Carlton Supporters Club

Thanks Denim...

I to am not trying to turn this into a Ratten thing but if we look at this objectively.

Ratten was sacked because he was perceived to have underperformed. We said top 4 was the goal and were top of the ladder at 4-1 after 5 rounds.

He was sacked as 11 wins and a loss to the Gold Coast was deemed unacceptable for this list.

Now we have a coach who most are happy with, to win 8 games and lose to Melbourne with, because he said the list isn't good enough. Again, if Ratten won 11 games and we played finals last year (by default, but still won one), why are we judging coaches on different criteria and accepting mediocrity from one but not the other?

Thanks Denim...

I to am not trying to turn this into a Ratten thing but if we look at this objectively.

Ratten was sacked because he was perceived to have underperformed. We said top 4 was the goal and were top of the ladder at 4-1 after 5 rounds.

He was sacked as 11 wins and a loss to the Gold Coast was deemed unacceptable for this list.

Now we have a coach who most are happy with, to win 8 games and lose to Melbourne with, because he said the list isn't good enough. Again, if Ratten won 11 games and we played finals last year (by default, but still won one), why are we judging coaches on different criteria and accepting mediocrity from one but not the other?

Quote from: shadesy on May 14, 2014, 11:11:33 pm

Ok serious question time...

If we are happy with 8 wins in a season and losing to Melbourne why did we sack Ratten?

Because the value of a head coach isn't judged on game science alone. In a realistic sense head coach has duty to direct many of the other departments and people that exist to support the overall vision (which he is responsible for delivering). It's fair to say that a group has to be pulling in the same direction to achieve success. It's been reported that Ratts wasn't that way inclined, that there were some difficulties around managing people, and that he interpreted difference of opinion as personally offensive rather rather than professionally constructive. His forte is predominately the science of the game , rather than that, as well as science of people and the organization. That's why he is an excellent assistant coach. Clearly it had more to do with lack of faith in him as head coach in broader sense, rather than win loss record, the club even implied as such.

Hawthorn sacked Peter Schwab in similar circumstances to Ratten, one poor year after four good seasons. Clarkson's first two years were poor with 5 and 9 wins respectively. The rest is history.

After all, if you dont have faith of the board you are dead man walking anyway.

Yep nice point MBB...

What was clarksons experience before that?

If we are going on reputation with Malthouse, what made Clarkson a good choice. Why would Malthouse been a better choice than Hinkley (as an example)

Coaching career

Clarkson served as a runner with the Melbourne Football Club in 1998 and was an assistant coach under Tim Watson at St Kilda in 1999 before taking over as head coach at Werribee in the VFL in 2000. He moved to Central District in South Australia, where he was a Premiership coach in his debut year 2001. In 2003 he became the midfield coach at Port Adelaide and forward coach in 2004.

He was appointed his first senior AFL coaching role at the Hawthorn Football Club for the 2005 season, when the Hawks appointed Clarkson to lead their rebuilding phase. Clarkson was prepared to delist older players and instill a youth policy. Club veterans Rayden Tallis, Mark Graham, Kris Barlow, Luke McCabe and Lance Picioane left the club while Nathan Thompson was trade to North Melbourne. His side could only manage five wins in his debut season. Another round of culling and the club bid farewell to Angelo Lekkas, Nick Holland, and traded Jonathan Hay and Nathan Lonie. Clarkson brought to the club delisted footballers Brent Guerra and Stephen Gilham who he knew from his time at Port Adelaide.

Quote from: shadesy on May 15, 2014, 08:25:29 am

Thanks Denim...

I to am not trying to turn this into a Ratten thing but if we look at this objectively.

Ratten was sacked because he was perceived to have underperformed. We said top 4 was the goal and were top of the ladder at 4-1 after 5 rounds.

He was sacked as 11 wins and a loss to the Gold Coast was deemed unacceptable for this list.

Now we have a coach who most are happy with, to win 8 games and lose to Melbourne with, because he said the list isn't good enough. Again, if Ratten won 11 games and we played finals last year (by default, but still won one), why are we judging coaches on different criteria and accepting mediocrity from one but not the other?

Hawthorn sacked Peter Schwab in similar circumstances to Ratten, one poor year after four good seasons. Clarkson's first two years were poor with 5 and 9 wins respectively. The rest is history.

OK, Some interesting Debate and discussion.

It is becoming clear that the old Carlton way came to the fore here. We coveted someone better and when they became available we paved the way for him to come to the football club. It's not to dissimilar to the Mark Harvey/Ross Lyon scenario which seems to have worked for now. Harvey doing a decent Job, but Lyon doing it better. The thing with that is Lyon built on Harvey's foundations, where Malthouse seems to be stripping it back.

I guess my problem with the whole scenario, is we sacked Ratten that he didn't meet expectations, then lowered those expectations in the media, the supporters and the club, so the new guy, who will not meet the same expectations that Ratten was sacked for, can claim he needs to rebuild.

When Ratten lost to the GC, not a man on here didnt think Ratten was going, yet when we lost to Melbourne, many were OK with that and blamed the list, the development, the injuries (which is a laugh, as we couldn't use that excuse in 2012), the weather, the Crisis in the Ukraine etc... everything but the coach.

I was happy to see improvement with Malthouse, hoping for another finals appearance and games into the young guys and structures and gameplan being bedded down. I havent seen that and thus my expectations have not been met. We will only win 8-10 games this year and that is a fail IMO, but others see it as a necessary evil, yet Ratten wasnt afforded the same luxury.

If we are lucky, the hawks are struggling a bit and we may get them on a good night... I also noticed today that we have 3 x 6 day breaks in a row, then a 8 day break but travel to Perth. I think this will severely hamper any run home that we have.

OK, Some interesting Debate and discussion.

It is becoming clear that the old Carlton way came to the fore here. We coveted someone better and when they became available we paved the way for him to come to the football club. It's not to dissimilar to the Mark Harvey/Ross Lyon scenario which seems to have worked for now. Harvey doing a decent Job, but Lyon doing it better. The thing with that is Lyon built on Harvey's foundations, where Malthouse seems to be stripping it back.

I guess my problem with the whole scenario, is we sacked Ratten that he didn't meet expectations, then lowered those expectations in the media, the supporters and the club, so the new guy, who will not meet the same expectations that Ratten was sacked for, can claim he needs to rebuild.

When Ratten lost to the GC, not a man on here didnt think Ratten was going, yet when we lost to Melbourne, many were OK with that and blamed the list, the development, the injuries (which is a laugh, as we couldn't use that excuse in 2012), the weather, the Crisis in the Ukraine etc... everything but the coach.

I was happy to see improvement with Malthouse, hoping for another finals appearance and games into the young guys and structures and gameplan being bedded down. I havent seen that and thus my expectations have not been met. We will only win 8-10 games this year and that is a fail IMO, but others see it as a necessary evil, yet Ratten wasnt afforded the same luxury.

If we are lucky, the hawks are struggling a bit and we may get them on a good night... I also noticed today that we have 3 x 6 day breaks in a row, then a 8 day break but travel to Perth. I think this will severely hamper any run home that we have.

Quote from: madbluboy on May 15, 2014, 09:21:26 am

Hawthorn sacked Peter Schwab in similar circumstances to Ratten, one poor year after four good seasons. Clarkson's first two years were poor with 5 and 9 wins respectively. The rest is history.

Carlton sacked Wayne Brittain in  similar circumstances to Ratten, one poor year. Pagans first two years were poor with 4 and 10 wins respectively. The rest is history.

On reflection, 2012 told us the story.  Our layer that fires and wins us games largely broke down.  Our expectations changed so dramatically that finally not making the 8 was the straw that broke the camels back rather than missing the top 4 altogether.  The reality is, the camel broke before then.  The camel broke when we failed to create an environment that had a team that was really playing for each other, and had everyone worked together to achieve our results and not through individual brilliance.

1.  The old Carlton way I dont think was a factor here.  I think its too easy to look at the old Carlton way of doing things as the reason for why we got Malthouse.  I think its more to do with faith in people and relationships.  The old Carlton way was linked to the old regime and where ours resembles that way of doing things, different personnell are ringing in these changes.  The culture of the place must have changed from that at some point (surely).  When I think of the old Carlton way, it resembles more Elliott than it does Pratt.  Elliott is a lie, cheat, steal and influence approach getting in a quick fix.  Pratt is a matter of getting in the right people to do the job.

2.  Stripping it back.  The popular opinion of many has been that this was not only required but necessary to make the right moves required to really start playing good hard, tough uncompromising footy.  I think comparing Lyon and Malthouse muddies the waters.  Harvey wasnt as good a coach as Ratten, and as it appears, Harvey had more talent to work with than Harvey did, combined with a home ground advantage and a monstor ruckman that they really failed to make good use of during the journey.  Lets not forget that Freo were a starter club and have been afforded a few luxuries that Carlton have not.  The comparison is not even.  You might argue that Malthouse should have had an easier time given Ratten's achievements, but I think that some of the foundations of Ratten and Micks game plan are polar opposites which results in some of our boys having a really hard time adjusting how they play.  Ratten more about getting the ball forward quickly, Malthouse a little bit more patiently and precisely.  Not conducive to the same skillsets.

3.  Has Malthouse been the one to lower our expectations?  I debate it.  I would say the way our guys have played their footy has resulted in this rather than anything else.  The inability to hit passes to players advantage is not a new thing for our team, and it happens frequently every game where guys are picking balls up off their toes, rather than running onto a ball at chest height.  Hospital passes where we leave a bloke a sitting duck underneath the footy, or having to halve a contest between two opponents to win it.  Ratten even blamed losing critical contests in season 2012 as to why we failed to win some games.  Its not new and its been a problem for a while.  Again, a leopard doesnt change its spots easily.

4.  Melbourne.  This result muddies the perspective.  They wanted it more. Going back to the layers, Layer 1 misfired again, and we lost.  Not surprising.  We will lose in this fashion again until layer 2 starts providing the winning form.  Layer 1 will re discover that form when it happens, and we will look better for it but until layer 2 becomes good forget achieving a lot.

5.   Our season.  Going back to our layers, the expectation on our wins, changes based on our top layer players again.  Murphy and Gibbs are firing and we are showing a bit more winning form, but as we saw against the Pies and the Bombers any team that gets us on an "off" day will more than likely beat us particularly if they are not as schizofrenic as our team is with its form.  Richmond are very much like us and have been over the journy

Quote from: Lods on May 15, 2014, 09:44:55 am

Quote from: madbluboy on May 15, 2014, 09:21:26 am

Hawthorn sacked Peter Schwab in similar circumstances to Ratten, one poor year after four good seasons. Clarkson's first two years were poor with 5 and 9 wins respectively. The rest is history.

Carlton sacked Wayne Brittain in  similar circumstances to Ratten, one poor year. Pagans first two years were poor with 4 and 10 wins respectively. The rest is history.

We keep going back to Pagan but his record was beyond poor, the Essendon game in rd 3 was horrific but that happened every 3 or 4 weeks when Pagan was around. Aside from their age I just don't see any similarities.