I thought the second half against Brisbane was basically similar to last night, just that last night we went at it a bit longer and didn't allow the Dogs to get the same run on. But a lot of it is Cripps, he has the most dominant game I've seen from him in two years, and was continually driving us forward even when we were wasting the footy.
Other than sticking with the plan better and longer, it was basically the same game tactics we've been trying to implement all season. I do find it odd that many only notice it now, after a win, they must be blinded by hatred at other times! To me it's been obvious we have been trying to implement a Lions style of play, I've been writing as much since about Rnd 3 or 4, just that we have been NBG at it!
I thought the young Dogs were not allowed the same degree of freedom, or were incapable of making the same space, that the Lions could.
If we were truly much better we should have won by 5 or 6 goals, I'm still a little disheartened by our tendency to limp to the end.
Not dropping off at any time during the 4 qtrs, not falling 8 goals behind like last week, not getting bowled over in the last half like other weeks. Just 4 qtrs. Might not have been a pretty 4 qtrs, as low scorers are, until the last qtr but we were able to keep going the whole game. Controlling tempo with uncontested marks at times, as 124 marks shows, left us with plenty of run when it mattered. We were smarter in that regard.
There was a period in the game where we'd kicked 1 goal in 45 minutes of football. They kicked 3.3 in that time.
If that was 5.1 or 6.0 goals instead, would that change your thought process?
Lord: was he taken off to be held over? 9 possessions and wasn't seen during the last quarter. (I only saw maybe 20 minutes). I presume Flynn Young is also held over.
Talor Byrne: not getting huge numbers, but 3 goals and making an impact.
I didn't hear Murphys suggestion, but if i was to guess at why he was suggesting it, it would be because its in bad taste. Dancing on the grave of Vossy.
I d suggest Murphy is in no position of credibility to lecture the Carlton Football club on bad taste...
I'm apathetic towards him.
Just trying to give potential insight as it appears to not be clear.
I didn't hear Murphys suggestion, but if i was to guess at why he was suggesting it, it would be because its in bad taste. Dancing on the grave of Vossy.
We know that we have been competitive in most games this year. A few have commented about what happens if we do run out this game and win it - with the implication that it was Voss' inability to change things around, only has one game plan.
What happens if we are blown away - is this a sign of Voss' ability to get the most out of a group, but Fraser can't?
So we rate the stand in coach in one game over a bloke who had 4 and half years???
So you don't rate the stand in coach already?
It must eat you up inside that he's basically gone with the same lineup that the incompetent bloke was going with.
Retiring blokes ahead of time, trading blokes for shiny new objects, simply creates the next batch of people who do a Jack Silvagni, Tom De Koning and Charlie Curnow.
WE as an organisation, need to prove that this is not a place for careers to come and die.
Yes, I believe we have a culture issue in the club too but it is coming from our leaders, not the rank & file.
Persisting with old players who are either past it or not playing to the level required (i.e. just don't give a feck) has a strong ripple effect too.
We kept gifting games to guys like Murphy & Gibbs when they didn't deserve it, everyone else became complacent & lived in the comfort zone.
Time to make a strong stand in this area.
Play some of the younger guys each week, give them 3-4 games and then back to the magoos, at the end of the season, the list management team will be in a much better position to make an informed decision.
You don't want older players. You complain about gifting games to younger players and cite Murphy and Gibbs.
So basically is you want a team full of blokes that deserve a game, where gun kids and aging players don't apply.......and you think these blokes are on the list???
I say we keep those types and trade off ones we get value in - eg Cripps, Harry, Weiters. No point sacking old blokes because they are old. It doesn't help. You 'sack' (trade) old blokes who get you something via trade to help improve your younger crop.
No point giving the old blokes a contract extension too, if they are out of contract then there is nothing to be gained by keeping all of them around.
There is 100% a point, and its been spoken about. Not sure if you've read it, or are ignoring it, but its there.
Derksen kicked 5.2 on the weekend whilst Kemp eked out 0.1.
Most people are completely missing the point here, winning games now is totally irrelevant, we are not going to make finals anyway.
However, what can be salvaged from this trainwreck is a clearer picture of what we have on our playing list.
There are 19-20 players out of contract this year (thanks Nick Austin) meaning that there should be some heavy axings, but who ??
It is imperative that we give some senior games to other players on the list to ascertain who genuinely has a future and who hasn’t.
Besides, we are going nowhere with Saad, Williams & Haynes and they are three of the out of contract guys.
Lets use the remainder of the season as a part building block for the future instead of doing the same crap we have done thus far this season with the same non-performing players.
Yeah lets retire players early again, that will make players want to come to us and we can cut their careers short too!
I think we spoke about this the other day.
I say we keep those types and trade off ones we get value in - eg Cripps, Harry, Weiters. No point sacking old blokes because they are old. It doesn't help. You 'sack' (trade) old blokes who get you something via trade to help improve your younger crop.
Thry mentioned supply and demand....which is the key to all things economic.
In terms of housing though, its not the lack of housing, its the cost. Its too high to buy a house....and/or land. So if you drop the price so that people entering the market can afford something, investors who have some coin to play with look at buying a 2nd, 3rd, 46th property. So the price is increased and 1st home buyers miss out again.
You need to increase the 1st home buyers grant to a point where it is significant in helping people get into the market.
