@LP. I'll just add the caveat that not all folk who take an opposing view are acting and debating in bad faith though. They may be wrong but they actually believe in their words and actions. The trick is to keep an open mind... read, watch, listen. Once you close your mind to other opinions you immediately have a bias. Bias often turns to hate. And when you're a hater off goes your head and on goes a pumpkin. That's when the problems start because you can find 'evidence' to support just about any point of view or conspiracy, no matter how ridiculous it might seem on the 'dark old web.' ...and something that we may believe to be true today may not be the case tomorrow.
He'd probably be a little concerned at the comparison Chalk and cheese.
He was always moshe on here as far as I know. He was a regular poster on this site many years ago (back around the Pagan/ Ratten years..or even prior to that. I'm pretty sure he was a member when I joined in 2002), He even did some moderating at one stage. He posted more on TC in recent times but still did the occasional drop in.
I have been in favour of playing two ruckmen but, as I said in the pre-game thread, I was concerned about going into the game with De Koning, Pittonet, Casboult and McKay. My concerns were baseless and all four made solid contributions. However, there are some issues.
Witts is an imposing figure and won the hitouts (and hitouts to advantage). His contribution around the ground was negligible and he didn’t take a mark. Pittonet was very competitive in the ruck contests but had minimal impact around the ground. De Koning was beaten in ruck contests but was influential around the ground and as a high forward. Casboult was used in the ruck more than I expected but wasn’t a success, apart from his marking.
Interestingly, Pittonet spent a third of the game on the bench and De Koning was rested for 25% of the game. De Koning spent time as a forward when not in the ruck but Pittonet went from ruck to the bench. Casboult gave De Koning a spell when Pittonet was off the ground.
I don’t know if that will be the model for future games but can we afford to have two players spending 25% and 33% of the game on the bench? It probably isn’t a major factor with shortened quarters but would having two players on the bench for long periods upset our rotations and the ability of our midfielders to remain competitive?
It may become even more problematic when McGovern gets back....and next year there may be Curnow to fit into the side as well. What do we do with Kreuzer? Hard to see a place for someone like Silvagni as a forward as well.
I thought folks who've been around the Carlton forums for some time will be sad to learn that Moshe (moshe25) passed away this morning. He spent most of his time on TC in recent times but he was a great contributor to this forum in days gone by. As well as keeping us honest in terms of spelling and grammar he also had the ability to keep us honest in terms of our excesses when we got over-enthusiastic in praise or criticism of club, coach and players. A knowledgeable and insightful man RIP
GWS has written a very nice, moving tribute on pge 2 of this thread on TC.
I thought it was very good. Not over cluttered and represented our indigenous players, members and supporters Navy background would have worked well too. Sometimes a simple design is good.
Betts may not be contributing goals. But he's more than worth his spot. His pressure is amongst the best (if not the best) in the forward line. While he may not be kicking the goals himself his actions are creating opportunities. He's ranked =7th in the league for goal assists this season Most importantly he's a player the opposition cant afford to ignore so he commands attention which takes a bit of pressure off others.
When he's near the ball the opposition defenders would still be very nervous.
OUT-Simpson (Beheaded)....not really, but that must have hurt.
We seem to go better when we pace ourselves and build at the end rather than go 'frenetic' at the start. Secret is not to let them get too far ahead that we fall short. You would have to think they used a bit of energy last night
Bower was crippled by injuries. Just when he started to show some signs down he'd go again. When he was fit he was in and out of the side like a yo-yo. Two week injuries stretched into long periods out. He even prompted a heated discussion on this site about the club being less than honest about injuries. Many of us remember those 'deer in the headlight' moments but by that stage his confidence and judgement was shot.
Some extreme opinions on Murphy (both ways). He's still accumulating the ball at a good rate. His body (upper body in particular) is probably pretty close to being a 'shot unit' I blame that in a large part to some of the pathetic support he received from team-mates in his younger years. My concerns with Murphy at the moment is his disposal (47% last night), especially by foot. Some of his turnovers can be costly. But last night he wasn't Robinson Crusoe. Look at the Disposal Efficiency for everyone last night from the AFL stat site .... It's very poor (sure, weather was a factor)
What they gonna take it off us? Good Luck with that.
It's already started.... Wrong decisions.(the downfield)..wrong player took the kick etc. Rather than highlighting the effort to fight back it will all be about the "questionable" finish Compare that to the fuss made over the Robbie Gray kick.
he also had the ability to keep us honest in terms of our excesses when we got over-enthusiastic in praise or criticism of club, coach and players.