The vast majority of non Carlton supporters expect us to struggle in 2026.
There's the logic you're looking for though.
The improvement theory is dependent on more postives 'coming in than going out'
Nobody would possibly suggest we won't be hit by injuries in 2026.
Some unexpected
Some long term.
The thing is to improve, we must have more positves coming in to combat the talent going out, if we are to be better in 2026 than 2025.
But here's the 'key'
We don't have to match TDK, Curnow and Silvagni at their best.
We only have to cover their 2025 output to be better.
At their best it's a huge challenge
At their 2025 best, especially Curnow, the challenge is not as great.
The reason for a bit of positivity?
The injury sutuation the last two years has been something else, and in 2025 it was exacerbated by a range of other challenges (mental health, division, players being offered huge money elsewhere.)
The injury situation matched some of our more critical times over the last 2025 years (2002, 2014)
It's possible we'll be hit hard again, but to have that type of turmoil three years in a row would suggest it's probably nothing within the range of mortals to fix, but rather a job for a 'witch doctor'.
Here's the thing though.
To cover the output of Charlie etc, we are 'expecting' the best from the incoming guys. The best output they can give.
No, we don't. Just 'saying' it doesn't make it true. We just have to have them contribute goals, present and provide options....and something else Charlie couldn't give us much of this year...second and defensive efforts. Keep the ball in the forward line.
Even then, will that be enough to cover their output?
"We'll see how it pans out but it won't be 'all or nothing'. Even if it can't entirely match Charlie's 2025 output it will go a fair way.
Will a 1st year player in Dean be able to cover 10 years in the AFL system from SOJ?
We don't know...He may give us a complete season and by the end be a 'fixture in the side. He comes with bigger wraps than Harry O'Farrell who would be in many posters best side. As to whether his durability is better than Jack's...TBA
Will a HFF and a FP be able to cover enough for a dual coleman medalist?
Maybe not, but I'll back them to cover for a 32 goal KPF
Who is covering for TDK?
One of O'Keefe, Reidy and Pittonet will take care of the ruck part
The around the ground/contest stuff will be absorbed by mid-fielders.
It won't be several players replacing one player because they will also bring their own strengths to those positions
It will be 'absorbed' not replaced 'like for like.'
Won't some of those players need to cover for other players who will be struck down by lack of form or injury? If those players are down on whats expected, who covers for them?
And that's where the depth comes into play. We struggled to cover for injuries the last two years and the VFL team was a shadow of it's full strength at times. We enter 2026 in much better shape to cover absences in most positions.
Shirt version in, we need the best of whats coming in, to cover for the worst of what we lost. Thats why i think we are destined to slide.
See, that's exactly what you've been upset about in reverse (players out superstars-players in duds). Why rate it as a 'crap' version before you've even seen how they fit in? Again, they don't have to provide their best. What they need to do is fill a role, contribute and enhance the total package. Think less in terms of the individual and more in terms of how it all comes together as a unit.
There's the logic you're looking for though.
The improvement theory is dependent on more postives 'coming in than going out'
Nobody would possibly suggest we won't be hit by injuries in 2026.
Some unexpected
Some long term.
The thing is to improve, we must have more positves coming in to combat the talent going out, if we are to be better in 2026 than 2025.
But here's the 'key'
We don't have to match TDK, Curnow and Silvagni at their best.
We only have to cover their 2025 output to be better.
At their best it's a huge challenge
At their 2025 best, especially Curnow, the challenge is not as great.
The reason for a bit of positivity?
The injury sutuation the last two years has been something else, and in 2025 it was exacerbated by a range of other challenges (mental health, division, players being offered huge money elsewhere.)
The injury situation matched some of our more critical times over the last 2025 years (2002, 2014)
It's possible we'll be hit hard again, but to have that type of turmoil three years in a row would suggest it's probably nothing within the range of mortals to fix, but rather a job for a 'witch doctor'.
Here's the thing though.
To cover the output of Charlie etc, we are 'expecting' the best from the incoming guys. The best output they can give. Even then, will that be enough to cover their output? Will a 1st year player in Dean be able to cover 10 years in the AFL system from SOJ?
Will a HFF and a FP be able to cover enough for a dual coleman medalist?
Who is covering for TDK?
Won't some of those players need to cover for other players who will be struck down by lack of form or injury? If those players are down on whats expected, who covers for them?
Shirt version in, we need the best of whats coming in, to cover for the worst of what we lost. Thats why i think we are destined to slide.
You see my point in that there are issues with the 'improvement' theory as it ignores people going backwards and injuries. No 'pro improvement' argument or 'cover' argument takes that into account....or severly underestimates its impact.
Look at what it did to our team this year and last.
There's the logic you're looking for though.
The improvement theory is dependent on more postives 'coming in than going out'
Nobody would possibly suggest we won't be hit by injuries in 2026.
Some unexpected
Some long term.
The thing is to improve, we must have more positves coming in to combat the talent going out, if we are to be better in 2026 than 2025.
But here's the 'key'
We don't have to match TDK, Curnow and Silvagni at their best.
We only have to cover their 2025 output to be better.
At their best it's a huge challenge
At their 2025 best, especially Curnow, the challenge is not as great.
The reason for a bit of positivity?
The injury sutuation the last two years has been something else, and in 2025 it was exacerbated by a range of other challenges (mental health, division, players being offered huge money elsewhere.)
The injury situation matched some of our more critical times over the last 2025 years (2002, 2014)
It's possible we'll be hit hard again, but to have that type of turmoil three years in a row would suggest it's probably nothing within the range of mortals to fix, but rather a job for a 'witch doctor'.
Then there's the focus our list managers had on better ball users. Fortunately, they know what they're doingTalk about opinion with no facts.
Especially when you compare this with Sydney, who DO know what they are doing as they are one of the most successful teams of the past 2 decades.
You see my point in that there are issues with the 'improvement' theory as it ignores people going backwards and injuries. No 'pro improvement' argument or 'cover' argument takes that into account....or severly underestimates its impact.
Look at what it did to our team this year and last.
Then there's the focus our list managers had on better ball users. Fortunately, they know what they're doing
I guess so. I am quite clearly a Charlie fan, but I can't quite follow the Swans' logic. They already have a trio of decent tall forwards, and having quickly looked at AFL Tables, they had less I50's, Marks I50, clearances, and tackles than us in 2025 (a few other statistical categories were also in our favour). This is undoubtedly a cursory, superficial examination, but I can't help feeling their bigger issues lie elsewhere, and getting Charlie was just talent for the sake of talent, and they paid a lot to get him IMO. Maybe they will offload some of the others next season.
See what you've done there is highlighted our issues, not there's.
Despite swans having less of what you described, they also scored more points than us. You've highlighted or inability to hit a target inside 50 and take a mark inside 50 (and thus score)
Given the change of charlie, that gap may increase
