Chelsea have the biggest budget in European football. They buy the most expensive attacking players and then play a defensive system.
By even mentioning them you miss the point.
They can buy a new team like we used to back with form 4's
In afl not everyone is on the market, and you can't rotate your squad as quickly in the off season. It takes time or you go backwards.
In Afl things are cyclical. We cut our up short anticipating the up wouldn't get high enough. Maybe too early or not.
Be honest can you see us improving in Port Adelaide fashion, if we change coach and if so why?
Is it the amazing key position talent? The United board pursuing excellence? Do we have a home ground advantage? An abundance of talent stifled by our game plan so that they can no longer hit targets, Hunt the footy, or defend in any capacity?
I'm dying to hear why, the cause for such optimistic expectation under a new coach when carrots, Simpson and Judd are looking a bit tired and the rest below fail to fire weekly.
Bang on. It is inconceivable that a change of coach will suddenly see a bunch of average players become world beaters. So many disfunctional organisations think in the terms of change the top dog and it will turn things around. It has rarely, if ever been a good ploy, and i have worked in some places with such a mentality. In the artificial environment of league footy with salary caps et al it is even less likely to work.
What a sudden change of top dog usually does is either nothing, or chaos as they attempt a whole raft of changes.
I hope Malthouse sticks on and is given a couple of years to keep going. I have no fondness for the guy, he is cantankerous and presents poorly in the media. But, he is not doing the job he was hired to do by a delusional board. The role has changed into a longer term construction of a competitive club from the board down, not just a team that runs out each week. This has ben rocky but appears to have settled.
What is in our favour is that Malthouse is one of the very few I imagine that could front the board and not pull punches about where we are at as an organisation. I cannot see many others sitting with that goulish mob and telling them they have wrecked the joint and it is time to shut up and listen. Something must have got through because we are changing some things. New staff have come in, some poor performers have left, and our drafting for the past two years has direction. Malthouse also knows and has experienced what is required to turn a club and a team around.
There is alot of heavy lifting to come, but the job has started. Flicking the coach for either another old hand or a newbie is not going to get the job done any better, and most likely it would stall.
'Game plan' is one of the misnomers of football in that it implies a clear process or style. Game plans if they can even be called that are a set of preferences ideally or priorities. At the moment, the observation that our game plan is too defensive or negative is more the result of poor skills, lack of confidence and players, especially midfield not running enough, not that the coach is telling them to be stodgy and not play up the middle.
Having confidence in one's skills and the skills of teammates requires also having good skills. So the half back that manages a precise pass into the centre to be marked and carried by a teammate makes a 'game plan' look attacking. Is it a different game plan really? Im not so sure. What I do know is that our half back line and back line often miss targets. If i was coaching, a solution may be to play the wings more often. Do we want Walker or Jamison attempting to hit targets in the middle whenever possible?
As for the game this week, I cant see Watson getting a game. He is not kicking bags in the seconds and lacks the pace to play at league level. Unless this radically changes it is hard to see him selected. Jones has been average, but he has shown some improvement so far. There are other players to drop for poor efforts before Jones.
A send off rule has some merits but is also diluted in its effect in a game with 18 on the park. It is also difficult to enforce in the context of a contact sport where there is great variation in the nature of contacts. For example in soccer the difference between a foul and an action worthy of a yellow or red card tends to be clearer.
Further complicating the picture is the manner in which reports are determined, including concepts of intent and the degree of impact. A send off rule would make this even more complex, with a high degree of subjectivity involved.
The application of discretion by the umpire would be difficult when the range of penalties are expanded by the addition of a send off rule. It increases the area of grey.
I think it works at an amateur level and elevates the umpires with some more authority and clout. At league level, with TV cameras on, it may be less useful.
I may be more positive since i missed last Friday night's match and have no stomach to watch a reply.
Bell has been the most positive player for mine in that he has played all games and looks to have improved in his areas of previous weakness, namely skill and decision making. A big powerful player that can run all day and kick goals.
Cripps has shown more leadership in just a few matches than some of his more senior colleagues. He is a good decision maker already and has a very bright future.
Docherty has shown he is a developing and consistent defender who can make good decisions off half back.
Biggest positive for mine is the emerging realisation that the club as a whole has to pull its finger out. The understanding seems to be creeping in that it is not just 'getting the right people' but getting them to work together effectively. Organisational dynamics are fickle and hard to identify. The club seems to be expressing this now, with its efforts to improve the conduct of its recruitment and development, and grow its support base. Change is happening. We are hearing about alot of problems right now at the club. Good. It's the biggest and most important step to addressing them.
Casboult must stay as he provides the relief ruck option, and an ok one at that. Without him, we would need to turn to Rowe to provide a second ruck option, which is very disruptive to the backline. As we have seen already this season, moving a key defender forward or into the ruck is disruptive and causes as many problems as it solves.
Watson will just have keep working hard in the seconds and he will get his chance.
Big test this week and will show where some of our players are really at against better opposition. Jones has improved each game so far, and many of the issues forward are the result of them getting in each other's way more than a lack of effort. He is a limited player certainly, but he is still quite young and has not played heaps of footy.
Only seen the second half due to the time difference here. We aren't playing well enough at the moment to be sprightly at 3am.
Solid win, inflated by a few easy goals at the end, just what the team needed to boost a bit of morale.
As many have mentioned, best players were Murphy (who got smashed off the ball as far as i could tell), Cripps, Bell and Henderson. Wood played very well in the ruck and actually gets touches which we have lacked the past few years, and Armfield put in with some run. Boekhorst got to plenty of contests, even if he didn't have too much of an impact, but he looks a likely type.
Cripps looked great and is awfully strong over the footy. His bodywork in close is top notch. Bell is improving every game and is starting to return consistent football. He has taken a while but is becoming a solid player. His decision making is improving and as a result he is looking a much better player and kicks goals.
More handball in the middle seemed to help get some cleaner ball forward. Some of the kicking out of defence was a worry when the midfield did not provide options though, showing the middle needs to keep working on run and structure to allow the movement of the footy.
The not so goods are of course Casboult whose kicking is deteriorating (if that is possible) to a point where team mates will not kick to him. I think the club should seek a trade at year's end unless something clicks. Maybe a chat to Lindsey Thomas might help. In any case, a big forward that can't kick goals is not much use. Feel for the guy but he is a liability. Rowe seems to have lost all confidence and is not playing well at all. Ellard's skills are not up to scratch for a league player and Gibbs seems to be choosy when he gets involved, although it is hard to tell from the tv.
Good to see a win. Hopefully a couple of players come back next week and we can give the pies a good shake.
I am not 100% sure how AFL define their Clangers stat however I googled it and Ted Hopkins of Champion Data defines it as a Turnover or mistake. I was staggered to learn that in 2014, Carlton had the fewest total number of Clangers of any Club. You read it correctly, the fewest. 912 for the year to be exact. PA made the most with 1151. So far this year, we have the 4th fewest. So it seems though that we get scored heavily against us from our TO's (or clangers) which means its all about where, who and how we turn it over perhaps.
Most teams if they turnover the ball in their high half forward area are usually cut up. Most teams are pretty effective at setting up around halfback and capitalising on a mistake. Being able to quickly regroup is something the best sides can do, although even the best find it difficult. The hawthorn v bulldogs game on the weekend showed this quite a bit, even the doggies were able to cut through ok at times if they forced a turnover. Hawthorn are good at getting the ball a little deeper in too, which makes it easier to defend a turnover situation. They do this by keeping possession in the middle and getting it delivered from the edge of the square. Good footskills help of course.
This is therefore why perhaps carlton are getting it wrong in that they are delivering forward from too far back. We did much better last week. This week needs to see better conversion to finish it off.
Expecting Daisy to have effected immediate and significant change to our group was a childish expectation. He was brought in for more than his playing but his leadership. Again, patience Grasshopper. Daisy is an important part of our growth.
I too agree. Prefer to think of this as a change management exercise in the context of a salary cap limit and a limited number of players on a list. New folk have to be brought in, but in a complementary way so as not to disrupt things too much. Change has to be undertaken at a pace that can allow many people to grasp and understand what is going on, and then buy in. And in any organisation, this process identifies those resistant and they either change or leave. A corporation of a few thousand people may go through a similar exercise in principle.
Of course results tend to lag the actions, which is why there is a need to communicate change and its purpose. None of this is without risk, and certainly the club has made a big effort to better communicate this process in recent days which was clearly needed.
Leadership is the intangible in any organisation, and despite many efforts to measure and categorise it remains often a subjective quality. I am of the view that bringing Thomas in was a good move as it demonstrated a bit of risk but with a purpose. He is a very good footballer and evidently has some of the qualities that were desired. He is no silver bullet either, which along with injuries have made him a target of criticism. But good leadership is also alot about the conection between people. Those who follow have to have a willingness to listen and consider as well as make a contribution, just like those apparent or annointed leaders. It's a process that is dependent on a feedback loop that if successful functions as a kind of virtuous circle where everyone asks more of each other and everyone is motivated to do better. In reverse it spirals down, replete with blame and finger pointing.
Good points on Curnow and there are a few imbalances currently. We are a bit tall forward too and also back if Henderson plays there along with Jamo and Rowe. Bit of sorting out to come. Not sure how much longer Curnow can keep a spot as he just doesn't do enough with the footy with the few touches he has.
Bit more to like about the side, especially in the last quater where they didn't drop their bundles and it bodes well for next week in so far as they can feel a little more confident.
As to the game, Simpson was very good, Wood rucked well, Cripps did well, despite missing a goal at the end. We are still booting the cover off the thing from half back resulting in easy turnovers. Midfield needs to work harder to provide opportunities across rhe middle so kicks forward can be under less pressure and go about 20 metres deeper. Its a tough ask for forwards to keep the ball in at high half forward.
Shame about Yarran, will probably miss a couple of weeks.
Broekhurst doesn't fill me with any confidence - another Lucas and one way runner
Dillon Rainbow - from all reports nowhere near ready
Clem Smith - is not there yet either.
Nic Graham - not good enough
Nic Hollman - not good enough
Matthew Watson - why is he even at the club
Cameron Giles - has barely played a game. Not likely to provide much anytime soon.
I know I'm missing a bunch of rookies, but seriously, it's a very bare cupboard.
Yes it is a worry. The seconds dont seem to be developing players all that well. Carlton seems to have had a rough time trying to integrate the northern blues with the AFL side and the variously untidy arrangements the past few years may have had an effect.
Ideally, the first year recruits would be unlikely to play a game this year, getting their chances in year 2 or three. This includes Boekhorst, who, despite being notionally 'mature aged' is still very young, and our expectations should reflect this. Buckly is more of a concern as he should be demanding a place. Watson is an odd case, but I fear we have kept him on the list for too long without a clear direction for his role.
Its the more middle of the road players that are a worry. Carlton has done well in a sense with rookie listed players, a few of whom played tonight. But typically rookie players have some major deficiencies and unless a long term effort is made to address them then they continue. Focussed and professional coaching, and a settled reserves structure are the way to do this, and we have not had the ideal arrangements for a long time now.
Shambles of a side, and in case noone else says it, the players must be the most disappointed. Something has gone awfully wrong tonight, more so than last week. They seemed rudderless tonight, against one of the weaker sides in the afl.
Simpson was good, everitt and bell played ok, gibbs got more involved but it fell away really fast after the first quarter. I dont see much point in potting individual players after such a defeat. Suffice to say we have alot of players that would not get a game with many other clubs, and most of all they dont seem to be playing as a team much.
6 clearances (most for Carlton, 3rd most on the ground) 23 possessions (most for Carlton, =4th on ground) 10 contested possessions (=most for carlton, =3rd on ground) 10 tackles (most on ground) 4 inside 50's (=most for carlton, =3rd on ground)
No Impact you say....doesn't say much for the rest of the players.
No it does not. It appears as he was roving to Natinui for periods. What a mess, players must feel utterly dejected.