Carlton Supporters Club

Imagine if we had gone with one ruckman.  It doesn't matter which one because McInerney would have given either one a touch up.  Playing two rucks curbed his influence.  Playing one ruckman is virtually conceding the ruck contests, allowing McInerney to do as he likes around the ground, and giving Brisbane's midfielders a boost.

Playing one ruckman would mean rucking McKay, a role he hates and is poor at.  It also means taking McKay, our only truly competitive tall forward on the day, away from the forward line.  That would leave Charlie being double-teamed by Andrews and Gardiner ... or we could have had a cooked ruckman "resting" in the forward lne.  That would work well - not, particularly if it was Pitto.  Meanwhile, Daniher would be enjoying little opposition when he gives McInerney a breather and comes up against Harry.

So, we concede an advantage in the ruck and weaken our forward line to bring in a player to add some zip.  Who would that be?  Cuningham finished the season as if he'd had no pre-season.  Fisher did OK when brought back as a loose man in defence but forgot about the defensive part of the role.  Paddy Dow gets a few clearances but doesn't do much else.  Binns is worth considering but it would be tough to debut in a prelim.  Then there's O'Brien and Honey ... wait!

Another option is to bring in Jack Silvagni, despite his lack of match fitness.  He'd provide more of a contest than Harry and maybe get the odd clearance but he certainly wouldn't have the Big O and Daniher quaking in their boots  ...  and the first ruck would still have to do the bulk of the work against a dominant opponent.  The Silvagni as a ruck option should be sealed and labelled "for emergency use only".

I would have played Kemp in place of Cincotta.  Yes, they have different roles but Kemp is quick and agile enough to perform Cincotta's role.  The latter's form dropped off as the season progressed. That's perfectly understandable, but doesn't help when the opposition is running away from him.  Marchbank was one of our better players on the day and I don't understand the criticism of his selection.  It's a bit like the "supporters" who continually criticised Plowman and who were called out by Weitering in his season review.

Jordan Boyd did his job on the day too and his inclusion was a logical response to Brisbane's forward structure.

We didn't lose the game at the selection table, we lost it in our slump when we gave up the chance of home finals.

You know the problem with everything you just wrote?

Its based on trying to stop Brisbane. It makes us reactionary. Nobody has been able to stop Brisbane all year.

You know what? How many teams have been able to stop us when we play who we want?

The moment you spend all your time worrying about stopping the opposition, you lose focus on what you want to do.

So i disagree.
Pick a team to win.
Do not pick a team to try and stop the opposition, let them try and stop you!

Imagine if we had gone with one ruckman.  It doesn't matter which one because McInerney would have given either one a touch up.  Playing two rucks curbed his influence.  Playing one ruckman is virtually conceding the ruck contests, allowing McInerney to do as he likes around the ground, and giving Brisbane's midfielders a boost.

Playing one ruckman would mean rucking McKay, a role he hates and is poor at.  It also means taking McKay, our only truly competitive tall forward on the day, away from the forward line.  That would leave Charlie being double-teamed by Andrews and Gardiner ... or we could have had a cooked ruckman "resting" in the forward lne.  That would work well - not, particularly if it was Pitto.  Meanwhile, Daniher would be enjoying little opposition when he gives McInerney a breather and comes up against Harry.

So, we concede an advantage in the ruck and weaken our forward line to bring in a player to add some zip.  Who would that be?  Cuningham finished the season as if he'd had no pre-season.  Fisher did OK when brought back as a loose man in defence but forgot about the defensive part of the role.  Paddy Dow gets a few clearances but doesn't do much else.  Binns is worth considering but it would be tough to debut in a prelim.  Then there's O'Brien and Honey ... wait!

Another option is to bring in Jack Silvagni, despite his lack of match fitness.  He'd provide more of a contest than Harry and maybe get the odd clearance but he certainly wouldn't have the Big O and Daniher quaking in their boots  ...  and the first ruck would still have to do the bulk of the work against a dominant opponent.  The Silvagni as a ruck option should be sealed and labelled "for emergency use only".

I would have played Kemp in place of Cincotta.  Yes, they have different roles but Kemp is quick and agile enough to perform Cincotta's role.  The latter's form dropped off as the season progressed. That's perfectly understandable, but doesn't help when the opposition is running away from him.  Marchbank was one of our better players on the day and I don't understand the criticism of his selection.  It's a bit like the "supporters" who continually criticised Plowman and who were called out by Weitering in his season review.

Jordan Boyd did his job on the day too and his inclusion was a logical response to Brisbane's forward structure.

We didn't lose the game at the selection table, we lost it in our slump when we gave up the chance of home finals.

Collingwood went into the GF with two ruckmen.  Together, they got the better of McInerney and that was a significant factor in the final result.

We had the right idea but our ruckmen weren’t quite good enough to make it work.

I think that’s put an end to the argument that you can’t play two ruckmen and two key forwards.

Pick a team to win.
Do not pick a team to try and stop the opposition, let them try and stop you!

Isn't it both though in picking a team to win?
In picking a team to win one of the key aspects would be to emphasise your strengths, but also minimise the effectiveness of their key players.

A team would struggle to beat us if they didn't put time into negating the effect of players such as Cripps and Curnow.
If we didn't pay attention to their key movers an opposition side would do some damage.

It has to be a balance.
It's why one side and strategy won't fit every situation and the selection of a side will be 'horses for courses' in terms of all positions.

Yes, of course it's balance, but the original point was, ours was all over the shop and we went away from that balance at the selection table.

We fielding a team unlike what had got us there and we lost our balance at the selection table because we were too focussed on the beating them.

Yes, of course it's balance, but the original point was, ours was all over the shop and we went away from that balance at the selection table.

We fielding a team unlike what had got us there and we lost our balance at the selection table because we were too focussed on the beating them.

Weird point.  Team balance isn't the reason we lost.  I didn't see too many not selected who would have made any difference at all.  You could argue Kemp but in exchange for who a forward?

Boyd and Harry were fresh and it showed.
Cincotta and 18 others were off their feet and it showed.

Pittonet - TDK - Charlie - Harry
They were our 4 talls.
None of them got more than 10 possessions.

They totalled 36 between them.

We played them at the expense of some of our smalls.
Blokes like...
Fogarty*, Cottrell, Cincotta, Motlop all got 8 touches or less (*fogarty subbed out with 7 at 3/4 time or so)
were asked to do too much and needed help.

Not playing Owies and Cuningham, and perhaps choosing Harry (or 2 rucks) over Jack, all contributed to being taller and slower and ultimately not being able to keep up the manic pressure that had worked so well for us previously.

jack wasn't a factor.  Wasn't fit enough and up for selection.  We subbed fog for Kennedy because fog was having an ordinary day at the office.

Team balance doesn't cost you the way it did.  We had too few that were on and too many off.

Boyd and Harry were fresh and it showed.
Cincotta and 18 others were off their feet and it showed.