I predicted us to be bottom 4 and was happy that we were competitive even when we were 1-8.
Obviously happy with the "turn around" but not getting carried away until we either win this week or next.
Cmon Shakin, if it was as simple as 1 thing, then Voss and the club is an idiot.
But those who are anti-voss are making it out as if there was only 1 change that 'solved' everything, Fraser. Surely you can see that is not true.
Fixture, IMO, is the most important factor.
Cripps' form is not a coincidence. Our best 2 games under voss was the 2 games Cripps got votes....and he has votes in every game since.
So ignoring those 2 things, which Fraser boosters continue to do, is my gripe.
Similarly, people gave Fraser credit for bringing George back, playing Wilson, playing Harry in the ruck.....all occured before he took over.
Credit where credit is due, sure.
I've got no issue with Fraser. I've got issues with people proclaiming he can walk on water and has the midas touch.
In terms of your CBA's, can you include the figures for Lord?
IMO thats been a huge difference.
I copped some flack for questioning his long term future and him being too similar to our better mids.
Initially i think he was playing a wing role that Cerra took over. He was playing midfield when we gave him a chance to lock it down with George out of the side. Eventually, Lord was forced out of the side through injury and hasn't (as yet) returned to the seniors, despite going ok in the 2's.
There is a lot of cause and effect, and correlation, and people not understanding the difference.
Just looking at Jagga for an example, he started in the midfield. Then plenty were suggested he looked tired and sore and might need a run in the 2's. Was moved out of the guts at the same time. Got himself back up to speed and was moved back in as a result.
Is that Fraser being a genuis? Is it Voss looking after his young player so he doesn't break him??
You've got me wrong.
I actually thought we were doing a lot right under Michael Voss, and that our results were often a poor reflection of where we were as a football club.
The frustration was that under Voss we could play brilliant football for a half, then follow it up with football that looked like Under 12s at Diamond Creek.
Unfortunately, I think Voss will be remembered as the coach who couldn't stop momentum swings. This wasn't just a three-game issue or even a one-season issue. You said it yourself when you told your son to pick any score worm from the last 24 months—you'll almost always find a Voss-coached Carlton side conceding multiple unanswered goals.
Our worst performances this season highlighted that perfectly:
Second half vs Sydney
Second half vs Richmond (Round 1)
Second half vs Melbourne
Last quarter vs North Melbourne
Second half vs St Kilda
Round 13 vs Essendon
Round 17 vs Richmond
We all knew this was the issue that had to be fixed. We had an entire pre-season to address it, only to dish up the same thing again and again. Fast starts, no finish.
So now we're meant to believe we suddenly flicked a switch over the last three games and solved it?
I agree Voss leaving acted as a circuit breaker, but history tells us these sugar hits can be short-lived.
I liked Voss as a communicator and a leader. Where I was less convinced was his tactical coaching. Too often he struggled to stop opposition momentum or adjust during games, and I thought he was regularly beaten in the coaches' box. I was hoping the club would bring in someone like Adam Simpson to complement him with that tactical layer, but it never really happened.
Now, the wins over Geelong, the Western Bulldogs, plus away victories against Port Adelaide and GWS are all quality wins. They were games we weren't expected to win. The match committee deserves plenty of credit, particularly for responding when both Geelong and GWS got on top after we'd built healthy leads. Those are exactly the sort of games we would have lost previously.
Was the old game plan simply too taxing? Why couldn't we consistently run games out under Voss?
Under Josh Fraser we're clearly playing differently. We're less contest-focused, we retain possession more, and we're generating more metres gained by both hand and foot. Whether people think the changes are significant or subtle doesn't really matter—the numbers are what they are. They're not made up to annoy LP.
The game style has changed.
Harry McKay is probably the best example. If you're Michael Voss, you'd be wondering where this version of Harry has come from. After nine rounds, his season looked like it was heading towards "trade him for a late second-round pick." Since then, he's completely turned it around. Is it confidence? A different role? Better ball movement? Probably a combination of all three. He's just one example of several small changes that seem to have injected more energy into the side and allowed us to apply pressure for longer.
Now, could it simply be that:
George Hewett was dropped and got the kick up the backside he needed?
Patrick Cripps is finally fully fit?
The fixture has been favourable, with Richmond, Essendon and West Coast all struggling?
Cerra moving to the wing, along with the Ainsworth and Smith changes, were already Voss ideas?
Absolutely. All of those factors have played a part.
I'm somewhere in the middle.
But to suggest there have been no changes in the way we're playing, or that the game style is exactly the same, is ridiculous in my opinion. Whether those changes are subtle or significant is open for debate, but pretending they don't exist ignores what we're seeing on the field and what the statistics are telling us.
It's not the ones they pay, it's the ones they miss.They might claim their game is easier to umpire, but they still miss some absolute howlers. It does make you wonder about a lot of things in the game.
Thankfully, I don't bother. I have enough issues worrying about the umpiring at our games each weekend to worry about things as dodgy as soccer.