Title: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 09, 2025, 06:39:31 pm
So in case you are unaware, there is no sub anymore, so 5 on the bench this year.
Choose the 5 who deserve a spot on the bench that compliment our starting 18.
Assume everyone is fit
Some people choose a 7th defender Some people choose a 7th forward Some people choose a backup ruck Some people choose all of the above. Some people simply choose the best players that are not in the starting 18.
Team so far is.... FB - Cowan - Weitering - Newman HB - Saad - O'Farrell - Haynes C - Walsh - Cripps - Smith HF - Ainsworth - McKay - Hayward FF - Williams - Kemp - Moir R - Pittonet - Hewett - Cerra
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Thryleon on December 09, 2025, 08:30:29 pm
I've voted for the same player in multiple lines so not sure what this achieves.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 09, 2025, 08:35:46 pm
Can we have ten on the bench please This vote will be all over the shop ::) :D Depth ;D ;D
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 09, 2025, 08:50:57 pm
I've voted for the same player in multiple lines so not sure what this achieves.
I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Im assuming you are saying you've voted for... someone like Ollie Hollands as a midfielder and as a defender and he hasn't got enough votes to get into either starting position yet. So this is the perfect chance to vote for him again and fill out the bench with players that compliment the stating 18. Ideally someone who can fill multiple roles is perfect.
I don't see why that would be an issue though.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: DJC on December 09, 2025, 09:26:39 pm
It’s been an interesting exercise - and thanks Kruddler for putting the time and effort into the polls.
However, I think that the process has lost connection with reality and we’re now being asked to vote for players we’ve already voted for or have no intention of voting for.
I would prefer a simple vote for 8 defenders, 8 forwards and 7 midfielders.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 09, 2025, 09:36:17 pm
It’s been an interesting exercise - and thanks Kruddler for putting the time and effort into the polls.
However, I think that the process has lost connection with reality and we’re now being asked to vote for players we’ve already voted for or have no intention of voting for.
I would prefer a simple vote for 8 defenders, 8 forwards and 7 midfielders.
Nothing is stopping you from creating what you want.
The logic behind doing it this way is to see a few things.... 1. Where people see certain players playing. 2. This highlights some areas of need or at least areas where (to use an NFL term) positional battles are. Eg wing. 3. It's a wisdom of the masses exercise. I doubt any one person will get their best 23, and even if they do it might even be with players in different positions.
For the record, I'd much rather a team with more than 7 midfielders. We start 6 and if we want a 2nd ruck, then any rotation will come from forwards or backs. Id prefer midfielders who can rest forward or back instead.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 09, 2025, 09:53:33 pm
I've voted for the same player in multiple lines so not sure what this achieves.
I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Im assuming you are saying you've voted for... someone like Ollie Hollands as a midfielder and as a defender and he hasn't got enough votes to get into either starting position yet. So this is the perfect chance to vote for him again and fill out the bench with players that compliment the stating 18. Ideally someone who can fill multiple roles is perfect.
I don't see why that would be an issue though.
I went for players other than Hollands. The way the format is structured most would have Hollands in our best 23 off the top of their heads but can't find a spot for him on a single line ahead of others in the same position. He's a player who plays a couple of postitions but I couldn't push anyone out of a line for him. So ideal bench player? Of the ones left I have five I'd rather pick (after ticking and ommitting Ollie several times.) I guess he's my number 24...and with inevitable injuries he'll play just about every game.
The final team with this format won't be the same as many peoples own, best 23.
Folks will have a different focus as they vote Some will pump for youth, others experience Some will favour talls over smalls. Some will favour the new trade-ins and draftees, others will go for the 'devils' they know. And with different numbers voting in each poll these different preferences may change. It's been an interesting exercise, but I'm not sure what revelations it's going to throw up. And by the first game next year, after a couple of practice games, I suspect people will have changed their minds over a number of players.
If O'Farrell tips Dean 3 votes to 2 there are multiple reasons for that choice. O'Farrell was starting to show something before he was injured' Dean's a hope of what 'might' be. O' Farrell probably won't play much this year Dean likely will. There's a chance both will be playing seniors by the end of the year. There is also a chance (perish the thought) that neither will.
I think I preferred the other format which I feel gave a bit more flexibility to individual choices rather than being forced into a more ridid structure. Cooper Lord is one of the first players I'd pick after our premium midfielders next year, but he's still there at pick "Bench"
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Thryleon on December 09, 2025, 10:45:37 pm
I've voted for the same player in multiple lines so not sure what this achieves.
I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Im assuming you are saying you've voted for... someone like Ollie Hollands as a midfielder and as a defender and he hasn't got enough votes to get into either starting position yet. So this is the perfect chance to vote for him again and fill out the bench with players that compliment the stating 18. Ideally someone who can fill multiple roles is perfect.
I don't see why that would be an issue though.
I had selected acres, hollands, florent, lord, motlop, dean and skull as forwards defenders or mids.
Whilst I see where you're coming from to select 5 on the bench now is tough because jagga isnt near my best 23 even though he might be talented and good enough to be in it.
Why? I've only seen highlights of him. On exposed form id have lord in ahead of him. Makes it hard to vote for players here
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 10, 2025, 05:09:43 am
Everyone's team will be different. No point getting upset you can't fit one player in because another player has been picked.
This exercise gives some insight into potentially how the MC would pick a team. Or at least, should pick a team.
Get the blokes who are best at that position and pick guys on the bench that compliment the team you have. Don't shoehorn 8 small forwards into the lineup because they are your favourites. Pick a team that's a team.
For mine, the bench players offer cover across a few positions. So ollie players as he can cover HB and wing. Motlop and Frankie plays as they can cover small forward and wing/mid HOK plays as he can cover key forward and ruck.
And Lord plays as an extra midfielder.
I don't think we need Dean in the side when we have weiters and hof with haynes as backup already.... or young for that matter.
Id like to include carroll as well but Ollie being more versatile means he gets the spot.
There is no right/ wrong answer
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 10, 2025, 07:09:06 am
Everyone's team will be different. No point getting upset you can't fit one player in because another player has been picked.
This exercise gives some insight into potentially how the MC would pick a team. Or at least, should pick a team.
Get the blokes who are best at that position and pick guys on the bench that compliment the team you have. Don't shoehorn 8 small forwards into the lineup because they are your favourites. Pick a team that's a team.
For mine, the bench players offer cover across a few positions. So ollie players as he can cover HB and wing. Motlop and Frankie plays as they can cover small forward and wing/mid HOK plays as he can cover key forward and ruck.
And Lord plays as an extra midfielder.
I don't think we need Dean in the side when we have weiters and hof with haynes as backup already.... or young for that matter.
Id like to include carroll as well but Ollie being more versatile means he gets the spot.
There is no right/ wrong answer
That's true. It's just a fun exercise. and we can't read a lot into the final team we pick. Posters will go for favourites or a favourite 'type' of player. We have no idea of the structure and game style we will play in 2026. We have no idea of specific roles players will be asked to play. We'll tend to judge on past form and players at their best and most effective...think Saad (will age catch up with him next year) especially with some emerging half back talent.. We'll tend to go with the familiar. Players new to the club, or draftees, are relatively unknowns...even the Haywards, Aisnworths and Florents would only have had a passing scrutiny.
The team we end up with in this exercise may mirror the opening round side, it's very unlikely it will mirror the side for our 'wild card' match. ;) :D
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: madbluboy on December 10, 2025, 10:16:08 am
I don't like this because it highlights how weak our side is.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 10, 2025, 10:26:26 am
Yep Cripps, McKay Weitering, Walsh, Hewett all duds
Moir, O'Keefe, Smith, Dean....probably won't get a game in this side. What were we thinking drafting losers like Hayward and Ainsworth to bolster the forward line. O'Farrell...will struggle to get back...ever!
We're screwed. :D
Thank heavens for Evans. ;)
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Thryleon on December 10, 2025, 10:33:54 am
Everyone's team will be different. No point getting upset you can't fit one player in because another player has been picked.
This exercise gives some insight into potentially how the MC would pick a team. Or at least, should pick a team.
Get the blokes who are best at that position and pick guys on the bench that compliment the team you have. Don't shoehorn 8 small forwards into the lineup because they are your favourites. Pick a team that's a team.
For mine, the bench players offer cover across a few positions. So ollie players as he can cover HB and wing. Motlop and Frankie plays as they can cover small forward and wing/mid HOK plays as he can cover key forward and ruck.
And Lord plays as an extra midfielder.
I don't think we need Dean in the side when we have weiters and hof with haynes as backup already.... or young for that matter.
Id like to include carroll as well but Ollie being more versatile means he gets the spot.
There is no right/ wrong answer
Im not getting upset, just highlighting an issue.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: ElwoodBlues1 on December 10, 2025, 10:40:02 am
Yep Cripps, McKay Weitering, Walsh, Hewett all duds
Moir, O'Keefe, Smith, Dean....probably won't get a game in this side. What were we thinking drafting losers like Hayward and Ainsworth to bolster the forward line. O'Farrell...will struggle to get back...ever!
We're screwed. :D
Thank heavens for Evans. ;)
Given TDK, Charlie and Jack were/are now classified as spuds/navy blue infidels and the players we have brought in are vastly superior you wouldnt be able to include the afore mentioned three in your best 23 for next season if they were still on the list and the new recruits were also available?
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 10, 2025, 10:57:24 am
Yep Cripps, McKay Weitering, Walsh, Hewett all duds
Moir, O'Keefe, Smith, Dean....probably won't get a game in this side. What were we thinking drafting losers like Hayward and Ainsworth to bolster the forward line. O'Farrell...will struggle to get back...ever!
We're screwed. :D
Thank heavens for Evans. ;)
Given TDK, Charlie and Jack were/are now classified as spuds/navy blue infidels and the players we have brought in are vastly superior you wouldnt be able to include the afore mentioned three in your best 23 for next season if they were still on the list and the new recruits were also available?
I don't think anyone is saying these players we lost were 'duds' They were obviously best 23 All three would probably make most folks selctions. They'd make mine.
But their 2025 form was sub par, except perhaps for Jack who showed some promise as a KPD....before he was injured ::) So in determining whether we improve from 2025 to 2026 we don't look at their best, we look at what they gave us in 2025 and that gap, if it exists, isn't that large.
The whole list debate centres around the difference between 2025 and 2026 Whether we finish about the same, 11th, whether we drop...or progress. Some think we'll slide based on the loss of the three amigos. Some think we'll stay about the same. Others see us progressing.
We don't know the future. In a lot of respects the list won't be a determining factor....it will be a better run with injuries, how the new players gel, no issues like player mental health, no division, a totally committed group... and a big change in luck, which hasn't been our friend the last two years.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Thryleon on December 10, 2025, 11:00:57 am
Jack Silvagni was never clearly in everyone's best 23. He was often the one that missed out, and Im one of the people who would select him more often than not.
Thing is, last year was arguably his best output for a season. 13 games, in which he was subbed early at least twice, and was influential in only about 2 of them. He was otherwise very good, but not the difference. He's joining a pretty defensive unit so I expect he will look good at the Saints, but I wonder how much of him looking like an elite defender, was as much to do with the players around him and how we defended as a team as it was him. We certainly didnt get pummelled without him, and he played in our worst loss for the year before succumbing to injury (vs Port).
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: ElwoodBlues1 on December 10, 2025, 02:38:52 pm
Given TDK, Charlie and Jack were/are now classified as spuds/navy blue infidels and the players we have brought in are vastly superior you wouldnt be able to include the afore mentioned three in your best 23 for next season if they were still on the list and the new recruits were also available?
I don't think anyone is saying these players we lost were 'duds' They were obviously best 23 All three would probably make most folks selctions. They'd make mine.
But their 2025 form was sub par, except perhaps for Jack who showed some promise as a KPD....before he was injured ::) So in determining whether we improve from 2025 to 2026 we don't look at their best, we look at what they gave us in 2025 and that gap, if it exists, isn't that large.
The whole list debate centres around the difference between 2025 and 2026 Whether we finish about the same, 11th, whether we drop...or progress. Some think we'll slide based on the loss of the three amigos. Some think we'll stay about the same. Others see us progressing.
We don't know the future. In a lot of respects the list won't be a determining factor....it will be a better run with injuries, how the new players gel, no issues like player mental health, no division, a totally committed group... and a big change in luck, which hasn't been our friend the last two years.
Can't see how they make your best team if you and others have said their loss would be negligible in effect and say we have a better improved team without them. You can't have it both ways...if we are a better team without them why would you pick them in your best 23? TDK isn't as a good a ruckman as Pittonet, HOk ,or Reidy, JSOS is slow and Injury prone and Charlie isnt productive enough with a poor attitude...that's what I have been reading. Surely they would be VFL players and backup only...
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 10, 2025, 03:54:46 pm
That's the whole point. I'm sorry these guys are not there. Fully fit they would be in everybody's best team. They would enhance our side. If we were doing this exercise and they were still on the list they get a game in most people's sides.
Why? Because the ground rules Kruddler laid down said they were "fully fit" (even O' Farrell is in the mix and he might not even play a game next year.)
I think some have forgotten the 'ground' rules for this List Management debate, and the key question. "Higher ladder position in 2025 or 2026" Some are having difficulty grasping why we won't slide.
That debate question spreads over a number of threads, is ongoing, and also applies here... Will we perform better in 2026 than we did in 2025 given the changes to the list?
And that debate centres around the three main players we have lost, and the players coming in through trade and draft. Don't think Coleman Charlie 2023, think Charlie 2025.
Charlie's contribution 2023 would be near impossible to cover Charlie 2025...not so much. There is every chance they will blossom at their new clubs and regain their best form, but early indications for 2026 are not great with both Jack and Tom missing some significant pre-season. Jack in particular seems to have an ongoing injury issue...and I suspect for some time has had a fair bit on his plate, which may go some way to explaining his decision to move.
Tom has had the distraction of the big money move. Charlie and Jack have had ongoing injury problems, all these impacted on their form the past year.
And that's why if you ask me the question... Will we be better in 2026 than we were at 11th place in 2025?...I'm guessing, yes. Will we finish higher than we did in 2023...I'm guessing, no....2027 for that target. ;)
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: ElwoodBlues1 on December 10, 2025, 04:45:40 pm
That's the whole point. I'm sorry these guys are not there. Fully fit they would be in everybody's best team. They would enhance our side. If we were doing this exercise and they were still on the list they get a game in most people's sides.
Why? Because the ground rules Kruddler laid down said they were "fully fit" (even O' Farrell is in the mix and he might not even play a game next year.)
I think some have forgotten the 'ground' rules for this List Management debate, and the key question. "Higher ladder position in 2025 or 2026" Some are having difficulty grasping why we won't slide.
That debate question spreads over a number of threads, is ongoing, and also applies here... Will we perform better in 2026 than we did in 2025 given the changes to the list?
And that debate centres around the three main players we have lost, and the players coming in through trade and draft. Don't think Coleman Charlie 2023, think Charlie 2025.
Charlie's contribution 2023 would be near impossible to cover Charlie 2025...not so much. There is every chance they will blossom at their new clubs and regain their best form, but early indications for 2026 are not great with both Jack and Tom missing some significant pre-season. Jack in particular seems to have an ongoing injury issue...and I suspect for some time has had a fair bit on his plate, which may go some way to explaining his decision to move.
Tom has had the distraction of the big money move. Charlie and Jack have had ongoing injury problems, all these impacted on their form the past year.
And that's why if you ask me the question... Will we be better in 2026 than we were at 11th place in 2025?...I'm guessing, yes. Will we finish higher than we did in 2023...I'm guessing, no....2027 for that target. ;)
So TDK, Charlie and Jack are in fact better players when fully fit than those we have acquired? Im not thinking what a player did in what particular year or how fit they were last year or the year before, Im selecting on ability and the presumption those players will be fit at some stage in the future if our medical/fitness staff can get their act together. If we are building a list based around fitness first then Sam Walsh would have to be a candidate to be traded out next season if he is injured again for a long period if thats now a large part of our list management decision making for the future? If Harry McKay had another mental health episode and took a break would that also place him in the trade basket?... Are you willing to trade out all our A grade talent on the basis they may never be fully fit and replace them with players with less ability..?
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 10, 2025, 04:54:28 pm
I just said similar in another thread. All outgoing players are now no good. All incoming players have never played a bad game or missed a game through injury. Its hypocrisy.
Take them all at 'average' levels and go from there. You'll come up with the same conclusion if you are honest.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 10, 2025, 05:16:16 pm
You guys have gone completely off track. ::)
The original question was posed "Will we be better in 2026 than we were in 2025?" You guys are saying ..No! I'm saying....Yes ! because what these players delivered in 2025 can be more than covered by the current list. That is the sole basis for all I'm arguing across multiple threads. I think we're in better shape going forward than you seem to think. But who knows how it will turn out.
It's not about the list long term. It's not about past list management errors. It's a comparison in years. 2025 vs 2026
If you want me to say we'll miss them, and at their best they are more talented than the player's we've brought in you're not going to get an argument. But I'm not so sure about their future...that's a story to be written.
And just as a final point...Those players left of their own accord. We would have kept them if they wanted to stay. The reasons for some of those moves are obvious, some we'll find out about down the track.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Thryleon on December 11, 2025, 09:36:20 pm
I just said similar in another thread. All outgoing players are now no good. All incoming players have never played a bad game or missed a game through injury. Its hypocrisy.
Take them all at 'average' levels and go from there. You'll come up with the same conclusion if you are honest.
How can you measure a players Average output?
I.e. Hayward? His formline stacks up over 3 years. Florent was sidelined by his coach, not his ability. So not sure its fair to do that with him, and Ainsworth had a solid year.
We are saying all these guys have to do is back up 2025 form, vs the outgoings 2025 form. Thats 11 games without being subbed off injured for JSOS.
Charlie went bog average by key forward standards. 18 games for 32 goals. 1.8 goals a game. Sure he kicked 27 behinds, but we wont miss those. All we need is Kemp to chime in for 18 games and kick 30. That will cover Charlie. Hayward and Ainsworth might make up the rest, if Kemp falls short, and Skull is a wildcard here. Played 5 games, kicked 3 goals.
TDK the ruckman is more of a unicorn than not. Thing is, you yourself @kruddler have stated that Pittonet shades him. So if Pittonet Shades him, TDK's 2025 was a mixed bag, where he was generally good for half the season and then came back to the field. Rucks are easier to cover, you just need a competitor. I.e. Is Cameron a better ruck than Grundy? Probably not. Cameron has played better footy than Grundy more often. Collingwood didnt miss him. Maybe we will have Pittonet finally have a consistent run.
JSOS. I love the guy. Is a competitor, hates being beaten. Thing is, he played 13 games, and missed 2024 completely. He was also not present for most of our best footy in 2023, and hasnt even played a final yet for us. Are we really going to pine about that now?
It reeks of agenda. What happened to being measured?
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: madbluboy on December 12, 2025, 06:47:00 am
I just said similar in another thread. All outgoing players are now no good. All incoming players have never played a bad game or missed a game through injury. Its hypocrisy.
Take them all at 'average' levels and go from there. You'll come up with the same conclusion if you are honest.
We're only to judge Charlie on this year but not Florent.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 12, 2025, 08:49:32 am
See that's emotive nonsense that 'it's dud, out stars in'
No one ever said all players going out were duds We lost some valuable players. Even at their reduced output and injury most were best 23 and even Durdin and Elijah (who we still haven't lost for sure) were right up there.
No one ever said all players coming in never played a bad game. Florent didn't have great year and he seemed to be out of favour...but he did have his best year in 2024 and has proven to be pretty durable. All our new players have their limitations...and I suspect some strengths we haven't even considered yet. Chesser is one that may surprise.
Tom, Jack and Charlie for various reasons all had their minds elsewhere during this year. I have a greater appreciation for Jack's struggles given recent revelations. When he did play he still gave 100% Tom was made an offer he really 'couldn't refuse' to consider. And who knows what was going on with Charlie.
What we're after and need is depth, versatility, role players and a committed group working together. Time will tell how that plays out.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: madbluboy on December 12, 2025, 09:34:09 am
You said we are only judging on 2025.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 12, 2025, 10:12:24 am
I said the debate centred around whether we would improve stay the same or go backwards in 2026 compared to 2025. And on that basis you can only judge on what was on display in 2025 Florent didn't have a great year compared to his previous year. I don't think I've mentioned him much. Defence wasn't really a concern...our issues stemmed more around entry to the 50 the ability to keep it there, and forward efficiency.
I said the debate centred around whether we would improve stay the same or go backwards in 2026 compared to 2025. And on that basis you can only judge on what was on display in 2025 Florent didn't have a great year compared to his previous year. I don't think I've mentioned him much. Defence wasn't really a concern...our issues stemmed more around entry to the 50 the ability to keep it there, and forward efficiency.
Ollie played as well as his coach allowed him to. Inexplicable coaching from someone who seems out of their depth.
I think that Ollie will make quite an impression next season both on the field and with his energy and leadership at training.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: madbluboy on December 12, 2025, 10:32:08 am
Charlie was forced to come back early from surgery because Harry was too sad to play. No wonder he wanted out.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: PaulP on December 12, 2025, 10:43:47 am
We need to exist in a both/and space. Charlie Curnow is a super player, but we need to be like Hawthorn when Franklin left, somehow finding a way. It has been done before, and we have to do it again. Much the same as we need to emulate Richmond at the end of 2016, where they brought in a few B graders, stuck fat with the coach and made changes around him.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 12, 2025, 05:15:57 pm
Defence wasn't really a concern...our issues stemmed more around entry to the 50 the ability to keep it there, and forward efficiency.
Defence wasn't really a concern?
Lets here a non-Carlton based perspective.... https://www.zerohanger.com/every-afl-teams-backline-ranked-1-18-171600/6/
Quote
13 - Carlton If it weren't for Jacob Weitering, the Blues would be much worse on the list.
The All-Australian defender not only held his own, but also assisted his teammates in their matchups.
Nick Haynes was shaky early but found his groove in the end and proved vital to the club's intercepting ability.
Ollie Hollands and Matt Carroll showed their skillset across half-back as the Blues' go-to ball users, while Adam Saad, despite playing 21 games, took a backwards seat.
The retired Sam Docherty and emerging Lachlan Cowan struggled with form and injury, contributing to the defensive woes, which were heightened when Mitch McGovern was in the backline.
Jack Silvagni and Lewis Young played 13 matches each, and the former will be sorely missed after joining St Kilda in the off-season.
Harry O'Farrell showed plenty, but will likely miss the majority of 2026 due to an ACL injury.
So perhaps others rate Jack more than we did. Perhaps others see we are in a far worse position than we do.
If we have the 13th best defence, and defence is not our issue.....then this backs up what i've been saying that we are in for a long season.
But, some bloke who couldn't get a game at his previous club will change everything for us? 2025 form and all.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 12, 2025, 05:19:06 pm
I said the debate centred around whether we would improve stay the same or go backwards in 2026 compared to 2025. And on that basis you can only judge on what was on display in 2025 Florent didn't have a great year compared to his previous year. I don't think I've mentioned him much. Defence wasn't really a concern...our issues stemmed more around entry to the 50 the ability to keep it there, and forward efficiency.
Ollie played as well as his coach allowed him to. Inexplicable coaching from someone who seems out of their depth.
I think that Ollie will make quite an impression next season both on the field and with his energy and leadership at training.
So Ollies issue wasn't talent. He pissed off the coach. Sure, plausible. But... Charlies issue wasn't talent either. He was forced to play injured to the point he was a liability.
Ollie we blame the coach. Charlie we DONT blame the coach?
Remembering, Charlie got offered up for 3x first rounders and Ollie was steak knives......but Ollie will be better for us than Charlie?
What the hell are you drinking and where do i get some?
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 12, 2025, 05:31:43 pm
I just said similar in another thread. All outgoing players are now no good. All incoming players have never played a bad game or missed a game through injury. Its hypocrisy.
Take them all at 'average' levels and go from there. You'll come up with the same conclusion if you are honest.
How can you measure a players Average output?
I.e. Hayward? His formline stacks up over 3 years. Florent was sidelined by his coach, not his ability. So not sure its fair to do that with him, and Ainsworth had a solid year.
We are saying all these guys have to do is back up 2025 form, vs the outgoings 2025 form. Thats 11 games without being subbed off injured for JSOS.
Charlie went bog average by key forward standards. 18 games for 32 goals. 1.8 goals a game. Sure he kicked 27 behinds, but we wont miss those. All we need is Kemp to chime in for 18 games and kick 30. That will cover Charlie. Hayward and Ainsworth might make up the rest, if Kemp falls short, and Skull is a wildcard here. Played 5 games, kicked 3 goals.
TDK the ruckman is more of a unicorn than not. Thing is, you yourself @kruddler have stated that Pittonet shades him. So if Pittonet Shades him, TDK's 2025 was a mixed bag, where he was generally good for half the season and then came back to the field. Rucks are easier to cover, you just need a competitor. I.e. Is Cameron a better ruck than Grundy? Probably not. Cameron has played better footy than Grundy more often. Collingwood didnt miss him. Maybe we will have Pittonet finally have a consistent run.
JSOS. I love the guy. Is a competitor, hates being beaten. Thing is, he played 13 games, and missed 2024 completely. He was also not present for most of our best footy in 2023, and hasnt even played a final yet for us. Are we really going to pine about that now?
It reeks of agenda. What happened to being measured?
For those of us on my side of the fence, we are fighting off people like yourself who can't seem to agree on where the issues are (or aren't)
I've been arguing about rucks for years and didn;t get many an ally in any of it. Now it seems 'everyone agrees with me' and are using my arguments as if they were their own. You can't have it both ways. I'm not rehashing years worth of arguments about those 2.
Going back to the heart of the matter....how do you measure average?
Let me try and explain with the 'olympic scoring' method. Take out the best and the worst and work with whats left. So ignore charlies injury year. Take out his best coleman year. Work with whats left. Pretty consistent and consistently above anything we got in. Using the same logic with Hayward. Take out his 41 goal year and his best was 34 goals. If Charlies worst year last year was 32. So who is better?
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: madbluboy on December 12, 2025, 05:49:23 pm
Doesn't work that way Kruddler, we take the traitor's worst and our new player's best, even Chesser's 4 games lol.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 12, 2025, 05:59:31 pm
Doesn't work that way Kruddler, we take the traitor's worst and our new player's best, even Chesser's 4 games lol.
Don't forget Reidy and his 3 games. ...and Hudson O'Keeffe has played 5 games and between them we've got cover for both TDK and Charlie. Simples.
But don't be fooled, its not like for like. You have to include Hayward and Ainsworth. Not sure who they are replacing, but they will pick up the slack.
Of course, not a single person has mentioned that McKays life will now be harder as Charlie is no longer the #1 target, he is, so his output will fall....if he can even stay on the park with his mental issues...but shhh.....don't say anything.....you'll just be labelled negative.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 12, 2025, 06:00:22 pm
There is some seriously warped interpretations of what people are actually saying. So far off the mark it's ridiculous. Lost the plot completely.
I suspect some need a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down.
Saying Ollie may give us good service is nowhere near saying he's better than Charlie Curnow.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 12, 2025, 06:05:53 pm
There is some seriously warped interpretations of what people are actually saying. So far off the mark it's ridiculous. Lost the plot completely.
I suspect some need a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down.
Saying Ollie may give us good service is nowhere near saying he's better than Charlie Curnow.
Its not about like for like though Lods. Its about what it gives to the team. Charlie was a lone ranger. Ollie is a team player.
If you asked chat GPT to rate these players based on what is said on these forums, it'd come to the same conclusion.....which would be opposite to the rest of the world.
I'm just highlighting that what is being said is also absurd.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 12, 2025, 06:18:03 pm
There is some seriously warped interpretations of what people are actually saying. So far off the mark it's ridiculous. Lost the plot completely.
I suspect some need a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down.
Saying Ollie may give us good service is nowhere near saying he's better than Charlie Curnow.
Its not about like for like though Lods. Its about what it gives to the team. Charlie was a lone ranger. Ollie is a team player.
If you asked chat GPT to rate these players based on what is said on these forums, it'd come to the same conclusion.....which would be opposite to the rest of the world.
I'm just highlighting that what is being said is also absurd.
Kruds, the slant that's being put on it is not what's being actually stated by posters.
No one would say that Ollie Florent could impact a game the way Charlie could...no-one!
The whole basis of these arguments is ..will the loss of the three key players mean our 2026 will be worse than our 2025. Can we cover them, not necessarily like for like but strengths in other areas.
Suggesting people are saying all the outs are duds and all the ins are champs...has been said by no-one... ever!
It's just 'extreme' language with no basis in fact.
We'll miss the players we've lost. But by this time next year I suspect we'll have an appreciation of what some of the new players can give us.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 12, 2025, 06:21:16 pm
@Lods.... And you think the opposing arguments are sticking to facts?
Have a look at Thrys take on 'my thoughts' on TDK vs Pittonet, even though i've made that abundandly clear over the past week.
But thats ok is it? Only when i do it??
Tit for tat.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: DJC on December 12, 2025, 06:36:17 pm
@Lods.... And you think the opposing arguments are sticking to facts?
Have a look at Thrys take on 'my thoughts' on TDK vs Pittonet, even though i've made that abundandly clear over the past week.
But thats ok is it? Only when i do it??
Tit for tat.
It's all about different opinions. Sometimes the things we write are misinterpreted. Sometimes opinions change. It's often hard to keep up with where folks are at. We get invested in an idea and off goes our head and on goes a pumpkin.
I actually have no idea how 2026 will go. I'm prepared to wait and see, and after the last 25 years am resilient enough to know that if it goes pear shaped we have 2027 to look forward to.
If you feel your position has been misrepresented by all means challenge it.
It's more the silly comments like those opposing think all the players out are duds and all the incomers are superstars. No one thinks that. We've lost good players. We don't know how the new guys will go but we do have some idea of the way they play, their strengths and indeed their weaknesses. What we don't know is whether they will enhance our 2026 side. One thing is sure.it will be a little different.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 12, 2025, 07:16:28 pm
People are sick of me challenging opinions as it is, turning every thread into the same discussion. You'd be surprised how much i let go.
I said this as recently as 4 days ago, in a thread starting by Thry! But, he goes back to what i was saying 18 months ago. https://www.carltonsc.com/index.php?topic=7438.msg458110#msg458110
Quote
re tdk... A lot of people misunderstand me when it comes to him. Let me clarify. 1. I don't think he is worth the crazy money we offered him and certainly not what the saints offer him. 2. I think his ruckwork (hitouts) is average at best, pittonet destroys him in that area. 3. I think his around the ground work is good but far from elite. I did some comparisons to Pittonet in all the key areas tackles, clearances, marks, disposals etc and they were very similar. 4. His consistency and his ability to stay out in the park is a weakness, see point 1.
That being said... - His athletic ability is elite. - His potential is elite. - If it's 'his day' people can't stop him. - I picked him as my starting ruck in all of the best 22s we did last year from preseason to the end.
So he is very much a loss. A lot of that loss is a loss on what he could be. Some of that is comparing to what we have instead, in not talking about Pittonet, but 2nd ruck... Reidy or HOK, who should also be a potential kpf we rely on.
The whole debate is very simple. Players coming in are looked at with navy glasses Players going out are seen without them.
That is misrepresenting players and thats the crux of the debate.....and why i took it to the n'th degree to highlight that fact.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 12, 2025, 07:17:48 pm
In any event, why have we only got 6 votes?? Come on people, please vote for best 5 on the bench to compliment the starting 18.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 12, 2025, 07:41:40 pm
People are sick of me challenging opinions as it is, turning every thread into the same discussion. You'd be surprised how much i let go.
I said this as recently as 4 days ago, in a thread starting by Thry! But, he goes back to what i was saying 18 months ago. https://www.carltonsc.com/index.php?topic=7438.msg458110#msg458110
Quote
re tdk... A lot of people misunderstand me when it comes to him. Let me clarify. 1. I don't think he is worth the crazy money we offered him and certainly not what the saints offer him. 2. I think his ruckwork (hitouts) is average at best, pittonet destroys him in that area. 3. I think his around the ground work is good but far from elite. I did some comparisons to Pittonet in all the key areas tackles, clearances, marks, disposals etc and they were very similar. 4. His consistency and his ability to stay out in the park is a weakness, see point 1.
That being said... - His athletic ability is elite. - His potential is elite. - If it's 'his day' people can't stop him. - I picked him as my starting ruck in all of the best 22s we did last year from preseason to the end.
So he is very much a loss. A lot of that loss is a loss on what he could be. Some of that is comparing to what we have instead, in not talking about Pittonet, but 2nd ruck... Reidy or HOK, who should also be a potential kpf we rely on.
The whole debate is very simple. Players coming in are looked at with navy glasses Players going out are seen without them.
That is misrepresenting players and thats the crux of the debate.....and why i took it to the n'th degree to highlight that fact.
I believe that's what you are seeing. But it's an opinion that's based on your own assessment and bias. So when I look at it I see those talking the 'sky is falling' as looking at it through 'chicken little glasses'...and thats based on my own assessment and bias. You struggle understanding my point of view, I struggle with your point of view. We won't know who was right until this time next year.....maybe longer.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: madbluboy on December 12, 2025, 09:01:10 pm
I get the positive thinking If Walsh us fit If Cripps gets back to 24 form If Newman is still the same If Harry has no issues If Acres can get back to his best If Dean can play a role straight away If Jagga can have an immediate impact If Florent can play like he did before the big bad Cox got to him. If Kemp can stay fit. If motlop and Ainsworth can take the next step. If Cottrell doesn't get injured.
Lots of ifs.
Meanwhile Gulden thinks charlie is just like Buddy.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: PaulP on December 12, 2025, 11:28:55 pm
I'll be curious to see how the Swans fit McLean, McDonald, Amartey and Curnow into the forward line. Maybe a new roles for one of them.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Thryleon on December 13, 2025, 01:14:31 am
I.e. Hayward? His formline stacks up over 3 years. Florent was sidelined by his coach, not his ability. So not sure its fair to do that with him, and Ainsworth had a solid year.
We are saying all these guys have to do is back up 2025 form, vs the outgoings 2025 form. Thats 11 games without being subbed off injured for JSOS.
Charlie went bog average by key forward standards. 18 games for 32 goals. 1.8 goals a game. Sure he kicked 27 behinds, but we wont miss those. All we need is Kemp to chime in for 18 games and kick 30. That will cover Charlie. Hayward and Ainsworth might make up the rest, if Kemp falls short, and Skull is a wildcard here. Played 5 games, kicked 3 goals.
TDK the ruckman is more of a unicorn than not. Thing is, you yourself @kruddler have stated that Pittonet shades him. So if Pittonet Shades him, TDK's 2025 was a mixed bag, where he was generally good for half the season and then came back to the field. Rucks are easier to cover, you just need a competitor. I.e. Is Cameron a better ruck than Grundy? Probably not. Cameron has played better footy than Grundy more often. Collingwood didnt miss him. Maybe we will have Pittonet finally have a consistent run.
JSOS. I love the guy. Is a competitor, hates being beaten. Thing is, he played 13 games, and missed 2024 completely. He was also not present for most of our best footy in 2023, and hasnt even played a final yet for us. Are we really going to pine about that now?
It reeks of agenda. What happened to being measured?
For those of us on my side of the fence, we are fighting off people like yourself who can't seem to agree on where the issues are (or aren't)
I've been arguing about rucks for years and didn;t get many an ally in any of it. Now it seems 'everyone agrees with me' and are using my arguments as if they were their own. You can't have it both ways. I'm not rehashing years worth of arguments about those 2.
Going back to the heart of the matter....how do you measure average?
Let me try and explain with the 'olympic scoring' method. Take out the best and the worst and work with whats left. So ignore charlies injury year. Take out his best coleman year. Work with whats left. Pretty consistent and consistently above anything we got in. Using the same logic with Hayward. Take out his 41 goal year and his best was 34 goals. If Charlies worst year last year was 32. So who is better?
ive said what I've we said about this.
Average.
Let's play that game. Charlie has played 9 seasons.
2025 was actually his 4th best season of his career based on goals per game.
Thats right, he's only kicked more than 35 goals in a season 3 times.
I'll be curious to see how the Swans fit McLean, McDonald, Amartey and Curnow into the forward line. Maybe a new roles for one of them.
Amartey can play in defence, and he missed most of last season with an adductor strain. As we know with Jack Silvagni, adductor strains can be chronic, even after surgery.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 13, 2025, 09:12:01 am
I get the positive thinking If Walsh us fit If Cripps gets back to 24 form If Newman is still the same If Harry has no issues If Acres can get back to his best If Dean can play a role straight away If Jagga can have an immediate impact If Florent can play like he did before the big bad Cox got to him. If Kemp can stay fit. If motlop and Ainsworth can take the next step. If Cottrell doesn't get injured.
Lots of ifs.
Meanwhile Gulden thinks charlie is just like Buddy.
Funny how most of that list had an injury last year and everyone is positive about them. The 3 that left, who all had injuries as well are never going to get back to the same standard though. This is the 'logic' that others are failing to see.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: PaulP on December 13, 2025, 09:52:22 am
Amartey can play in defence, and he missed most of last season with an adductor strain. As we know with Jack Silvagni, adductor strains can be chronic, even after surgery.
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.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 13, 2025, 09:59:15 am
I get the positive thinking If Walsh us fit If Cripps gets back to 24 form If Newman is still the same If Harry has no issues If Acres can get back to his best If Dean can play a role straight away If Jagga can have an immediate impact If Florent can play like he did before the big bad Cox got to him. If Kemp can stay fit. If motlop and Ainsworth can take the next step. If Cottrell doesn't get injured.
Lots of ifs.
Meanwhile Gulden thinks charlie is just like Buddy.
Funny how most of that list had an injury last year and everyone is positive about them. The 3 that left, who all had injuries as well are never going to get back to the same standard though. This is the 'logic' that others are failing to see.
Here's the thing though. Are people actually saying that or is that the swing you're putting on it from the comments? It's not 'logic' if it's not real. I certainly don't believe it. And any comment along those lines would only have been made in the context of their 2025 output and limitations.
Charlie had an interrupted pre-season last year...I suspect his knee will continue to give him some trouble but if he can have a good pre-season and stay relatively fit he's still capable of kicking a lot of goals. I reckon Sydney will suit him. Tom is just getting to the sweet spot in his career. If he can deliver on that potential we may see waht we've always hoped he'd provide for us. Jack is a concern because he has a history of missing chunks of a season and he'll also be weighed down a bit (as I suspect he has been this year) by external factors.
On the other side of the coin... Newman being older may find that his time off has impacted a lot more than someone like Jagga. Acres is held together by sticky tape. Walsh is a key player for us but I can think of at least two occasions when he was playing super football only to be injured...If he can have a fully fit season it will be a big boost....But, will he be distracted, as I suspect Tom was at times, by big offers from other clubs. We have to accept that wear and tear will eventually catch up with Cripps and a lot will depend on the progress of our young mids like Lord and Ben Camporeale Hayward, Ainsworth, Florent, Chesser, Reidy...how many games will they play. How will they gel. Are Dean and Ison ready to go or will it take some time for them to be given an opportunity. And what of the coach...if things go wrong in the first half of the season we could be changing things up all over again
You see the whole thing is up in the air and there are reasons for both optimism and pessimism We don't know how it will play out, but making definite predictions is really silly. I know which forecast is the brighter one, but I don't think anyone is unaware that next year may present its own significant challenges.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 13, 2025, 10:06:34 am
Amartey can play in defence, and he missed most of last season with an adductor strain. As we know with Jack Silvagni, adductor strains can be chronic, even after surgery.
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
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 13, 2025, 10:16:07 am
Lods... When asked why we will improve by those who think we can, everyone is fit, everyone is their best version of themselves. Everyone who was good last year remains good. Everyone who had potential fulfils it. No key players will get injured.
That's the issue i have.
Reality is closer to what you said there and what I've been saying. You cant say we'll be better because Newman well be back. We might be better, but he might be worse... if he is back at all. Rinse repeat for anyone on our list.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 13, 2025, 10:30:07 am
Lods... When asked why we will improve by those who think we can, everyone is fit, everyone is their best version of themselves. Everyone who was good last year remains good. Everyone who had potential fulfils it. No key players will get injured.
That's the issue i have.
Reality is closer to what you said there and what I've been saying. You cant say we'll be better because Newman well be back. We might be better, but he might be worse... if he is back at all. Rinse repeat for anyone on our list.
I think what you're seeing though is posters are making the argument for a positive outcome...but by no means completely oblivious to the problems that may lie ahead. Because they don't mention it doesn't mean they don't recognise them.
Much the same as the other side are presenting reasons why we will struggle but giving much less emphasis to any positives
We all realise we'll need luck with injury and luck in general.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 13, 2025, 10:36:13 am
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
On the other hand we've added to our options for scoring. Whether our efficiency into, and while in the 50 will also improve is yet to be determined.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 13, 2025, 11:56:37 am
Lods... When asked why we will improve by those who think we can, everyone is fit, everyone is their best version of themselves. Everyone who was good last year remains good. Everyone who had potential fulfils it. No key players will get injured.
That's the issue i have.
Reality is closer to what you said there and what I've been saying. You cant say we'll be better because Newman well be back. We might be better, but he might be worse... if he is back at all. Rinse repeat for anyone on our list.
I think what you're seeing though is posters are making the argument for a positive outcome...but by no means completely oblivious to the problems that may lie ahead. Because they don't mention it doesn't mean they don't recognise them.
Much the same as the other side are presenting reasons why we will struggle but giving much less emphasis to any positives
We all realise we'll need luck with injury and luck in general.
The problem is there are too many different posters who are making slightly different arguments. so you say people ar enot saying this...maybe, but a person is at least.
Its not worth going over everything from every poster.
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.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: DJC on December 13, 2025, 12:06:55 pm
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
I think that the opposite will be true. Charlie kicked 32.27 and heaps more that didn't register. Those misses all provide the opposition with rebound opportunities that put our team defence under pressure. Having forwards that make the most of their opportunities will improve our scoring and reduce the pressure on our defence.
For comparison, Harry kicked 22.10 last season, Hayward kicked 29.10 and Ainsworth managed 23.14.
Then there's the focus our list managers had on better ball users. Fortunately, they know what they're doing :)
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 13, 2025, 12:21:18 pm
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'.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: DJC on December 13, 2025, 01:40:34 pm
Then there's the focus our list managers had on better ball users. Fortunately, they know what they're doing :)
Talk 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.
The thing is that I'm not blinded by being self-opinionated about list management. I accept that Austin, Agresta and their team know a hell of a lot more about list management than I do, and I know that two experienced operators in Wright and Davies have endorsed our list management strategy. That's good enough for me.
Yes, Sydney has been a very successful club ... under Roos and Longmire. When you consider their A-graders and the depth of their list, missing out on the eight in 2025 is inexplicable. I wonder what's changed; it wouldn't be the coach who got hot flushes at the thought of Charlie in red and white?
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: PaulP on December 13, 2025, 01:52:17 pm
Either Ollie Florent has really fallen off a cliff, or else he generates sharply contrasting opinions in the Swans camp. In May 2024, he was awarded a 5 year deal to the end of 2029. When combined with the top 10 finishes in the B+F and the fact that he is rarely injured, there were clearly people at Sydney who really rated him. You don't give top 10's and 5 year deals to just anybody.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 13, 2025, 06:05:11 pm
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'.
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.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: DJC on December 13, 2025, 07:06:20 pm
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're still focusing on one for one replacements and missing the big picture.
We don't have to find a player to be like Charlie; we need to come up with a combination of players and a forward structure that works better than our forward line did in 2025. We've got that with the addition of Hayward and Ainsworth, the return of Kemp, the development of Skull and Moir, Williams and Motlop in form, the emergence of Ison and better ball movement.
Harry Dean doesn't have to cover Jack's 10 years in the system, or his 12 games as a KPD; he simply needs to fit into a defensive combination that improves on our 9th ranked defence from last season. That's the easiest challenge, particularly with Newey coming back from injury and Florent bringing talent, form, energy and great ball movement.
Again, we don't need to cover TDK; we need to come up with a midfield combination that's better than last season's. Pitto is a perfectly adequate ruckman and Reidy is a bit of a surprise packet. Skull and Harry are fine as part-time rucks, Jagga Smith looks like he's going to have a real impact, Acres looks like he's over his back complaint.
Forget about Tom, Jack and Charlie; they're the past. Embrace the exciting new future!
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 13, 2025, 07:33:19 pm
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.
...and that's one of the big issues here. 2025 has been and gone. We know what happened with injuries and shenanigans. It's history and can't be changed 2026 hasn't been 'written' yet. And as with any season there will be some unexpected, disappointing times next year. But there will probably also be positives that we may not even expect yet. Sometimes a change of scenery for a player, new roles and responsibilities, a different game plan etc all may see a player produce something better than he has shown previously. Of course the opposite is also true and a player may struggle to fit in.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: madbluboy on December 13, 2025, 09:32:40 pm
The vast majority of non Carlton supporters expect us to struggle in 2026.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 14, 2025, 07:36:27 am
I'm absolutely shocked that the vast majority of non-Carlton supporters expect us to struggle in 2026. :D :D Who would have thought. ::) ::)
It’s hard to believe Lods 🤣
To be on the safe side, I thought I’d see what AI has to say:
Quote
It's too early to know exactly where Carlton will finish in 2026, but they'll have a home-heavy run-in with their final nine home-and-away games in Melbourne, including a strong Marvel Stadium presence, offering a good chance for a finals push if they're in contention, with a new Wildcard Finals Round added to the mix in 2026.
So far so good, but then …
Quote
While past performances (like their 2023 Grand Final appearance) show potential, the actual finish depends on how the team performs throughout the entire 2026 season and the new finals structure.
Given the nature of footy supporters, I suspect that most think that their team will struggle in 2026.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 14, 2025, 09:48:45 am
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're still focusing on one for one replacements and missing the big picture.
We don't have to find a player to be like Charlie; we need to come up with a combination of players and a forward structure that works better than our forward line did in 2025. We've got that with the addition of Hayward and Ainsworth, the return of Kemp, the development of Skull and Moir, Williams and Motlop in form, the emergence of Ison and better ball movement.
Harry Dean doesn't have to cover Jack's 10 years in the system, or his 12 games as a KPD; he simply needs to fit into a defensive combination that improves on our 9th ranked defence from last season. That's the easiest challenge, particularly with Newey coming back from injury and Florent bringing talent, form, energy and great ball movement.
Again, we don't need to cover TDK; we need to come up with a midfield combination that's better than last season's. Pitto is a perfectly adequate ruckman and Reidy is a bit of a surprise packet. Skull and Harry are fine as part-time rucks, Jagga Smith looks like he's going to have a real impact, Acres looks like he's over his back complaint.
Forget about Tom, Jack and Charlie; they're the past. Embrace the exciting new future!
Tell me you didn't read/understand my post without telling me you didn't read/understand my post.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Thryleon on December 14, 2025, 09:49:11 am
The vast majority of non Carlton supporters expect us to struggle in 2026.
most opposition supporters i know thought Charlie was over rated and only scored a lot of goals through favourable free kicks too.
Can I use that along with his decidedly chequered goal scoring history to over ride what I see on game day most weeks too?
We all loved Charlie. His best was amazing. I don't think its reasonable for us to expect a player to replace his best. That won't likely occur.
I also think the optimists remember Charlie's worst which was often on show in the same games as his best and are hoping for someone a bit more reliably consistent even if they are not the match winner Charlie curnow could be (but invariably wasn't more often than not).
When we lost Judd we were all similarly doom and gloom and then a young kid most of us hadn't seen much of flexed his muscles and is on track to becoming one of the best Carlton players we've ever had.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 14, 2025, 09:53:47 am
Given the nature of footy supporters, I suspect that most think that their team will struggle in 2026.
What a load of BS.
As mentioned earlier, most supporters are 'delusional' when it comes to their own team. Look at Bombers, "This year" is their year......every year. Saints have a supporter base off the back of delusion alone. 1 flag in 130 years shows this.
Do a poll of each side and ask them if their side will make finals this year and 14 teams will say yes to finish in the top 10 (now).
Why do you think as a whole, we are any less delusional than the rest?
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 14, 2025, 09:56:59 am
The vast majority of non Carlton supporters expect us to struggle in 2026.
most opposition supporters i know thought Charlie was over rated and only scored a lot of goals through favourable free kicks too.
Can I use that along with his decidedly chequered goal scoring history to over ride what I see on game day most weeks too?
We all loved Charlie. His best was amazing. I don't think its reasonable for us to expect a player to replace his best. That won't likely occur.
I also think the optimists remember Charlie's worst which was often on show in the same games as his best and are hoping for someone a bit more reliably consistent even if they are not the match winner Charlie curnow could be (but invariably wasn't more often than not).
When we lost Judd we were all similarly doom and gloom and then a young kid most of us hadn't seen much of flexed his muscles and is on track to becoming one of the best Carlton players we've ever had.
3 AFL clubs (4 if you include Collingwoods cursory interest) wanted Charlie on their list. 2 clubs offered 3x 1st rounders. What you're seeing there is a bit of jealousy and a lot of tall poppy sydnrome.
You see it towards Dangerfield, Daicos, etc They're all 'no good' to opposition supporters, but you wouldn't think that if they wore navy blue. This is what happens with Charlie.
I keep being told to trust the recruiters, well across many teams, they were desperate for Charlie. So why do we NOT trust them in your eyes?
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 14, 2025, 10:12:35 am
Geelong didn't fight too hard, even though by all reports Charlie was desperate to get there. So 'many' clubs is a bit of a stretch.
Charlie went for his optimum based, not on his 2025 performance, but on his past performances. Have a look at some of the Sydney forums and you'll see they're happy to have him, but concerns remain over his injury history.
"Navy Blue Glasses" is getting a bit of run in some places. And yes, generally club supporters are optimistic about their chances ahead of a new season. It's a fresh slate...and usually comes with few injuries and some new talent.
The thing is Navy Blue Glasses work work both ways...In and Out!
If folks are looking at the 'Ins' with Navy Blue Glasses then it's probably fair to say that others are looking at the "Outs" with the same Navy coloured glasses. They rate the players they will miss a little more highly than an opposition supporter might.
I suspect opposition supporters don't rate the 2025 version of Tom, Jack and Charlie as highly as some Carlton supporters...except perhaps the supporters of the clubs they are going to.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Thryleon on December 14, 2025, 10:17:39 am
most opposition supporters i know thought Charlie was over rated and only scored a lot of goals through favourable free kicks too.
Can I use that along with his decidedly chequered goal scoring history to over ride what I see on game day most weeks too?
We all loved Charlie. His best was amazing. I don't think its reasonable for us to expect a player to replace his best. That won't likely occur.
I also think the optimists remember Charlie's worst which was often on show in the same games as his best and are hoping for someone a bit more reliably consistent even if they are not the match winner Charlie curnow could be (but invariably wasn't more often than not).
When we lost Judd we were all similarly doom and gloom and then a young kid most of us hadn't seen much of flexed his muscles and is on track to becoming one of the best Carlton players we've ever had.
3 AFL clubs (4 if you include Collingwoods cursory interest) wanted Charlie on their list. 2 clubs offered 3x 1st rounders. What you're seeing there is a bit of jealousy and a lot of tall poppy sydnrome.
You see it towards Dangerfield, Daicos, etc They're all 'no good' to opposition supporters, but you wouldn't think that if they wore navy blue. This is what happens with Charlie.
I keep being told to trust the recruiters, well across many teams, they were desperate for Charlie. So why do we NOT trust them in your eyes?
weren't you one of the ones saying we should trade one of McKay and curnow to cash in and now weve done it you're full of criticism for doing it.
What scenario is ok in your eyes? One where we have a kid to play key forward so we have options? We have options. We played more games missing one of Charlie and Harry than we did with both of them in 2025 (and across the journey that played out a lot) and saw a few players fill the void but not get the win because of key moments where we failed elsewhere. I think back to a game against the bulldogs. Charlie, Lewis young and kemp in the key forwards area. Totalled 11.9 goals on the day. Kemp kicked 5. Charlie 3. Young 2 (should have had more but he passed off a set shot from 45 rather than backing himself) and in remember losing because we lacked run at the end of the game.
Charlie's a gun. I dont need to bag him to feel better about it, but the facts are his best form was in 2022 and 23, with 2024 being good and his 2025 form being a step behind again. Its possible he's on the skids because he's an aging key forward who invariably relies on athleticism to beat his opponents. Also a fine attribute. The criticms are there even in his best years. Remember the coleman he won scoring 19 goals against West Coast across two games? Yeah that was a criticism too.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: northernblue on December 14, 2025, 10:22:00 am
I think Krudds is disappointed that we don’t have a young KPP to replace trading/losing H or C. If we did we wouldn’t be looking at restructuring our attack we could replace like for like and plug and play.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: DJC on December 14, 2025, 10:43:30 am
You're still focusing on one for one replacements and missing the big picture.
We don't have to find a player to be like Charlie; we need to come up with a combination of players and a forward structure that works better than our forward line did in 2025. We've got that with the addition of Hayward and Ainsworth, the return of Kemp, the development of Skull and Moir, Williams and Motlop in form, the emergence of Ison and better ball movement.
Harry Dean doesn't have to cover Jack's 10 years in the system, or his 12 games as a KPD; he simply needs to fit into a defensive combination that improves on our 9th ranked defence from last season. That's the easiest challenge, particularly with Newey coming back from injury and Florent bringing talent, form, energy and great ball movement.
Again, we don't need to cover TDK; we need to come up with a midfield combination that's better than last season's. Pitto is a perfectly adequate ruckman and Reidy is a bit of a surprise packet. Skull and Harry are fine as part-time rucks, Jagga Smith looks like he's going to have a real impact, Acres looks like he's over his back complaint.
Forget about Tom, Jack and Charlie; they're the past. Embrace the exciting new future!
Tell me you didn't read/understand my post without telling me you didn't read/understand my post.
I don’t think you understand your post 🙄
Why mention Dean covering Silvagni, a HF and FP covering Charlie, or ask who will cover TDK if that’s not what you meant?
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 14, 2025, 11:00:55 am
I think Krudds is disappointed that we don’t have a young KPP to replace trading/losing H or C. If we did we wouldn’t be looking at restructuring our attack we could replace like for like and plug and play.
Yes and no.
Every year we DON'T draft a key forward is another year of development we have to go through before we get a young one coming through. Had we have drafted a key forward when i first flagged this years ago, we'd have Charlies replacement already up to speed for AFL football and we would 100% have improved our list with the incoming players we got. BUT, we didn't/haven't included anyone to take over from him and now we are left either....
a) completely rejog our forward line - which we are doing b) Hope to poach a genuine replacement via trade/FA next year.....which genuinely comes at a premium price.
Now even if 'a' works out, Harry is a year older and needing a replacement in the future too. If 'a' doesn't work out and 'b' doesn't work out, then we are wasting the remaining years of a-grade talent Cripps, Weitering, Harry etc. THEN we'll go full rebuild.
People have accused me in the past, and continue to accuse me now, of focussing on the NOW. Nothing ould be further from the truth. I've always talked about list management from a long term point of view. Its why i've pushed for drafted KPPs so we don't get 'surprised' and caught out like we did this year when Charlie, Tom and Jack unexpectedly left. Its ruined our 2026 season when it could've been avoided.
Given what occurred, we did well to get maximum value for Charlie. We brought in players who (for the most part) offer us something we need or a potential upgrade on something we have. However, IMO, its not enough. IMO they've done well from a bad situation, but with a bit more forthought, we couldve really cashed in and improved our list.
Consider this, 3 years ago we drafted a KPF who is now ready to start each week and make a difference, say its a 40-50 goal a year option we have to go with Harry. Charlie going nets us 3x 1st rounders and we have a replacement sitting there ready to go. We do the same trades and get the same players. How much better does our 2026 look?
Even if we want to change our forward setup to a 1-out option, with Kemp as the 2nd option, that allows us to play Harry more in the ruck and give us versatility there as well as cover for TDK. Harry around the ground gives about the same as TDK does. Suddenly, we haven't lost anything in the ruck or up forward, simply by drafting a KPP years ago when i suggested, but we've managed to upgrade other areas in the process.
So its not necessarily about direct replacement. Its about options to what we can do. Right now, we don't have a replacement so that limits our options.....and IMO our 2026 chances.
Even if we look at 2026 through the same eyes as 2025 with the same amount of injuries. If Harry misses games. If Pittonet misses games. If Kemp misses the year.....or even just a few games.
Our forwardline/ruck setup will look like HOK, Reidy and Young. How many opposition clubs would be worried about how they need to combat that formiddable setup?
One last thing.... KP value is something you can cash in via trade. So even if we drafted in one a few years ago that can cover for Charlie and Charlie stayed and returned to former glory, as did Harry, we can cash in and improve our list at the trade period.
Alternatively, We draft small forwards who we keep replacing year on year and offer no value to us whatsoever. At the end of the day we traded in our (supposedly) best one for a future 2nd (and durdin - who was a 2nd rounder to begin with). How is that smart list management?
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 14, 2025, 11:11:56 am
Tell me you didn't read/understand my post without telling me you didn't read/understand my post.
I don’t think you understand your post 🙄
Why mention Dean covering Silvagni, a HF and FP covering Charlie, or ask who will cover TDK if that’s not what you meant?
Is a HF and FPs imrproved output covering for Charlie like for like?? No its not.
I don't know the best way to get this across, but from a really simplistic point of view what i'm saying is this. Think about it like a video game rating system. Each player has their own strengths and weaknesses and an overall rating. Charlie might be an 88 / 100. When you add up our best 2025 6 players in our forwardline, maybe we average 75.
If you simple swap out like for like and replace Charlie with.....HOK, maybe he is a 70. Our overall rating of our forward line goes down because we don't have a charlie replacement - like for like.
Now, let rejig our whole forwardline. 1. Charlie out - Hok in. (for example) 2. Durdin out - Ainsworth in 3. Motlop out - Hayward in.
Now, in a 'like for like' the first 1 is a loss, but the second 2 are a gain. So 'overall' we are covering charlie with the other 2 upgrades. This is your whole argument and one that i am going along with. How much it goes up, who knows. Does it get back to our '75' 2025 forward line base, is up for debate. But lets assume its a break even, even with some natural development of Moir helping that area.
My question is this. What part of the midfield is improving enough to cover the loss of TDK? In 2025, maybe we were a 84 midfield. If TDK > Pittonet, then in a like for like, maybe we drop to a 78 midfield in 2026.
What other areas improve to the point to make up for the 'points' we lost from pittonet taking over from TDK? IS Cripps, Hewett, Cerra and Walsh going to get better? Asking a bit much there IMO, especially since Cerra and Hewett had their best years IMO. So where is the other improvement coming from to cover for TDK? NOT in a like for like.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 14, 2025, 11:19:19 am
Geelong didn't fight too hard, even though by all reports Charlie was desperate to get there. So 'many' clubs is a bit of a stretch.
Charlie went for his optimum based, not on his 2025 performance, but on his past performances. Have a look at some of the Sydney forums and you'll see they're happy to have him, but concerns remain over his injury history.
"Navy Blue Glasses" is getting a bit of run in some places. And yes, generally club supporters are optimistic about their chances ahead of a new season. It's a fresh slate...and usually comes with few injuries and some new talent.
The thing is Navy Blue Glasses work work both ways...In and Out!
If folks are looking at the 'Ins' with Navy Blue Glasses then it's probably fair to say that others are looking at the "Outs" with the same Navy coloured glasses. They rate the players they will miss a little more highly than an opposition supporter might.
I suspect opposition supporters don't rate the 2025 version of Tom, Jack and Charlie as highly as some Carlton supporters...except perhaps the supporters of the clubs they are going to.
Judds first preference was Collingwood back in the day but he didn't fight too hard to get there for the same reason. In both instances, the club didn't have enough to get the deal done. So they didn't waste anyones time.
Kudos to Geelong. They offered their best deal up front of 3x 1st rounders (if thats not trying then this argument is over). which we knocked back pretty quick. So Cats moved on rather than let it ruin their whole trade period.
Have a look at these very forums and see the consensus on Hayward and Florrent etc. Look at those same opinions now. Its changed. The only thing thats changed is the colour of the jumper they are wearing.....and nobodys opinion has gotten worse in the meantime.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Thryleon on December 14, 2025, 11:22:48 am
Those numbers are a factor but using the video game analogy ive signed a player with the high rating and then swapped him for another who didnt have as high a rating but had some skills that were more complimentary and most importantly moved in a way that strengthened the whole.
This is where the discrepancy on both sides of the argument begins. We had skull and kemp. They will get theor time in the sun. We have a young moir and maybe a wildcard option in Ison. Using Brisbane Logan Morris is a 191 cm key forward.
Kemp, ison and moir all have him for size.
We dont know how this goes for them, and skull would be the player you wanted drafted. Hes 20 years old and 200cm and played 5 games.
Using the Judd into cripps analogy, we all though cripps would do a job for us moving forward but he has gone from strength to strength in a way only thr most optimistic of people expected after his debut season.
Ultimately its the I told you so bit thats tripping you over. You cant see the clubs attempts because you dont agree with it. We havent neglected these spots at all, weve just taken alternatives to the types and players you would have. Thats ok too, but the pudding is still in the oven and you are lamenting the ingredients used. Thing is the oven could break before we get the pudding out. We wont know but the change of ingredients wouldnt have likely impacted that.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Thryleon on December 14, 2025, 11:27:01 am
I think Krudds is disappointed that we don’t have a young KPP to replace trading/losing H or C. If we did we wouldn’t be looking at restructuring our attack we could replace like for like and plug and play.
I get that. They arent the much vaunted option but skull, kemp and young are going to be first cabs off the rank to replace Charlie's presence. Then we will change up to someone like moir, hayward and Ison which will be that smaller setup that is a departure from the way we currently structure up, but im hoping we get more of a return to form from others that were down to help bridge the gap between our worst and our best last season and hopefully our best in 2025 and 2026 look similar. Again we wont know for sometime. I think based on some of Chris Davies comments temper the expectations on Jagga for 26. Thing is I reckon the absence of walsh in 2025 hurt us more than any other single player who wont be with us next year. If he can. Have a big year then we might actually progress significantly in 2026.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 14, 2025, 11:32:13 am
Why mention Dean covering Silvagni, a HF and FP covering Charlie, or ask who will cover TDK if that’s not what you meant?
Is a HF and FPs imrproved output covering for Charlie like for like?? No its not.
I don't know the best way to get this across, but from a really simplistic point of view what i'm saying is this. Think about it like a video game rating system. Each player has their own strengths and weaknesses and an overall rating. Charlie might be an 88 / 100. When you add up our best 2025 6 players in our forwardline, maybe we average 75.
If you simple swap out like for like and replace Charlie with.....HOK, maybe he is a 70. Our overall rating of our forward line goes down because we don't have a charlie replacement - like for like.
Now, let rejig our whole forwardline. 1. Charlie out - Hok in. (for example) 2. Durdin out - Ainsworth in 3. Motlop out - Hayward in.
Now, in a 'like for like' the first 1 is a loss, but the second 2 are a gain. So 'overall' we are covering charlie with the other 2 upgrades. This is your whole argument and one that i am going along with. How much it goes up, who knows. Does it get back to our '75' 2025 forward line base, is up for debate. But lets assume its a break even, even with some natural development of Moir helping that area.
My question is this. What part of the midfield is improving enough to cover the loss of TDK? In 2025, maybe we were a 84 midfield. If TDK > Pittonet, then in a like for like, maybe we drop to a 78 midfield in 2026.
What other areas improve to the point to make up for the 'points' we lost from pittonet taking over from TDK? IS Cripps, Hewett, Cerra and Walsh going to get better? Asking a bit much there IMO, especially since Cerra and Hewett had their best years IMO. So where is the other improvement coming from to cover for TDK? NOT in a like for like.
No! Like for like is not the way to go. And the figures you put on them are arbitrary and have no basis other than opinion.
So, forwards....add Evans to the mix, Maybe Lij as well. Harry played 12 games in 2025. He was actually our most effective KPP with 1.83 goals per game. Curnow played 18 games at 1.78 goals a game. They only played 7 games together. Surely we can cover Curnow's output with a combination of these players plus our existing forwards Motlop, Kemp Williams. We'll run some off the bench.
It'll be more than just O'Keefe
Mids- Lord (watch this space), Jagga, Ben C, maybe even Ison who looks a good size Some of our mids may have their best days behind them, others have years of improvement ahead of them and will be guided by some experienced players. How quickly they come on is to be determined. But a combination of the youth and experience seems a good mix.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Thryleon on December 14, 2025, 11:35:38 am
Is a HF and FPs imrproved output covering for Charlie like for like?? No its not.
I don't know the best way to get this across, but from a really simplistic point of view what i'm saying is this. Think about it like a video game rating system. Each player has their own strengths and weaknesses and an overall rating. Charlie might be an 88 / 100. When you add up our best 2025 6 players in our forwardline, maybe we average 75.
If you simple swap out like for like and replace Charlie with.....HOK, maybe he is a 70. Our overall rating of our forward line goes down because we don't have a charlie replacement - like for like.
Now, let rejig our whole forwardline. 1. Charlie out - Hok in. (for example) 2. Durdin out - Ainsworth in 3. Motlop out - Hayward in.
Now, in a 'like for like' the first 1 is a loss, but the second 2 are a gain. So 'overall' we are covering charlie with the other 2 upgrades. This is your whole argument and one that i am going along with. How much it goes up, who knows. Does it get back to our '75' 2025 forward line base, is up for debate. But lets assume its a break even, even with some natural development of Moir helping that area.
My question is this. What part of the midfield is improving enough to cover the loss of TDK? In 2025, maybe we were a 84 midfield. If TDK > Pittonet, then in a like for like, maybe we drop to a 78 midfield in 2026.
What other areas improve to the point to make up for the 'points' we lost from pittonet taking over from TDK? IS Cripps, Hewett, Cerra and Walsh going to get better? Asking a bit much there IMO, especially since Cerra and Hewett had their best years IMO. So where is the other improvement coming from to cover for TDK? NOT in a like for like.
No! Like for like is not the way to go. And the figures you put on them are arbitrary and have no basis othe than opinion.
So, forwards....add Evans to the mix, Maybe Lij as well. Harry played 12 games in 2025. He was actually our most effective KPP with 1.83 goals per game. Curnow played 18 games at 1.78 goals a game. They only played 7 games together. Surely we can cover Curnow's output with a combination of these players plus our existing forwards Motlop, Kemp Williams. We'll run some off the bench.
It'll be more than just O'Keefe
Mids- Lord (watch this space), Jagga, Ben C, maybe even Ison who looks a good size Some of our mids may have their best days behind them, others have years of improvement ahead of them and will be guided by some experienced players. How quickly they come on is to be determined. But a combination of the youth and experience seems a good mix.
Yep we might even use cripps as a key forward if the midfield gets sorted.
His goal scoring record is quite good for a bloke who doesnt exactly kick them out of a clearance situation and spends so often at thr ball drop.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: DJC on December 14, 2025, 12:14:37 pm
Why mention Dean covering Silvagni, a HF and FP covering Charlie, or ask who will cover TDK if that’s not what you meant?
Is a HF and FPs imrproved output covering for Charlie like for like?? No its not.
I don't know the best way to get this across, but from a really simplistic point of view what i'm saying is this. Think about it like a video game rating system. Each player has their own strengths and weaknesses and an overall rating. Charlie might be an 88 / 100. When you add up our best 2025 6 players in our forwardline, maybe we average 75.
If you simple swap out like for like and replace Charlie with.....HOK, maybe he is a 70. Our overall rating of our forward line goes down because we don't have a charlie replacement - like for like.
Now, let rejig our whole forwardline. 1. Charlie out - Hok in. (for example) 2. Durdin out - Ainsworth in 3. Motlop out - Hayward in.
Now, in a 'like for like' the first 1 is a loss, but the second 2 are a gain. So 'overall' we are covering charlie with the other 2 upgrades. This is your whole argument and one that i am going along with. How much it goes up, who knows. Does it get back to our '75' 2025 forward line base, is up for debate. But lets assume its a break even, even with some natural development of Moir helping that area.
My question is this. What part of the midfield is improving enough to cover the loss of TDK? In 2025, maybe we were a 84 midfield. If TDK > Pittonet, then in a like for like, maybe we drop to a 78 midfield in 2026.
What other areas improve to the point to make up for the 'points' we lost from pittonet taking over from TDK? IS Cripps, Hewett, Cerra and Walsh going to get better? Asking a bit much there IMO, especially since Cerra and Hewett had their best years IMO. So where is the other improvement coming from to cover for TDK? NOT in a like for like.
Why do you insist on one for one comparisons to "cover the loss of" whoever it may be? It's a team game and changing structures and gameplans, and improving ball movement and running patterns can result in more scoring opportunities. More accurate kicks for goal means a more efficient forward line and, combined with forward half defensive pressure, means fewer opposition rebounds and less pressure on our team defence. Your video game analogy is fine, for understanding video games, but has absolutely no relevance to AFL list management or team performance.
Take our midfield for example. Last season it was generally seven or eight of Cripps, Hewett, Walsh, De Koning, Cerra, Acres, Lord, Docherty and Pittonet, with Cottrell, Binns and Haynes getting a couple of games there as well. Cripps was well down on his usual form, Walsh missed games through injury, Acres was struggling with his back. This season we have Acres and Walsh back to full fitness, Smith ready to debut and Cripps, Hewett, Cerra, Lord and Pittonet from our 2025 midfield. Then there's Ollie Hollands back from defence, Reidy, who is looking a much better prospect than I expected, and Chesser, the Camporeales with another pre-season under their belts, and Hayward, Ainsworth and Florent all capable of time in the midfield. Collectively, our midfield cohort is significantly stronger than it was last season.
Swapping three players for three players is not "rejigging our forward line." Rejigging our forward line is appointing a new assistant coach determined to end our forward line's reliance on one or two players, improving our connection and ball movement inside 50, creating more scoring opportunities, and requiring our forwards to have the complete and unconditional buy-in of successful teams. Our list managers have given Josh Fraser the cattle he needs to achieve that.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 14, 2025, 12:15:13 pm
Those numbers are a factor but using the video game analogy ive signed a player with the high rating and then swapped him for another who didnt have as high a rating but had some skills that were more complimentary and most importantly moved in a way that strengthened the whole.
This is where the discrepancy on both sides of the argument begins. We had skull and kemp. They will get theor time in the sun. We have a young moir and maybe a wildcard option in Ison. Using Brisbane Logan Morris is a 191 cm key forward.
Kemp, ison and moir all have him for size.
We dont know how this goes for them, and skull would be the player you wanted drafted. Hes 20 years old and 200cm and played 5 games.
Using the Judd into cripps analogy, we all though cripps would do a job for us moving forward but he has gone from strength to strength in a way only thr most optimistic of people expected after his debut season.
Ultimately its the I told you so bit thats tripping you over. You cant see the clubs attempts because you dont agree with it. We havent neglected these spots at all, weve just taken alternatives to the types and players you would have. Thats ok too, but the pudding is still in the oven and you are lamenting the ingredients used. Thing is the oven could break before we get the pudding out. We wont know but the change of ingredients wouldnt have likely impacted that.
I understand what you are saying about skill set, and as i said i tried to keep it simplistic as to not go into every attribute, but ultimately the argument remains the same. A decrease in marking power vs an increase in tackling etc. It balances out somewhat for forwards if you want to play it that way (Personally i disagree, but there is no way for one to be proven right or wrong at this stage).
The area of midfield was the contentious one as there is very little improvement in that area from an incoming point of view, its all about development of those already in the system, largely off the back of the hope that Jagga can add something over and above what we already had to help cover for the tdk downgrade.
As for HOK being 'the guy'....well up until this off-season, he was a ruck. Now he's the answer up forward? I'd like to hope so, but i think he's a long way off ticking that box at this stage. He averages 8 hitouts and 7 posessions. and 0.6 goals a game. Sure he will get better, but Lewis Young offered us 3 hitouts, 10 touches and .5 goals a game last year and is far from the answer.....and HOK hasn't got to that yet.
Kudos for understanding the analogy though, which is more than i can say for some others.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 14, 2025, 12:32:56 pm
@DJC.... The 'covering the loss of' comments are about exactly what you are describing. Loss of output in one area is covered by an increased performance in another area. Thats the point i'm getting at.
I've said i'm trying to be simplistic. I could do a deep dive into statistics and marginal improvements in ability to get open for an easy mark inside 50 to increase likelyhood of shots on goal vs 50-50 contests that we would win with Charlie there instead......but nobody would read it, understand it and/or agree with it, so i'm keeping it simple. Perhaps too simple for some.
In order for team performance to improve SOME areas must get better. Correct? With some of the players we lost, SOME areas will get worse (Ability to kick goals off 1 step from outside 50 is one nobody could argue with, but there would be others). Correct? Without going into the minutia of who, where and why each individual area of the performance will change, i'm simplyfying it to a hypothetical number. The number itself is not important. The variation to it is what is important and debateable. Overall, i say some areas of the ground some numbers will get worse. In others it might stay the same or improve. Your thoughts on those numbers will be different to mine and different to the next guy. Overall, i've got no interest in debating the numbers, they are just there as a point of reference to highlight areas where i think our team performance will struggle compared to years previous.
Those same numbers will vary dramtically with injury and confidence....week to week, month to month, year to year.
Its the exact same logic i was using in the 2 ruck debate previously. Despite 'getting worse in hitouts' by using a SOJ/Cripps/Kennedy as backup ruck compaired to the TDK+Pitto combo.... ....around the ground the amount we would improve would more than cover for the loss of a few hitouts. So its not a like for like, its a 'covering for' to get a benefit elsewhere.
Now perhaps the difference in team performance will be largely made irrelevent if the injuries and confidence of the playing group is superior to what it was last year.....and i hope that is true. But without knowing how those 2 factors will play out, its best to remove them from the debate.
So with that in mind, this debate is centered around ability and ignoring form and fitness....as the latter may get better or may get worse. Ability, will largely stay the same, with small increases in developing kids and small decreases in senior players as they get older.
So in conclusion.... I think we will get weaker, up forward and in the middle with the changes we've had overall. I accept some areas within that will improve, but you must also concede some areas within that will be down as well. The debate centers around how much and where. IMO, Navy glasses are responsible for overestimating some of these areas on your side of the debate.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 14, 2025, 12:44:39 pm
And those same 'Navy glasses' have you rating the departing players based on their 2025 form more highly.
At the end of the day this is pretty much a futile debate because no-one is changing their mind.
The bar has been set. Who is right and who is wrong willl be determined by this time next year. 10+ wins and 10th place and the optimists take it 8 wins or less and a lower than 11th finish and the pessimists take the prize. 9 wins and 11th place...and we'll call it a draw.
This thread topic has probably run its course. We have 4 players who make the bench
Hollands (6) Lord (5) O'Keefe (5) Evans (4)
(I'm actually happy with that... it's similar to mine
Florent (3) Motlop (3) McGovern (3) are in a contest for the last spot.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: ElwoodBlues1 on December 14, 2025, 12:52:25 pm
Brisbane get away with Morris at FF because they have a red hot midfield delivering dimes. We have a history of trying to cheat with non specialist players in key roles but always avoid fixing the underlying problems. Cripps, Walsh, Hewett,Acres, Ollie etc will still be doing the majority of the delivering so nothing will change. Haywood will find the ball lobbed on his head like Charlie did and same with Harry. HOK is a good colt and will have his moments but as Freo have found out with the talented Luke Jackson, playing him forward as a tall forward works best as a shock tactic not as a regular event. Hampson and Kruezer are a reminder of trying to cheat ending in disaster.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: DJC on December 14, 2025, 03:20:16 pm
Brisbane get away with Morris at FF because they have a red hot midfield delivering dimes. We have a history of trying to cheat with non specialist players in key roles but always avoid fixing the underlying problems. Cripps, Walsh, Hewett,Acres, Ollie etc will still be doing the majority of the delivering so nothing will change. Haywood will find the ball lobbed on his head like Charlie did and same with Harry. HOK is a good colt and will have his moments but as Freo have found out with the talented Luke Jackson, playing him forward as a tall forward works best as a shock tactic not as a regular event. Hampson and Kruezer are a reminder of trying to cheat ending in disaster.
You've not watched the training sessions and seen how our ball movement is very different and quite precise? Florent, Smith, Ison, Byrne, Hayward, Chesser, etc rarely miss a target and it's apparent that sharpening our kicking skills has been a major off-season focus.
Skull has always played as a key forward/ruck in the VFL. His 10.6 from 9 games last season helped propel him into the seniors and his 3.4 from his three games was a decent return. Time will tell if he is to emulate Paul Salmon, Charlie Dixon, Sam Darcy, Riley Thilthorpe and other ruckmen who succeeded as key forwards.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: ElwoodBlues1 on December 14, 2025, 05:55:42 pm
Brisbane get away with Morris at FF because they have a red hot midfield delivering dimes. We have a history of trying to cheat with non specialist players in key roles but always avoid fixing the underlying problems. Cripps, Walsh, Hewett,Acres, Ollie etc will still be doing the majority of the delivering so nothing will change. Haywood will find the ball lobbed on his head like Charlie did and same with Harry. HOK is a good colt and will have his moments but as Freo have found out with the talented Luke Jackson, playing him forward as a tall forward works best as a shock tactic not as a regular event. Hampson and Kruezer are a reminder of trying to cheat ending in disaster.
You've not watched the training sessions and seen how our ball movement is very different and quite precise? Florent, Smith, Ison, Byrne, Hayward, Chesser, etc rarely miss a target and it's apparent that sharpening our kicking skills has been a major off-season focus.
Skull has always played as a key forward/ruck in the VFL. His 10.6 from 9 games last season helped propel him into the seniors and his 3.4 from his three games was a decent return. Time will tell if he is to emulate Paul Salmon, Charlie Dixon, Sam Darcy, Riley Thilthorpe and other ruckmen who succeeded as key forwards.
Training and the VFL are a lot different to senior footy when the pressure is on. Those players you mentioned are not in the same parish as what Morris has giving him the ball. Three of them haven't played a game and you failed to address the issue of our main midfield group still doing the majority of the work including delivery. I'd expect Ison, Byrne and Chesser to start in the VFL and Voss to stick with his experienced players initially given the reality that he is coaching for his future.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: DJC on December 15, 2025, 03:27:44 am
Training and the VFL are a lot different to senior footy when the pressure is on. Those players you mentioned are not in the same parish as what Morris has giving him the ball. Three of them haven't played a game and you failed to address the issue of our main midfield group still doing the majority of the work including delivery. I'd expect Ison, Byrne and Chesser to start in the VFL and Voss to stick with his experienced players initially given the reality that he is coaching for his future.
Yes, training is very different from playing but you missed the point; our ball movement is markedly different to what it was last season.
McCluggage and Zorko are no slouches when it comes to spraying the ball and Charlie is going to be disappointed with the poor service he gets from the likes of Warner, Gulden and Roberts. I wonder why Sydney let two of their better ball users go :-\
On the other hand, seven of the players who left us were among our worst ball users.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 15, 2025, 05:30:41 am
On the other hand, seven of the players who left us were among our worst ball users.
A weird statement. Charlie is one of the best ball users we've ever had. Durdin was good too. Fantasia wasnt terrible....just soft. Silvagni was good for a taller guy. Tdk was great for a ruckman. Docherty and anyone else I've missed are all far superior to acres.
The knock on florent is his kicking.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 15, 2025, 07:13:44 am
It's actually a mixed bag...and the knock on Florent is somewhat exaggerated.
2025 Kicking efficiency
Out Silvagni 72.7% Docherty 62.6 % Curnow 57.6% TDK 57.2% Fantasia 56.1% Durdin 55.6% E Hollands 52.9%
In Hayward 67.4% Florent 66.9% Ainsworth 64% Chesser 57.9%
One thing that has to be considered is that 'defender' kicking efficiency is often inflated by taking kick-ins and switches of play which occur without a lot of pressure meaning that accuracy is better.
Our top12 for kicking efficiency all played as defenders this year.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Professer E on December 15, 2025, 10:07:46 am
Durdin was an awful field kick, I suspect that's why we let him go
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: DJC on December 15, 2025, 02:59:03 pm
Durdin was an awful field kick, I suspect that's why we let him go
Same with Binns; he could nail a couple then send a few into the void.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Professer E on December 15, 2025, 03:16:11 pm
Binns had a canky kicking action, not surprised he was hit or miss and was culled.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: madbluboy on December 16, 2025, 07:32:20 am
They're actually all very good kicks of a football, you're not getting drafted if you can't kick. It's usually decision making and execution under pressure that determines if a player makes it. Binns didn't get much of a chance considering Chesser is 18 months older, has had more opportunities in a poor side and hasn't shown he can cut it anymore than Jaxon did.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 17, 2025, 09:20:55 pm
OK, i'm calling it.
We have our 5.
From only 8 votes, we had some varied selections, with nobody being a unanimous selection. Our bench is... Ollie Hollands - 7 votes Cooper Lord - 6 Hudson O'Keeffe - 6 Frankie Evans - 4 Ollie Florent - 4
Narrowly missing out and making up our emergencies would be made up of 3 of.... Jesse Motlop - 3 Mitch McGovern - 3 Matt Cottrell - 2 Harry Dean - 2
Final Team FB - Cowan - Weitering - Newman HB - Saad - O'Farrell - Haynes C - Walsh - Cripps - Smith HF - Ainsworth - McKay - Hayward FF - Williams - Kemp - Moir R - Pittonet - Hewett - Cerra Int - O. Hollands - Lord - O'Keeffe - Evans - Florent EMG - Motlop - McGovern - Cottrell - Dean (27th)
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 17, 2025, 09:22:03 pm
How does that compare to last year??
Final Team FB - Cowan - Weitering - Newman HB - Saad - O'Farrell - Haynes C - Walsh - Cripps - Smith HF - Ainsworth - McKay - Hayward FF - Williams - Kemp - Moir R - Pittonet - Hewett - Cerra Int - O. Hollands - Lord - O'Keeffe - Evans - Florent EMG - Motlop - McGovern - Cottrell - Dean (27th)
For a comparison, lets look at what our best 26 was pre-season last year FB - Saad - Weitering - Newman HB - McGovern - Haynes - Docherty C - Acres- Cripps - Walsh HF - Kemp - McKay - E. Hollands FF - Williams - Curnow - Fogarty R - De Koning - Hewett - Cerra Int - Smith - Cowan - O. Hollands - Boyd - Motlop EMG - Silvagni - Moir - Cottrell
Looking at the 2 lists, McGovern, Motlop went from starting to emergencies and Moir did the opposite.
8 changes from last year to this year otherwise. OUT: TDK, Charlie, Silvagni, Docherty, E. Hollands, Boyd, Acres and Fogarty....only the last 3 are still on the list (with Elijah in no mans land) IN: Ainsworth, Hayward, Florent, Evans, Pittonet, Lord, O'Keeffe and O'Farrell....the last 4 found their way into the best team over the year, and Fankie was added later who acheived the same feat, only 3 of our new recruits and zero draftees have forced their way into our side currently.
I've made my thoughts pretty clear, there are a million and 1 scenarios that can unfold this year to influence the end result, but IMO we are starting a far inferior team to this time last year.
What do you guys think?
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 17, 2025, 10:14:28 pm
Final Team FB - Cowan - Weitering - Newman HB - Saad - O'Farrell - Haynes C - Walsh - Cripps - Smith HF - Ainsworth - McKay - Hayward FF - Williams - Kemp - Moir R - Pittonet - Hewett - Cerra Int - O. Hollands - Lord - O'Keeffe - Evans - Florent EMG - Motlop - McGovern - Cottrell - Dean (27th)
For a comparison, lets look at what our best 26 was pre-season last year FB - Saad - Weitering - Newman HB - McGovern - Haynes - Docherty C - Acres- Cripps - Walsh HF - Kemp - McKay - E. Hollands FF - Williams - Curnow - Fogarty R - De Koning - Hewett - Cerra Int - Smith - Cowan - O. Hollands - Boyd - Motlop EMG - Silvagni - Moir - Cottrell
Looking at the 2 lists, McGovern, Motlop went from starting to emergencies and Moir did the opposite.
8 changes from last year to this year otherwise. OUT: TDK, Charlie, Silvagni, Docherty, E. Hollands, Boyd, Acres and Fogarty....only the last 3 are still on the list (with Elijah in no mans land) IN: Ainsworth, Hayward, Florent, Evans, Pittonet, Lord, O'Keeffe and O'Farrell....the last 4 found their way into the best team over the year, and Fankie was added later who acheived the same feat, only 3 of our new recruits and zero draftees have forced their way into our side currently.
I've made my thoughts pretty clear, there are a million and 1 scenarios that can unfold this year to influence the end result, but IMO we are starting a far inferior team to this time last year.
What do you guys think?
You know what we think :D :D
I'm guessing Dean and Motlop will play round 1. I'm guessing O' Farrell wont I'm guessing Newman, Kemp and Smith will play a few more games than they did this year. No doubt we might have some who play less.
But what we do have is a number of players not in that original 2025 team who have played a few games this last season. If we have a look at the players who didn't get a spot in our voting it bodes well for a strong VFL side, and many of those will (and are capable of) playing senior football in 2026
I'm also guessing the 2026 side will look significantly different when we play the 'wild card' round. ;) But we've had these arguments...now it's wait and see, because anything else is just a guess and opinion.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 18, 2025, 07:50:32 am
Teams on paper look good... Especially at the start of the season with no injuries and no 'apparent' issues. Reality sometimes tells a different story. As a season unfolds the paper often gets a little crumbled.
2025 ('best' team) FB - Saad (21)- Weitering (23) – Newman (0) HB – McGovern ( 17)– Haynes (23) – Docherty (15) C – Acres (19-played injured)- Cripps (23) – Walsh (14) HF – Kemp (5) – McKay (12-mental health break) - E. Hollands (5-mental health break) FF - Williams (19)- Curnow (18 played injured and mind on leaving)- Fogarty (20) R - De Koning (22 distracted by huge St Kilda Offer) - Hewett (23)- Cerra (19) Int – Smith (0) - Cowan (14) - O. Hollands (23) - Boyd (3) – Motlop (23) EMG – Silvagni (13 brother’s issues and thoughts of leaving) – Moir (9) – Cottrell (6)
played every game played most games missed 4 or more Missed significant games, or promoted for few
(There would have been others who played on through injury that wasn't as obvious.)
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: DJC on December 18, 2025, 08:30:05 am
Having only six players who played all games was a significant factor in our season.
However, what I want to know is why the best and most irreplaceable CHB we’ve had wasn’t rated? 😇
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 18, 2025, 03:39:14 pm
Having only six players who played all games was a significant factor in our season.
However, what I want to know is why the best and most irreplaceable CHB we’ve had wasn’t rated? 😇
Because that was from pre-season, he hadn't played a game there. Do you want me to find one from the middle of the year??
....and if you were worried about players playing every game, why did we ditch Kennedy the year before who played every game??
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Thryleon on December 18, 2025, 03:49:36 pm
^^ it was his first time in 7 years. Not sure we ditched him or he moved on for greater opportunities as the inside mid spot is very much occupied.
Like one swallow not making a summer, lets see how he gets on again moving forward at the Doggies. Kennedy is a fine player, but he isnt a needle mover on his own.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 18, 2025, 03:53:06 pm
Having only six players who played all games was a significant factor in our season.
However, what I want to know is why the best and most irreplaceable CHB we’ve had wasn’t rated? 😇
Because that was from pre-season, he hadn't played a game there. Do you want me to find one from the middle of the year??
And that's why the 'paper' team we've currently picked means 'diddly squat'. We're going to find later in the year that players who are currently not in the paper side will have cemented spots...some through a change of position or role.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 18, 2025, 03:57:37 pm
^^ it was his first time in 7 years. Not sure we ditched him or he moved on for greater opportunities as the inside mid spot is very much occupied.
Like one swallow not making a summer, lets see how he gets on again moving forward at the Doggies. Kennedy is a fine player, but he isnt a needle mover on his own.
No i get that, i'm just pointing out 2 things.
1. If its all about players that play every game, we stuffed up last year. 2. If its more about the quality of players playing, then players playing every game is somewhat irrelevent, as long as the players playing are better than players previous. eg Fogarty, good on him, he played 20 games. Not 1 person picked him as a starting 6. Only 1 person gave him a spot on the bench, 1. So does it matter how many games he played or does it matter that he is no good?! Same with Motlop, played every game, he just got a gig as an emergency in our team this year though.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 18, 2025, 03:58:38 pm
Because that was from pre-season, he hadn't played a game there. Do you want me to find one from the middle of the year??
And that's why the 'paper' team we've currently picked means 'diddly squat'. We're going to find later in the year that players who are currently not in the paper side will have cemented spots...some through a change of position or role.
Well if we don't have paper teams at this time of the year we may as well shut the site down :P
Its all speculation.
We don't even know who Vossys favourites are yet ;)
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: Lods on December 18, 2025, 04:14:21 pm
And that's why the 'paper' team we've currently picked means 'diddly squat'. We're going to find later in the year that players who are currently not in the paper side will have cemented spots...some through a change of position or role.
Well if we don't have paper teams at this time of the year we may as well shut the site down :P
Its all speculation.
We don't even know who Vossys favourites are yet ;)
By all means discuss it It was a fun exercise. Just don't give it any weight.
With regard to players playing every game. Individually it may not be important but the more players who play together, the more often, the better it is for team dynamics. They develop an understanding and cohesion. They gain an understanding of their teammates strengths and weaknsess under pressure that training cannot reproduce. If half the side are missing half the year, playing injured or have their minds elsewhere it's not conducive to good team development.
Title: Re: Pick our team in parts - Part 4 - 5 on the bench
Post by: kruddler on December 18, 2025, 04:26:12 pm
Well if we don't have paper teams at this time of the year we may as well shut the site down :P
Its all speculation.
We don't even know who Vossys favourites are yet ;)
By all means discuss it It was a fun exercise. Just don't give it any weight.
With regard to players playing every game. Individually it may not be important but the more players who play together, the more often, the better it is for team dynamics. They develop an understanding and cohesion. They gain an understanding of their teammates strengths and weaknsess under pressure that training cannot reproduce. If half the side are missing half the year, playing injured or have their minds elsewhere it's not conducive to good team development.
I get that, and its also 1 reason why i prefer to 'grow my own' KPPs. Better for team development rather than imported one later. ;)