Carlton Supporters Club

Interesting that Taco informed the oil companies of the attack but didn’t bother with Congress.

One needs to mediate carefully between the group and the individual. There may be a small element of truth to certain groups conforming to certain behaviors, but that needs to be measured against that fact we are individual minds, and you need to be wary of flattening or erasing any nuance or legitimate difference that exists between members of a group.

In terms of parental pushiness, my experiences were decidedly mixed, with 2 children involved in soccer, cricket, swimming, ballet, fencing, drama, choir, art classes, gymnastics. Pushy parents come in all shapes and skin colors, as do chill parents.

Quote from: kruddler – on December 24, 2025, 03:02:19 pm

Now whats changed in the meantime??

2025 happened and punters are going on known form.

The markets probably won't change much until the practice games.

I note that we were rated as third most affected by injury to senior players in 2025, as just posted on afl.com.au. That in a season where we were a quantum leap better than what we were in 2024.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1443396/essendon-bombers-horror-run-greater-western-sydney-giants-rise-which-clubs-were-unlucky-with-injuries

Now, if we can improve by the same amount in 2026, then maybe we'll have enough ammunition to argue about our list management properly. Certainly, we should play closer to our potential with a fitter list.

Hang on!
You can't have it both ways.
You can't say 2023 is SOS's team and then in the next breath say Austin has had six years.
The only one moving  goal posts around is your good self.

All list managers build on their predecessors list to some extent.
Cripps and Docherty were part of that for Silvagni so was Ed Curnow
You can't just dismiss the players that Austin added for 2023.
And the real fruits of Austin's tenure are yet to hit their peak.

Quote from: kruddler – on December 20, 2025, 03:29:35 pm

Potentially....but our previous one...

...was long gone.

The list position we found ourselves in was a combination of the efforts of both.
You can't have one without the other.
And two injury hit and disrupted seasons later you want the one left gone.

Crash mentioned 2002 but there was another injury hit season in 2014 when many of our best players including Judd and Kreuzer missed big chunks....and Robinson and Garlett went off the rails.
The brains trust at the time decided we needed a rebuild and the incoming list manager cut the list and sent the club into oblivion.

Quote from: kruddler – on December 20, 2025, 10:02:36 am

2 sides to every coin.

How well did we do with Charlie doing nothing? Imagine if we get him up to speed and added depth around him, rather than losing depth. Thats not so 'magical' now is it?

Results did worsen, but thats about the playing list rather than the coaching.
Even Docherty said as much post retirement.....thats if you don't want to take my word for it which was well documented at the time as well.

....and one last thing.
The result 'proves' we were brittle?

In case you are unaware, that team that showed how 'brittle' we were, were a goal off having a 3-peat.....and we had them 5 goals down on their home deck early.
Doesn't seem brittle to me. Seems to have been beaten by the best side in the modern game right now

So are you saying our list manager had built a side capable of winning a flag  

Quote from: kruddler – on December 20, 2025, 05:30:33 am

I would argue that as a prelim side, drastic measures were not required, but rather staying the course wouldve yielded better results.

And I would argue that as a preliminary final side in '23, we were brittle as evidenced by the result. How did Charles perform in that finals series? The cracks were there to the objective observer. In terms of the coaching group (leadership)... we did stay the course and the results for 2024/5 worsened each year.

To assume that because you make a preliminary final you'll just naturally, even magically, improve the next year is naive at best... hubris at worst.

Quote from: kruddler – on December 19, 2025, 05:56:36 am

Thing with being average and changing the way you do things, it can also leave you further behind the rest as a result

Sure, it's a risk, but doing the same thing over and over again,,............... well we know what that means!

I don't think anyone would question the time and effort Kruddler puts into his analysis of list management and other discussion points.  However, there's plenty to question about his methodology, assumptions and conclusions, and that's what helps make this place tick.

Again, I don't think anyone here would be unhappy if we were to draft the next Jonathan Brown, but there's a much greater chance that any club hoping for a Jonathan Brown will end up with a Jonathon Patton.  Bringing in another Stephen Kernahan via trade or free agency would be far more likely to be successful.

The scuttlebutt is that we were interested in Louis Emmett but the Bulldogs snapped him up.  Would the "draft a KPF" crew been happy with that?  What about if the rest of the scuttlebutt is correct and he's going to be developed as a KPD?

What annoys me about the criticism of our list management team's work at the draft is not so much the bleating about not picking a KPF, no matter how banged up or unready for AFL he might have been.  It's the downplaying of the fact that we snared the best KPP in the draft.  All I read is 'he can't play on 200cm KPFs', 'we only got him because he's a father-son pick', 'he won't be ready for AFL', he's too short', 'he won't be as good as Jack', 'we've put all our eggs in one basket', 'we should have drafted a KPF instead of a KPD', why didn't we draft a State league KPP?', 'we could have taken [insert any delisted rookie KPP]' ...

Drafting Harry Dean (and Jack Ison) was a masterclass in NGA player development and astute list management.  That is probably why both Fox and ESPN rate our work at the draft as equal third best ... but what would they know?  And they're probably following an agenda.

The bar isn't set low.
It's set unrealistically high by ignoring all that occurred with the club during the season just gone.

All any supporter can ask for is continued improvement each year.
But that path is rarely a straight line and there will be peaks and troughs which usually occur around the availability of players.