Carlton Supporters Club

We are 2 games in.  We don't look fit.

Quote from: Thryleon – on March 25, 2025, 08:06:54 pm

We are 2 games in.  We don't look fit.

So by this time after a few losses Russell is normally getting stones thrown at him, does anybody even know the guys name that took his place, the new guy appears so private I'm wondering if that job even still exists?

I reiterate though, the bulk of the AFL have changed tactics, they have made huge tactical changes and we've gone incremental, we've missed the trending shift in the game that was obvious from opening round. If we can't find our game style and make it work we are in for a world of pain, because the opposition aren't changing to suit us.

I think we look stuffed because we have guys who aren't capable to catching opponents still running themselves into the ground refusing to give up. Our lot is giving 100% but the tank is empty, the MC has to find a way to change the narrative. It is pointless fans throwing allegations at players who just don't have the skill set(pace and acceleration) to compete on those foreign terms.

We are lucky we have Cripps, because in his size category his acceleration is elite, TDK is similar, but opposition are finding ways to negate those two, or we do it to ourselves when we ruck Cripps, and those around them aren't capable of bridging the gap. We won plenty of inside footy in the first two games, only to give it back after a chain of two or three disposals, which then leaves our slower Mids stuck out of the position on the transition.

The only way I can see forward is a drastic efficiency improvement, we've got to use the ball better than the opposition, if we are less efficient we are cooked because we won't generate the same high opportunity count.

So by this time after a few losses Russell is normally getting stones thrown at him, does anybody even know the guys name that took his place, the new guy appears so private I'm wondering if that job even still exists?

Quote from: LP – on March 25, 2025, 08:13:21 pm

So by this time after a few losses Russell is normally getting stones thrown at him, does anybody even know the guys name that took his place, the new guy appears so private I'm wondering if that job even still exists?

Rob Innes

Yep
I still think it all comes down to efficiency inefficiency.
We wouldn't look tired if the disposal was better.
We look tired because we're constantly chasing our tails.
What is an attack suddenly turns into a turn around, run and chase because of a turnover.
Hit those targets and it will be the opposition doing the chasing.

Having just watched the Dawks game again - our defensive game was sound, we held them to a potentially losing score. And our pressure certainly 'panicked' them plenty of times. However...

...our offensive game was simply, I'll be kind, perplexing. So many times we were running through the wings or through the middle, aggott in hand, and not give off to a team mate running free nearby in a better position to receive a handball, grab more grass and then better target forwards on a lead or in a one-on-one contest, but rather a long bomb from the wing/middle! Just not smart or productive... inefficient! Inefficiency results in loss of reward for effort - stagnant scoreboard, so then fall back to a greater reliance on defence (safety mode) / loss of offensive confidence...

Personally, I don't think it has anything to do with fitness, endurance or attitude. Just reward for offensive effort. The backline defence and team defence looks good, we're keeping opponents to potentially losing scores.

My greatest concern against the Dishlickers is that we repeat the offensive errors of the first two rounds - not sharing the ball with runners nearby offering a good option to gain more grass AND those panicky long bombs into the forward line. With H and Charles probably up the front the temptation to drop it on their heads will be there. H and Charles, please move about a lot forcing those up the field to consider their kick, not bomb.

IF we deliver into the forward line properly and we get our offensive reward for effort ticking over (scoreboard), and that offensive confidence returns I would not be at all surprised if we knock over the Dishlickers by 44+.

...our offensive game was simply, I'll be kind, perplexing.

Having just watched the Dawks game again - our defensive game was sound, we held them to a potentially losing score. And our pressure certainly 'panicked' them plenty of times. However...

...our offensive game was simply, I'll be kind, perplexing. So many times we were running through the wings or through the middle, aggott in hand, and not give off to a team mate running free nearby in a better position to receive a handball, grab more grass and then better target forwards on a lead or in a one-on-one contest, but rather a long bomb from the wing/middle! Just not smart or productive... inefficient! Inefficiency results in loss of reward for effort - stagnant scoreboard, so then fall back to a greater reliance on defence (safety mode) / loss of offensive confidence...

Personally, I don't think it has anything to do with fitness, endurance or attitude. Just reward for offensive effort. The backline defence and team defence looks good, we're keeping opponents to potentially losing scores.

My greatest concern against the Dishlickers is that we repeat the offensive errors of the first two rounds - not sharing the ball with runners nearby offering a good option to gain more grass AND those panicky long bombs into the forward line. With H and Charles probably up the front the temptation to drop it on their heads will be there. H and Charles, please move about a lot forcing those up the field to consider their kick, not bomb.

IF we deliver into the forward line properly and we get our offensive reward for effort ticking over (scoreboard), and that offensive confidence returns I would not be at all surprised if we knock over the Dishlickers by 44+.

Carlton vs Western Bulldogs

Scores per inside 50 entry
It's now well analysed that the Blues have been wasting their inside 50 entries by bombing them high and long instead of lowering the eyes for an uncontested option.

The stats reflect this analysis, with Carlton's current rate of scoring per inside 50 entry the second-worst in the AFL, scoring from just 37 per cent of entries.

Last year, the Blues were a top-four side in the metric, with a scoring rate of 47.3 per cent. So, the aspect is fixable, but it requires immediate attention if Carlton are to beat the Bulldogs on Friday night.

The Bulldogs are one of the better sides at converting from inside 50 entries. This season their average is a rate of 48 per cent, while last year it ranked fifth at 46.2 per cent.

Should the Dogs continue this trend against a struggling Carlton unit, the Blues may be handed a third straight loss to begin 2025.

That seemed a bit of a strange one with the illness last week and now he's still not certain to be available.