Carlton Supporters Club

There is a little bit of blind hope going on here. A win was most enjoyable, and a rare thing, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

The club has only really cleared the decks these past months and started to think about building and setting direction. Of course we are on the way up. Couldn't get much lower.

With the state of our list, and our best player retiring we are in poor shape. At least 2 years away from finals for mine, and that is with good decisions being made at the draft and a good head of coaching appointed.

There is a little bit of blind hope going on here. A win was most enjoyable, and a rare thing, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

The club has only really cleared the decks these past months and started to think about building and setting direction. Of course we are on the way up. Couldn't get much lower.

With the state of our list, and our best player retiring we are in poor shape. At least 2 years away from finals for mine, and that is with good decisions being made at the draft and a good head of coaching appointed.

There is a little bit of blind hope going on here. A win was most enjoyable, and a rare thing, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

The club has only really cleared the decks these past months and started to think about building and setting direction. Of course we are on the way up. Couldn't get much lower.

With the state of our list, and our best player retiring we are in poor shape. At least 2 years away from finals for mine, and that is with good decisions being made at the draft and a good head of coaching appointed.

I think the brains trust will tinker with the game plan when they get 25-30 players doing the basics right.....the players looked mentally damaged from'the Malthouse
era and need a bit of freedom to forget what they have been taught by MM which has proven to be fear of failure and a self survival attitude only.
We are now seeing some teamwork and passion on the field, good players like Henderson who looked in a daze and trance under Malthouse looked excited with the Port win..
A few small steps at a time will see the method improve..you look at a kid like Graham who didnt know where he was in the scheme of things and with a few games in a row
looks comfortable in the seniors and is not just looking on but actually contributing and is the sort of player if you watch him does look for a player rather than bomb it long.
Bombing it long is also a panic manoeuvre from players who fear to take the game on and be creative because they fear making a mistake...another Malthouse legacy that needs eradicating..

Boekhorst is a player who will benefit from Barkers attacking take the game on philosophy IMO and who will add some creative running and look to bring teammates into play rather than just bomb it long..just needs some senior games and to be told its ok to make a mistake and we wont drop you if you do....

Malthouse identified it on SEN on Friday - have a game plan that suits the players, which must include allowing them to play footy.

I would think that is what you want to do - coach to your team strengths.  Easier to improve strengths as that is where people are happy and confident, rather than working hard on weaknesses,  which people don't enjoy at the expense of their strengths.

Pity he couldn't adapt to his own view.

See this has me confused, Mick wanted a game plan that demanded precision kicking around the boundary initially to protect the corridor but we never had the list to deliver that style..after a couple of kicks we just would turn the ball over. Running the ball down the middle can bite you when you when you turn it over but its the shortest way home when you dont have great footskills and draws forwards to the footy.
If he knew we needed a gameplan that suited the players why did he persist for a while with one that didnt....

That is incorrect.

The point of going around the boundary line was IF you can't make a precision kick, you'll get it to a 50-50 contest in which the defender will most likely knock it over the boundary line, then you start again with a throw in, but further into your territory.

In short, it was about territory and suited our lack of kicking skills to go around the boundary. If we turned it over there it was less likely to hurt us!

That is incorrect.

The point of going around the boundary line was IF you can't make a precision kick, you'll get it to a 50-50 contest in which the defender will most likely knock it over the boundary line, then you start again with a throw in, but further into your territory.

In short, it was about territory and suited our lack of kicking skills to go around the boundary. If we turned it over there it was less likely to hurt us!

Watching many of the games on TV lately, there are many teams that go around the boundary. It is the safe option, but it would have the most chance of success if you have strong contested marks at the end of each kick, which minimizes the chance of the ball going OOB, which I would have thought is more a plan B. If it does go OOB, you need a good, strong ruck and follower combination to capitalize. If you are weak in the stoppages, then it doesn't work as well.


I've always believed that contested marking and accurate kicking for goal are the two most valuable assets in AFL footy. If you have a reasonable number of players with these skills, you can beat anyone.

That may be the theory but Blind Freddy could see that it didn't work in practice.  Opposition players knew exactly where the ball was going and we're able to spoil or intercept.  Rather than throw ins, the ball often went straight back down the corridor, giving our defenders no chance.

Given the opportunity, Malthouse would have persevered with his outdated, ineffective gameplan regardless of the playing list and the evolution of the game.

The answer to the question 'why so different?' is blindingly obvious; Malthouse and his archaic approach to coaching is gone!