https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/from-the-pocket-carlton-s-problem-isn-t-psychological-or-fitness-it-s-competence-and-strategy/ar-AA1CArp7?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=4765d8ea01464c2aae70f7d633a94e9f&ei=9
Been a lot of people saying just this on the site
I think the key difference with us is in that article as well, the quality & number of the players that the Cats had who were about to explode.
Yep, I suspect our window peaked 2023
Cats during that era had Ablett Junior , Bartel, Johnson, Corey, Chapman, Enright, Ling, Scarlett, King, Hawkins, Selwood, Mackie, Taylor and the list goes on - so any comparisons to our current sad state of affairs is miles apart
We have an older list and at best have 5-6 players who would get a game in that Geelong team and sadly our level of ability drops off sharply after.
Until we strengthened significantly our bottom end talent and do it fast this list build we will not compete with the best and waiting for it all to just click based on previous teams fortunes is fantasy talk.
Surely our problem is the blokes we're forced to put on the park.
Harry missing creates a huge abyss in our structure and, try as they may; Kemp, Young or whoever else we may play as a key forward is not going to fill it - particularly when Charlie is going at half rat power.
I doubt any of the current 18 teams have the depth of talent of that great Geelong era. Even the Hawks, who are flying now, have their fair share of role players.
Yep. Simply put - too stubborn. Even fixated on the one game day application and plan. This is where you'd hope that those around him would encourage flexibility, understanding the modern game, your players and their strengths (and playing them to those strengths), understanding nuance and plans b, c and d.
I really do worry for Vossy and his tenure. A stoic and relentless adherence to a single mode of play might be good in some applications, but not the modern AFL game - you see teams altering and tweaking game plans in games and week to week now. Who'd have thought a Ross Lyon coached side would be hitting the scoreboard more? Strategy flexibility and those adept at this seem to be prerequisites for the modern game. But two things don't change - on-field leadership and a high level of discipline.
It's like playing golf with one club in the bag. We've got a one wood and nothing else.
Past players and coaches have supported what this MSN article mentions: apply pressure, change the game and the Blues are found wanting and unable to respond with anything other than doing what they've been instructed to focus on... and when that stops working, confidence drops, we go into our shells, mistakes appear and so on.
Sadly, from the perspectives of those past players and coaches, we are easy to coach against. Absorb, counter - they fold.
Our players are much better than not be able to win a game. A number of sides above us on the ladder do not have the talent we have, but get the best out of their blokes, even when they incur injuries to key blokes and have to rely on the role players.
Talent wise, we are much better than our ladder position indicates. We just seem bereft of knowing how to adapt and adjust in-game and as I mentioned, the heads drop pretty quickly once the opposition ups the ante. Fitness is a non-issue.
IMHO, our issues are more around injuries and skill errors. I'm not sure there is that much variation in game plan from one team to the next - there can't be that many ways of moving the ball from where it is to where you want it to be, and preventing the opposition from doing likewise. I suspect variations between teams are more about nuance and working with what you have.
Gee that's sharp, Professory. Yep, it might be one of the best/all purpose clubs in the bag... but... using it all the time aint gonna improve your handicap.
I don’t think that’s right Shane. We have crucial players out and others are out of form, lacking match fitness or aren’t quite up to AFL standard any more. The fringe players that go in and out of the team don’t have any impact and we lack the depth to replace out of form players. Then there’s our lack of experience; I believe Collingwood had 17 players with at least 100 AFL games, we had seven!
Many supporters were clamouring for Moir to get a game despite poor form in the VFL. Two touches and zero tackles in just under a whole game of footy suggests that he’s not up to it now, and possibly never will be.
We could persevere with him against the Eagles and he may do OK … or he could do another witch’s hat impression. Either way, it’s unlikely that he or his replacement will provide Vossy with the missing ingredient.
We need four quarters of decent footy from our midfielders, Harry back in the team and firing and Charlie to get over not having a pre-season … and 22 players fit enough to run out the game.
Yep, Pauly, we don't do nuance. We seem to be either stubborn adherence or throw the baby out with the bath water... and the latter may be approaching for Vossy (in the minds of some).
And working with what you have demands real skills and footy smarts... playing blokes to their strengths not trying to wedge and force blokes into what the game plan or system wants, and how long have we been bloody-minded in that approach? How often do some of our blokes seem to go backwards or stagnate? How can players develop if we have a one dimensional requirement from them? How often to we see creative types suddenly forced into a defensive mindset only? Some blokes are naturally defensively predisposed, well, these blokes will flourish in our system. Fog and Hewett to name a couple.
Indulge me for a tick. What happened to Cow's creative dash/take the game on? Are we using Ollie to his strengths? Small Durds had real flair when he arrived, now he delivers a thousand tackles a game and FA else! I've got no idea what we're trying to do with Motlop, he must be about the most confused kid in the game at present, it's like he has creative aspects to his game which have not at all been developed and honed. And what the hell are we doing with Walshy, almost looks a shadow of the ball winning, running machine we recruited? I bet you good folks could come up with other examples.
Sure there is a healthy balance between creative, offensive play and strong defensive applications, but we just seem absolutely incapable of getting that right, preferring to being stubbornly one or the other (zero nuance). Surely it begins with, as you mentioned Pauly,
knowing what you're working with... developing natural strengths and abilities in the individuals at your club and coming up with a game plan that balances this with the long held values of our game: toughness, discipline, unity (same page), leadership and a ruthless commitment to winning - every contest, every qtr and every game. We began this season with quotes from key club people that losing is a reality and expecting losses... FO.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, David... or do we?
Are we getting the best out of our blokes? Are we playing them in the right positions?
I think our game-plan actually hampers some of our blokes and prevents their best being available?
So maybe I'll rephrase my comment that we have the talent/list, with these qualifiers, 1) playing our blokes to their strengths with a 2) game-plan that better enables that? This 'one size fits all' defensive mindset being shoehorned into every player just aint working.
Yeah, but most golfers will counter with something here to do with repetition and practise.
We have a 1 wood. Its actually a good performer.
We are no good at the other stuff (we are kicking more and handballing less) and are saying its not our go. So do you persist trying to play a different way to get better at it, or do you go back to your one wood?
Obviously its not a zero sum game, but our players have been at this exact juncture before. We sacked a coach because the game plan was too complicated, and the wins weren't coming. You know, a lot of people point to Mitchell and the Hawks, but about this time last year, he was copping it regarding the way they were playing, losing, and how he might not see out the season. Fast forward 14 games, and it was a different equation.
Thing is, we aren't actually that bad. We were 5 mins away from a win against the Doggies. Against Richmond had we not executed poorly at critical times we actually should have won (we cost 5 goals from just sheer keystone cops moments and fumbles, missed handballs and poor execution.
The Hawthorn game, TDK, and JSOS missed gimme shots from inside 50 when the game was on the balance. Instead of being a couple of goals up, we end up a couple of goals down after two 12 point turnarounds from missed set shots inside 50. If we were copping hidings, and losing by 100 points, id say fair enough.
Against Collingwood, that 3rd quarter was diabolical, but the rest of the match was at worst an arm wrestle. They dialled it up, we couldnt go with.
This isnt a one single issue, its a few. We can change the coach, the pressure release will come, and the boys will get back on track, but the benefit in doing so isnt there IMHO. It will just be groundhog day, see another cleanout of senior talent, when we need to hold the line and make some tweaks so that we can find more ways to win.
Thats what I tend to think but we won't know until the season is over. The trajectory suggests it's a write off, but we know how footy goes these days. Haw were 0-5 last year and finished off being the form team of the comp.
Haw wil be tested without one player, Day.
What's the alternative game style, outside run and gun? You need leg speed and footskills for that, two things we dont have.
I saw a snippet from Daniel Hoyne on TDK. As impactful on games as he has been winning the footy/contest, he butchers the footy by foot and it goes straight back into the oppo fwd line. I think he said he rates as the 4th worst ruckman. So even the players we may well consider A grade or elite have deficiencies delivering the footy.
A couple points on the article.
1. Hindsight is 20-20. At the time, were those Cats players hall of famers? No. Did they become hall of famers? Yes.
On the flip side....
Walsh, TDK, Hollands (x2) Jagga.....whoever, may all become those players (or equivalents) by the time their career ends.
At the same stage what was cripps? He was still the fat kid who broke his leg. If the article was written 6 years ago, nobody in their wildest dreams would think Charlie and Cripps wouldn't have come close to the heights they have acheived since.
So maybe we do have a quality group on our books right now.
Only time will tell.
2. Were the same conversations being had about our playing list and coach 2 years ago before we went on our run to be leading a prelim by 5 goals?
Form is temporary.
Class is permanent.
Since that prelim i reckon we've averaged, AVERAGED, a dozen players unavailable every week. Thats a tough hill to climb over and compete.
This is not the 'dark days of the Pagan era' we are in. We are a million times better than that with where we are.
Thats not to say we haven't made some mistakes in plenty of areas of building a football club.
But its fixable.
The only difference that can be guaranteed as fact in that article is we know what happened to Geelong from here.
Our destiny is still in our hands.
Which is why we should be holding the line for 3 years. When weiters, Charlie, Harry and jsos are near the end, we'll have a clearer picture of how many holes need filling. For now, we have a few holes but we have players that could fill those gaps.
Yes, they are looking very good now, but we know from history that it's rare to look a million bucks for too long. There's too many variables that can impact results : larger variables like injury, loss of form / momentum, right through to small things like umpiring decisions etc. It's one reason why I'm not giving up on our season just yet.
I'll be interested to see how they cover the loss of Will Day.