards the wing/hff where cottrell just followed his man to the ball (Cottrell looked stuffed) and they got the clearance as a result.
What i saw was a frustrated ruck who was winning the hitouts but his teammates were being beaten in the centre bounce setups, and the players on the square were too slow to react. Cripps not being able to bend down properly resulted in at least 3 dogs clearances.....and he was off the ground for the first 5 minutes of game time in the 3rd. Casboult took a lot of ruckwork during this time too.
You imbicile.
Perhaps YOU should watch the game again. He is saying that Pittonets 'go-to' is to tap it forward.
At the very first bounce, we didn't have anyone forward to tap it too. That is a midfield set up problem.
So Pittonet attempted to tap it down to to his right side, where Cuningham and Cripps had the space between them covered. Despite getting his body taken out and falling flat on his back, Pittonet still got the hitout to the spot were it was the most benificial to the way our mids had set up.
However, Cripps failed to pick the ball up off the ground, and the bulldogs swooped in and got the clearance.
What hitman is saying, and its what i was saying, Pittonet was NOT the problem, but our midfield was the problem. We set up in a way that took away one of Pittonets strengths, that is hitting it forward.
You have been on his back peddling BS like the above, the facts are there for all to see.
Go watch the first bounce again, and reread Hitmans post.
Imbecile? Aren’t you a moderator?
Are personal comments now acceptable or are you just one of those typical keyboard warrior ‘tough guy’ hiding behind your computer screen?
Tosser.
Just on this, and i explained it to numbnuts (his word), I've just had a scan of centre bounce hitouts and the bulldogs clearly won the 'setup' battle at them. Funnily enough, when Sweet got hands on the ball first (usually at bounces that should've been recalled mind you) we got the clearance. When Pittonet got it, our players were slow to react and/or fumbled.
There was a couple of times where Pittonet grabbed it out of the ruck himself. Usually because the way the ball was bounced meant he couldn't hit it to where our players was, so he took it upon himself to get the clearance.
On a couple of other occassions he belted the ball forward.
- One almost reached the corner of the centre square before the dogs flankers/wings got to the loose ball first.
- One was headed towards the wing/hff where cottrell just followed his man to the ball (Cottrell looked stuffed) and they got the clearance as a result.
What i saw was a frustrated ruck who was winning the hitouts but his teammates were being beaten in the centre bounce setups, and the players on the square were too slow to react. Cripps not being able to bend down properly resulted in at least 3 dogs clearances.....and he was off the ground for the first 5 minutes of game time in the 3rd. Casboult took a lot of ruckwork during this time too.
Omg you’re such a wanker 😂😂
Imbecile? Aren’t you a moderator?
Are personal comments now acceptable or are you just one of those typical keyboard warrior ‘tough guy’ hiding behind your computer screen?
Tosser.
No. I look after the ladies lounge and thats it.
Notice how your replies have moved away from all things football because you have been proven wrong.....again....and you have no other alternative to go the personal attack.
I've been there done that and i'd prefer to be able to call out BS when i see it.....and i do.
No. I look after the ladies lounge and thats it.
Notice how your replies have moved away from all things football because you have been proven wrong.....again....and you have no other alternative to go the personal attack.
I've been there done that and i'd prefer to be able to call out BS when i see it.....and i do.
Another diversion. And more dribble.
Goodbye.
Let's cut out the personal abuse guys. Thanks.
Good rucks do not tap blindly or predictably to a predetermined space, they take not of what is happening around them and adjust accordingly.
But even so, regardless of Pittonet's shortcomings it might not be 100% his fault, who is the stoppage coach?
Pittonet started ok today but just got worn down as he tired vs a very good and tall opponent in Gawn whose ruckwork after half time was a factor IMO. Doesnt mean Pittonet was bad, its just hard vs a very good opponent when you dont have any decent backup and the conditions make it harder again.
Pittonet started ok today but just got worn down as he tired vs a very good and tall opponent in Gawn whose ruckwork after half time was a factor IMO. Doesnt mean Pittonet was bad, its just hard vs a very good opponent when you dont have any decent backup and the conditions make it harder again.
We, the MC, basically left Gawn roving half the contests even when he didn't compete, Pittonet and Levi couldn't keep up with him. Pittonet was caught in no-mans land a dozen times when his team-mates depended on him having an influence in the marking contest.
Good rucks do not tap blindly or predictably to a predetermined space, they take not of what is happening around them and adjust accordingly.
But even so, regardless of Pittonet's shortcomings it might not be 100% his fault, who is the stoppage coach?
Sheedy must be paying Barker's salary, to deliberately keep us near the bottom lol. You know LIddle can't resist a freebie. 8)
Sheedy must be paying Barker's salary, to deliberately keep us near the bottom lol. You know LIddle can't resist a freebie. 8)
Maybe the resident Pavlov's Dog (Trained to lose) is Barker?
Maybe the resident Pavlov's Dog (Trained to lose) is Barker?
Maybe. Stanton might be a Sheedy plant as well. 8)
I'm sure we could find upgrades on both Barker and Stanton. But I think, in all honesty, what we need more than anything is stability and unity over the short to medium term.
Maybe. Stanton might be a Sheedy plant as well. 8)
I'm sure we could find upgrades on both Barker and Stanton. But I think, in all honesty, what we need more than anything is stability and unity over the short to medium term.
Barker has been there through 3 senior coaches, one might be bad luck!
Barker has been there through 3 senior coaches, one might be bad luck!
Not the stability of one assistant coach - stability of the entire club, and most certainly stability and continuity of the football department.
@PaulP Some of our MC must have shares in Cluedo!
So all we need to do is get Bolts back as an assistant coach to fix the defence and Bob's you're uncle.
AFL: Carlton coach David Teague says Blues’ defence is team’s biggest issue
Carlton faces another year of missed finals and the fans are well and truly fed up. But what has really brought the club down this year?
Jay Clark
Carlton coach David Teague has pinpointed his team’s defensive let-downs as its greatest failing as another finals series looks to go begging.
Carlton has slipped to 13th on the ladder with a 4-7 record after, on Sunday, conceding 100 points to the opposition for the sixth time this season in the 22-point loss to Sydney Swans.
The Blues meet West Coast in Sydney this round and have already been told they will be able to return home to Victoria immediately after the game to spend their bye break in Melbourne.
Carlton needs a dramatic turnaround in form over the next month or its finals drought will continue into an eighth year (2013).
Teague has repeatedly made clear he wants the Blues to be an offensively potent team since he took over from Brendon Bolton. But it is their inability to restrict the opposition at the other end which has cruelled their ambitions in 2021.
“Particularly from an offensive point of view, we are scoring more than average, but defensively we are allowing too many scores,” Teague said on Fox Footy.
“And some of those scores are just too easy.
“Some efforts we have addressed over the past few weeks haven’t been good enough, particularly when you are wearing the navy blue jumper.”
The Blues were open about their desire to climb back into the eight this season, especially after loading up at the trade table on Essendon’s Adam Saad, Giant Zac Williams and Geelong small forward Lachie Fogarty.
It came after splashing big money on key forward Mitch McGovern from Adelaide but it is a deal that is yet to pay dividends for the Blues, amid a frustrating run of injuries.
Teague said the club’s current predicament was hurting the players as they weren’t able to play their way for long enough in games.
“There is a level of frustration, particularly from the playing group, that we are probably showing for periods of games that we can be competitive, but we are not doing it for four quarters,” Teague said.
“We are not doing it for 120 minutes and when we don’t we are getting hurt on the scoreboard.
“It’s the ‘how’ that is probably the bit (we need to fix), we have got to go on to it.”
There is pressure on Teague to deliver the club to a finals campaign with speculation Carlton is targeting Fremantle midfielder Adam Cerra to round out the midfield brigade.
Carlton continues to remain optimistic Charlie Curnow will return from a horrible run of knee injuries in Round 16 or 17 but Teague said a firm time frame had not been set.
Blues’ great Marc Murphy was made the injury substitute on Sunday but had little impact, gathering five possessions.
“We also want to bring players in that are performing well and add to the team and understand and can execute their role,” he said.
So all we need to do is get Bolts back as an assistant coach to fix the defence and Bob's you're uncle.
You know the funny thing about all that, i remember a press conference where Bolton basically said he was at a loss on how to fix the disconnect between mids and forwards. He said he'd lock the assistant coaches in a room to sort it out.
The next week we won.
Teague was the forwards coach at the time.
Teague solved Boltons problem.......for a week at least.
We have a lot of deja vu games where the same opposition player cuts us up and we seem to be slow learners.
The Heeney matchup was vital and went a long way to costing us the game.....3 Brownlow votes last game and it will be ditto this season.
Have a plan A and a plan B......do something different when its not working, work out before the game that Heeney and Hayward are very strong in the air and get the matchups right. You pick a backline to suit the opposition and that might change each week and you need a group of defenders not just a set six to be able to handle different opposition setups. Jones and Weitering cant be everywhere saving the day......
You know the funny thing about all that, i remember a press conference where Bolton basically said he was at a loss on how to fix the disconnect between mids and forwards. He said he'd lock the assistant coaches in a room to sort it out.
The next week we won.
Teague was the forwards coach at the time.
Teague solved Boltons problem.......for a week at least.
I thought similar but different at the time of his sacking, our fwd line at the time was shambolic, who was the fwd line coach? None other than Mr D Teague. I think I wrote at the time that IMO, some assistants are at clubs just waiting for the opportunity to sit in the big chair. One in that position could almost manufacture such an opportunity for himself. I mean what does it say about you when your line is the worst performing?
I thought similar but different at the time of his sacking, our fwd line at the time was shambolic, who was the fwd line coach? None other than Mr D Teague. I think I wrote at the time that IMO, some assistants are at clubs just waiting for the opportunity to sit in the big chair. One in that position could almost manufacture such an opportunity for himself. I mean what does it say about you when your line is the worst performing?
Same scenario, different thought process.
Bolton, IMO, was NOT listening to his assistants enough.
When he left it to them, we won.
When one of them took over, we won.
We instantly became a better side, and continue to be a better side.
So to me, thats on Bolton, not Teague tanking.
Pretty sure Bolton was struggling before Teague came on board too IIRC.
Forgive me for going over old territory, but the first example of out bolton in teague change was playing Charlie closer to goals rather than half forward wasnt it?
At the time it was mooted that Bolts was having a hard time relinquishing the reigns. We recently had a micro manager take over at work with interesting results. The same team being looked at pretty hard, yet nothing happening about it...
Bolton was a poor match day tactician and did he his best work 9-5 during the week at training.
Teague is also struggling on match day, our assistants have been next to useless as well.
We dont have a definitive gamestyle and also struggle with team selection and reading what the opposition are going to do.
Its a real worry when teams beat you with the same plans/same players year in year out and we keep pulling the wrong levers in the coaching box. Its even deja vu in the coaching box...nothing worse than that camera shot of Teague like Bolton looking helpless and paralysed unable to think and Barker clueless next to him.
Bolton was a poor match day tactician and did he his best work 9-5 during the week at training.
Teague is also struggling on match day, our assistants have been next to useless as well.
We dont have a definitive gamestyle and also struggle with team selection and reading what the opposition are going to do.
Its a real worry when teams beat you with the same plans/same players year in year out and we keep pulling the wrong levers in the coaching box. Its even deja vu in the coaching box...nothing worse than that camera shot of Teague like Bolton looking helpless and paralysed unable to think and Barker clueless next to him.
I think we(Carlton) suffer from a lack of understanding about modern football, the appointment of Malthouse fairly confirmed that for me, we thought one geriatric could out coach a panel of experienced opposition.
Modern AFL match days needs a panel of high performers, coaching very well, to have success. One weak link and you are doomed, and we've too many B-Graders in supplementary roles. It's no good guys like Barker solving the problem three days after the game!
But it's a problem that is rife in the AFL, they ones that stick around are often megalomaniacs who think they know best, and if you have an executive that spends all day sniffing armpits instead of cutting the weeds you are stuffed!
I think we(Carlton) suffer from a lack of understanding about modern football, the appointment of Malthouse fairly confirmed that for me, we thought one geriatric could out coach a panel of experienced opposition.
Modern AFL match days needs a panel of high performers, coaching very well, to have success. One weak link and you are doomed, and we've too many B-Graders in supplementary roles. It's no good guys like Barker solving the problem three days after the game!
But it's a problem that is rife in the AFL, they ones that stick around are often megalomaniacs who think they know best, and if you have an executive that spends all day sniffing armpits instead of cutting the weeds you are stuffed!
Like how Chris Fagan is doing at 59?
Like how Chris Fagan is doing at 59?
59 and 73 are quite different.
The men themselves are likely different too.
I still maintain that any coach coaching any way can be successful but our footy club likes to get involved and get in the way of allowing them to do their job the way they want to.
I wonder if we had our time over again if Murphy would have been made captain.
That still may prove to be the right decision based on how we go.
A telling stat, we no longer bleed talent. Something is happening better than it used to although we are about to he tested there again.
59 and 73 are quite different.
The men themselves are likely different too.
I still maintain that any coach coaching any way can be successful but our footy club likes to get involved and get in the way of allowing them to do their job the way they want to.
I wonder if we had our time over again if Murphy would have been made captain.
That still may prove to be the right decision based on how we go.
A telling stat, we no longer bleed talent. Something is happening better than it used to although we are about to he tested there again.
Who's 73?
Who's 73?
|Sorry I wrote it wrong and I actually thought Mick was a bit older when we sacked him.
Still, the underlying point is no different that the men are different people.
Like how Chris Fagan is doing at 59?
With a team of skilled and experienced assistants, not as an autocrat or in an autocratic manner! Fagan barely interacts with the coaches and players during a quarter, he allows his charges to get on with their job! ;)
Def; autocratic (/ɔːtəˈkratɪk/)adjective- relating to a ruler who has absolute power. "the constitutional reforms threatened his autocratic power"- taking no account of other people's wishes or opinions; domineering. "a man with a reputation for an autocratic management style"Assuming criticisms of Malthouse are ageist, is like assuming criticisms of Hanna Mouncey are mysogynist!
Malthouses problem was his inability to adapt to the changing coaching landscape, perhaps that in itself is a sign father time had passed him by, but if he had been able to adopt a collaborative style and let go the reigns he'd probably still be coaching. But he didn't, in the same way Bolton failed and Ratten before him, they wanted absolute power and choked on it!
I suspect, and have for some time, that our continually failing senior coaches are not solely responsible for their fate, the club seems to be failing to recognise that and the long term tenure of some individuals at the club through this period seems to confirm it. There are very few commonalities left!
Reckon you'd find bugger all difference in outlook between most people aged 59 to 73 anyway.
Autocrat or not, Malthouse suddenly became hopeless only when and because he came to us, just like all the others. 12 months prior, his W/L was excellent and % was the highest of any coach since 2000, and still not bettered. I don't see how in 12 months you can go from hero to zero, except when you realise he finally met his match, the Carlton Coach Killer Club.
The fact that there are people on here, in the general public, and in the media, that are already sharpening their knives for Teague, should tell you everything you need to know.
Autocrat or not, Malthouse suddenly became hopeless only when and because he came to us, just like all the others.
I'd argue that he left a club which had forced a collaborative regime on him, something he did not want, yet a regime that was probably the reason he remained competitive while still there, and we removed him from that environment as was his will, and he hung himself!
In that respect his demise was not sudden at all, but just exposed by the move!
Probably got more to do with the fact that footy and tactics change. Malthouse delivered the pies a wooden spoon in 99. Its forgotten about because it was the launchpad for a relatively succesful period.
I'd argue that he left a club which had forced a collaborative regime on him, something he did not want, yet a regime that was probably the reason he remained competitive while still there, and we removed him from that environment as was his will, and he hung himself!
In that respect his demise was not sudden at all, but just exposed by the move!
I disagree. 5 coaching failures in 20 years is enough circumstantial evidence for mine to point the finger squarely at the club. If Malthouse was the only failure, then sure, I would agree. They all come highly credentialed, flag winners, from successful environments etc., but we'll sort them out, don't you worry about that. Like Sylvester McMonkey McBean's Star Off machine.
I disagree. 5 coaching failures in 20 years is enough circumstantial evidence for mine to point the finger squarely at the club. If Malthouse was the only failure, then sure, I would agree. They all come highly credentialed, flag winners, from successful environments etc., but we'll sort them out, don't you worry about that. Like Sylvester McMonkey McBean's Star Off machine.
I'm not excluding the club, I haven't excluded the club. You're basically arguing Malthouse should be exonerated so the club cannot avoid criticism or responsibility.
I'm arguing the problem was Malthouse and The Club;
Malthouse because the game had game day management practices had past him by, his refusal to change, his refusal to adapt his ways cost him his job.
The Club, because it also lived in the past, appointed a tactically dead autocrat thinking he was a silver bullet. The Club saw a problem in the 2000s, and appointed an 80s solution! It shows just how far out of touch our Board and Executive is or was! They made the same mistake four coaches in a row, and kept blaming the coach when they were really putting the coach's head in a noose!
To this day, some of our game day staff remain, people who have been in residence right through this period of failure, a period through which we demonstrate recidivist losing behaviour, it cannot be a coincidence! It looks to me like somewhere someone in our organisation is a Typhoid Mary, there are not many choices left!
If you go by the stats I showed above for the Pies 2011 season, plus the fact they played off in a GF, plus the results for Collingwood since, it's not unreasonable to conclude that Malthouse was at or near the top of his game when he left the Pies. He didn't fail because he was an autocrat, or the game had passed him by, or because he had a fat cat contract etc. These are simply examples of post hoc rationalism. You see an event without seeing all the moving parts behind the event, and you create a nice neat story to explain it.
If you go by the stats I showed above for the Pies 2011 season, plus the fact they played off in a GF, plus the results for Collingwood since, it's not unreasonable to conclude that Malthouse was at or near the top of his game when he left the Pies. He didn't fail because he was an autocrat, or the game had passed him by, or because he had a fat cat contract etc. These are simply examples of post hoc rationalism. You see an event without seeing all the moving parts behind the event, and you create a nice neat story to explain it.
I can assert the same regarding your perspective of the Malthouse final years at the filth, you have basically attributed all their success to Malthouse and ignored the other moving parts behind the scene!
Don't you see that in your argument?
Yet again you've focussed on The Club in isolation in trying to exonerate The Coach, because it seems to me you want to blame The Club and The Club alone.
Nothing stops The Coach having free will, they chose the path they travelled, and nothing stops The Club imposing a collaborative regime. The club should be bigger than the individual, not bow down to them as they did to Malthouse! By the time The Club gather enough courage to deal with it's mistake, the damage was done and another 5 years lost! Yet to this day The Club has escaped scrutiny.
There is something rotten in The Club, and there is something foolish in The Coach, ............ hubris? Does hubris linger on from the Jack Elliott days, in both the way The Club conducts itself, and in the people it chooses?
I see Pagan and Malthouse as very very similar mistakes, The Club thrashing against the winds of change, the dying of the light!
The demise of Ratten and Bolton were also similar, not just victims of The Club but victims of self-inflicted wounds, Ratten has stated as much in recent times.
I can assert the same regarding your perspective of the Malthouse final years at the filth, you have basically attributed all their success to Malthouse and ignored the other moving parts behind the scene!
Don't you see that in your argument?
Yet again you've focussed on The Club in isolation in trying to exonerate The Coach, because it seems to me you want to blame The Club and The Club alone.
Nothing stops The Coach having free will, they chose the path they travelled, and nothing stops The Club imposing a collaborative regime. The club should be bigger than the individual, not bow down to them as they did to Malthouse! By the time The Club gather enough courage to deal with it's mistake, the damage was done and another 5 years lost! Yet to this day The Club has escaped scrutiny.
There is something rotten in The Club, and there is something foolish in The Coach, ............ hubris? Does hubris linger on from the Jack Elliott days, in both the way The Club conducts itself, and in the people it chooses?
I see Pagan and Malthouse as very very similar mistakes, The Club thrashing against the winds of change, the dying of the light!
The demise of Ratten and Bolton were also similar, not just victims of The Club but victims of self-inflicted wounds, Ratten has stated as much in recent times.
There are many things of which I could be accused, but hopefully not double standards and hopefully not hypocrisy. I am perfectly aware that none of us work in the AFL industry, none of us have in the past or ever will. None of us have played AFL or VFL footy, and we have basically no access to any inner sanctum information. We all sit in a pitch black auditorium, and we all pull out something at random, which is not provable or verifiable, but which we hold up as strong opinion regardless. Of course I am aware that I live in the same post hoc rationalist cul-de-sac as you, even if my previous post was off by one personal pronoun.
Nevertheless, I stand by my opinion about the Club v the Coach. There seems little doubt in my mind that the entire process is stuffed, from selection to support to sacking. Two examples :
1. I read somewhere that the club knew after 6 months that Malthouse was the wrong man. Leaving aside a great many issues that arise from this, I mean....... what ? When I first came across that, I read it about 6 times, with increasing incredulity. How the hell does that happen ? We are supposed to be a professional sporting organisation. There is a wealth of information, exposed form, psychological profiling, interviewing the candidate, what his intentions are, what his game plan will be, how he relates to players / executive / board, interviewing past players, assistants, media work etc. In short, you could analyse his life, game plan, method etc. down to the tiniest detail, but apparently not. We give this guy a million bucks, and the keys to the kingdom, then after 6 months we marginalise and undermine him, then we wonder why results go tits up.
2. Bolton. Bring in a rookie coach, give him the mother of all rebuilds, fill the list with kids and spuds, make him a de facto change manager, don’t replace his mentor, bring in a spy and an assistant coach with whom he has little in common, change key members of the executive and declare the rebuild over, then after 3 years of turbulence and insanity, demand results,
This IMO, is chronic, endemic, systemic mismanagement that would leave the Shepparton Bears feeling embarrassed.
The "evidence" if you can call it that, is there for all to see. Teague has been in a holding pattern for most of his time at Carlton. The benchmark he established in the back half of 2019 has not really improved. That's not a reflection on him or the list IMO. To get to the level required simply takes time, time which no one is really willing to accept. Getting rid of MM or Bolts has not accelerated the process at all, and neither will moving on Teague.
That is one version of the facts Paul....a skewed one.
Lots of half-truths in there. Not worth the effort to go over all that old ground again.
There are many things of which I could be accused, but hopefully not double standards and hopefully not hypocrisy. I am perfectly aware that none of us work in the AFL industry, none of us have in the past or ever will. None of us have played AFL or VFL footy, and we have basically no access to any inner sanctum information. We all sit in a pitch black auditorium, and we all pull out something at random, which is not provable or verifiable, but which we hold up as strong opinion regardless. Of course I am aware that I live in the same post hoc rationalist cul-de-sac as you, even if my previous post was off by one personal pronoun.
Nevertheless, I stand by my opinion about the Club v the Coach. There seems little doubt in my mind that the entire process is stuffed, from selection to support to sacking. Two examples :
1. I read somewhere that the club knew after 6 months that Malthouse was the wrong man. Leaving aside a great many issues that arise from this, I mean....... what ? When I first came across that, I read it about 6 times, with increasing incredulity. How the hell does that happen ? We are supposed to be a professional sporting organisation. There is a wealth of information, exposed form, psychological profiling, interviewing the candidate, what his intentions are, what his game plan will be, how he relates to players / executive / board, interviewing past players, assistants, media work etc. In short, you could analyse his life, game plan, method etc. down to the tiniest detail, but apparently not. We give this guy a million bucks, and the keys to the kingdom, then after 6 months we marginalise and undermine him, then we wonder why results go tits up.
2. Bolton. Bring in a rookie coach, give him the mother of all rebuilds, fill the list with kids and spuds, make him a de facto change manager, don’t replace his mentor, bring in a spy and an assistant coach with whom he has little in common, change key members of the executive and declare the rebuild over, then after 3 years of turbulence and insanity, demand results,
This IMO, is chronic, endemic, systemic mismanagement that would leave the Shepparton Bears feeling embarrassed.
The "evidence" if you can call it that, is there for all to see. Teague has been in a holding pattern for most of his time at Carlton. The benchmark he established in the back half of 2019 has not really improved. That's not a reflection on him or the list IMO. To get to the level required simply takes time, time which no one is really willing to accept. Getting rid of MM or Bolts has not accelerated the process at all, and neither will moving on Teague.
Clap Clap Clap (cant find a clapping hands emoji)
Clap Clap Clap (cant find a clapping hands emoji)
Thanks Nando. There's nothing like a Rum Baba and a doppio ristretto in the morning to sharpen the focus.
The difference between now and then, is that I see Teague is active in deliberately addressing his shortfalls, yet fans still demand his head as the man at the top of the pile! That is neither coach nor club, yet it seems it is valid as a form of pressuring the club to act!
When the media get on the bandwagon, is it that the media directly influences the executive, or is it that the media influences the fan base which asserts pressure on the executive?
Do the media get on the bandwagon because of things the club executive states, or because of things the fan base state?
We are Carlton, ............. We, ............... as abhorrent as that makes you feel! You are Jack Elliott, you are Mark LoGuidice, you are Malthouse, Bolton and Ratten, ............ you are David Teague! You don't get to absolve yourself!