So half (if not more) of my extended family is geelong. Some of my closest friends are also geelong.
I spoke to all of them asking if they got tickets.
Of the 5 of the most diehard geelong members, none of them got tickets. NOT because they couldnt get tickets, no, because they didnt want tickets!
"Prefer to watch this one at home." "Got a kids sport thing i should go to."
That really bothered me. This mob has been so spoiled for success that its almost beneath them to worry about turning up to such an 'unimportant' finals match. 'We'll see the next one'
I can guarantee you that like the melbourne game, there will be a hell of a lot more carlton supporters than opposition supporters and we'll be 10 times louder too.
This means a lot more to us than it does them. Hopefully the boys feed off our energy and smash the pussycats. They dont deserve it. They dont appreciate it.
The thing here for me is that having Hayward in makes a bloke like Young better because Hayward draws opponents, the ripple effect.
But think of the benefit to Cottrell, Gov, Kemp or Byrne of having Hayward in!
Agree Haywood in does make Youngs position a little easier but reality is the weakest link has to be demoted and its Young IMO
Weakest link individually, maybe.
For team balance? Not even close.
Having Young in the team improves our forwardline.....by keeping Harry there. Improves our backline by allowing to drift back and/or cover for injuries. Improves our ruck by giving Pittonet as much rest as he needs.
We haven't played 2 rucks all year with the exception of our 1st game....and a game where Pittonet was coming back from injury.
1 ruck works for us as our 2nd ruck can't play anywhere else. Unless you are including Young as your 2nd ruck, who clearly can play someone else.......and i'd argue not really a ruck.
We managed to beat Melbourne with 1 ruck who happens to be the best ruck in the game.....ever.....if you listen to the pre-match from Melbourne....and given the AA noms, they have a point.
So why would we change that for Geelong??
Cats will beat us with their smalls (if they beat us at all), so losing one to shore up an area that doesn't need shoring up, is silly IMO.
re Hayward.....if he comes in for anyone, based on form.....it has to be Byrne. He played his worst game, potentially ever. He got the lowest player rating in a carlton jumper (4 out of 10) that i saw in a recent article. They play a very similar role.
Who else could it be? Couldn't be Ollie Hollands after his efforts. Couldn't be Cottrell who could've kicked 4 goals if the posts were slightly wider. Despite not getting a huge amount, Lord did a tagging job, which may also be required this weekend
Talk of Weitering wanting a trade, the club wanting to trade him and/or his alleged demoralising presence in our backline is just baseless "supporter" speculation.
Weitering hates losing games and one-on-one contests but he has never been one to hide his emotions when we win or when one of his teammates does well.
It was quite moving seeing Weiters and Crippa leading the team into the rooms last night
I believe the Weiters trade talk came about through those speculating that the only way we can get Cody W is to trade 'a Weitering' to get the draft picks necessary. Fuelled by the fact that in the past GW has traded 'names'. So then these cabbageheads put two and two together and come up with cottage cheese.
We'll just have to wait to find out what the club strategy is to land Cody. Buckle up.
Before all that, there was a story about north are throwing huge money at Weitering.
I agree it was a really weird game to be at and watch and we were very nervous in the first mostly across the board. Difference for me is I felt confident they would settle and win - but for a myriad of just misses/hit posts, we wouldve won by 6-8 goals! Even when it was teetering it felt like we would win not capitulate, and we didnt.
So sure, skills were lacking at times but our push forward and execution and commitment was a different Carlton outfit to the one from months ago. Just feel… more composed.
I thought despite being behind in the first, we looked like the better team. They couldn't miss, we couldn't kick straight.
I think there was a part in the second/third when they clearly looked better and we managed to ride it out without issue. From there i think we had it in the bag.
One feature of the team's improved performance after the coaching change seems to be the willingness and commitment to forwards selflessly kicking the ball back into the corridor within the forward 50 arc to set up better goal-scoring opportunities - just as well as the forwards still miss goals that they should kick.
I don't think its limited to forward 50.
Overall we are lowering the eyes and finding shorter targets and kicking the long bombs less.
I just checked to get some evidence of this and surprised myself.
R1-9 - long kicks (6th in AFL) R10+ - Long kicks (18th in afl)
R1-9 - Short kicks (13th in AFL) R10+ - Short kicks (1st in afl)
We couldn't kick to save ourselves early on which in part contributed to the long bombs, especially under pressure. Since then, with confidence growing, we are taking more 'risky' kicks and its coming off, leading to more short kick chains of possessions.
Imo, we just need to try and reduce Gawn's marking impact around the ground. Not worried about anything else he does, our mids can ruck to his hitouts.
Rediy would be blown up after the 1st quarter trying to chase Gawn around.
As MBB said, Young as 2nd ruck, specifically when Gawn goes forward is the matchup.
thats why hes an emergency on case pitto doesnt get up.
Irrespective i dont share your dire scenario and dont see the fuss.
I expect everyone to get up, so its all for nothing anyway.
But to be clear....
We are going to lose the ruck even if Pitto plays. We are going to lose the ruck by more if Riedy plays 1st ruck and he will be useless around the ground. We are going to lose the ruck by more if Young is 1st ruck, but at least Young can match it with him around the ground.
I would prefer to sacrifice the ruck completely, leaving it to Young as overall he'd be better matchup for Gawn.
We don't need Young to play on anyone else, so we don't need Reidy......at all IMO.
I think you're looking at Ison as a medium/ tall...comparing him to the likes of Gov, Kemp, Young, Harry etc He doesn't play like that.
This from his draft profile.
Quote
Producing late-season form indicative of the promise he has shown throughout his junior career, Jack Ison fits the mould of new-age draft prospects. Standing at 190cm, he can play anywhere on the ground and moves like a smaller player – not to mention his deadly left-foot kicking. He has an enviable array of traits suited to the way top level football is trending.
Players like Fogarty are racking up big numbers in the VFL, but Ison with much fewer can have an impact with the quality of his. If there is little between the choices...go with the future.
Ison plays more like those players, then as a midfielder. Thats the point i'm making.
Not sure why you guys are kicking up such a fuss. We are already taller. Our emergencies would make us taller again.
Besides Gawn which nobody in the AFL has a matchup for, which of the Dees talls do we need to actually worry about? Kosi.....there's a worry.
I don't care who gets injured from the 23, i'm taking Derkson.
Lewis Young does 2nd ruck duties.....Harry and Cripps help out if we lose Pitto.
Who comes into the emergency spot instead..... Flynn Young is probably first up. Charleson would be close. I'd look at Saad over Fogarty, but both have the experience....if you wanted to go down that path. Otherwise is Zac Williams fit currently?
Boyd has shown better form than Flynn Young neither of them are ahead of Ben Campo or Harry Charleson on season form, not just recent form.
If Derkson is your first choice, then you only bring in Reidy if two players break down and one of them is Pittonet so that makes sense why he is 3rd emergency. If we lost two players, Ison is the mixed size that can play tall or small and is more of a like for like of Hayward who is also missing.
Saad is too one dimensional as a back. Is very much cooked anyway. Fogarty before Ison... Nope. Not buying that. Fogarty looks like he has run his race with Carlton, so playing Ison in a knock out final makes more sense.
Ultimately, when it comes to it, you cant put your money where your mouth is, and are picking on the 3rd emergency insurance option is likely trying to be outraged for being outraged sake.
A better question to be asked is are the emergencies a reflection of whom we have doubts about getting up?
Ben Campo can't kick. With the added pressure of a final. No thanks. Charleson similar, but can kick. Its a matter of experience vs form. Thats why i through up Saad and Fogarty. Both are in my delist pile at years end, but we are trying to win a flag, so while they are on the list, you look at them. Similar with Boyd.
re Reidy....from the most recent form i've seen of him, he will not help us vs Gawn. Won't be able to outpoint him in the ruck. Won't be able to stay with him around the ground.....so why do we bring him in? IMO, we don't. At all.
Ison would be 2nd from that list, but i don't think he helps us given the players we currently have. Harry, Kemp, Gov, Young, Derkson....etc
I'd prefer Moir to Ison too.....despite poor form....is able to make a difference from limited opportunities.
Hopefully, there is no late changes. But i don't want to give the game away if we have 1 (or more) late changes and they are for smaller running types. Kiss the game goodbye. ....and for what?
