Re: The Run Home
Reply #51 –
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.
See that's nothing but an assumption. Facts say Ratten did very well in building this side. The weaknesses have become apparent under MM. Strange coincidence?
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.
Kernahan oversaw the extension of Pagan's contract and the hiring of MM. Same old regime, same old way. Once again, your arguments are based on assumption, in reality you don't really know. You're just putting forward a hypothetical that supports the club's decision. In reality, it means little.
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.
So why do you pay so much money for a coach that struggles to adapt to a list and demands a list gets turned over to support his archaic gameplan? In reality, that's what you're saying, our list does not suit MM's gameplan. Surely this would affect the 'layer 1' players as you put it as they're the ones that will win the game. MM has failed to adapt to the list at all, Ratten worked out a gameplan to complement the list.
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.
Our guys have played footy the way Mick has wanted them to. It hasn't worked at all. Once again, this would affect our layer 1 players as you put it as they're the ones that will win us games. Malthouse is accountable, you don't seem to want to push any blame onto him at all.
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.
So who exactly is responsible for layer 1 performing? When we lose no doubt it's them, but when we win mick gets the credit. Do you not see the hypocrisy? The facts are, these players are underperforming under the current coach, and the flaws you point to were only apparent under the previous regime in 2012, when we were riddled with injury.
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
This is no different to any other side. The coach has a responsibility to get said 'layer 1'players up on a regular basis.
Facts:
Ratten did very well in building this side?
Your opinion that Ratts did very well with building this side is an assumption. The facts say that he didnt. remember, wins/losses? IF he was so good at building it, it would be winning flags right this minute and would have done so under him. Therefore he didnt do very well building this side.
Clarkson did very well building a side.
Thompson did very well building a side.
Scott is doing very well re-building a side.
Longmire did very well building a side.
Buckley is doing very well building a side.
Hinkley is doing very well building a side.
You know why?
They rock up to play more often than not. They win more than they lose. They play good footy. They are sustainably playing in finals football (based on limited data and ladder position) and finally, all of them have smashed the living bejeesus out of the side that Ratten built and here is the kicker, their better performers today were mostly being recruited and developed during the time when Carlton was being developed under B. Ratten.
He did well in two finals. We sold our future to experience success today, and our membership numbers and weekly attendances tell the story of people being sold false promises.
Topic: The Run Home (Read 38875 times)
previous topic - next topic
