Preview 2023 Rd 24 Carlton vs GWS Sunday August 27 6:10PM @ Marvel Stadium

[Aphrodite]

Final Team is in ...



IN: Cerra, Fogarty, McGovern, Walsh, C. Durdin
OUT: Cripps (soreness), Docherty (soreness), E.Curnow, Marchbank, Pittonet, Motlop (illness)

AFL team news: Blues welcome four back

Midfielders Adam Cerra and Sam Walsh are among four returnees for Round 24.

www.carltonfc.com.au

Backs:	Brodie Kemp	Jacob Weitering	Alex Cincotta
Half-backs:	Adam Saad	Mitch McGovern	Nic Newman
Centreline:	Blake Acres	Sam Walsh	Ollie Hollands
Half-forwards:	Jack Martin	Harry McKay	David Cuningham
Forwards:	Lachie Fogarty	Charlie Curnow	Matthew Owies
Followers:	Tom De Koning	Adam Cerra	George Hewett
Interchange:	Matthew Cottrell	Paddy Dow	Zac Fisher
	Corey Durdin
Emergencies:	Ed Curnow	Marc Pittonet	Caleb Marchbank

*Update 26th August

AFL team news: Motlop out for Round 24

Jesse Motlop will miss the final round clash with GWS.

www.carltonfc.com.au

 

[Blue__Balls]

Big forward.

• More scoring power.
• Better results from our talls as defence can't crowd the one key target.
• Struggle to fit in all the form genuine small forwards and forward mids.
• Less forward pressure.
• Gives us a quality key tall target when having to kick long, especially when coming out of defence up the wing.

Smaller forward line.

• Can fit in the forward mid rotations and the genuine small forwards in the one team.
• Elite forward pressure.
• Correct midfield rotations.
• Enough genuine small forwards.
• Less predictable.

I'm not sold on a few of these.

Big forward.

• Less forward pressure - the kicker here is that Harry is no slouch in the pressure stakes. Maybe there's a slight percentage drop in pressure, but I reckon it's negligible.

Smaller forward line.

• Less predictable - hard disagree here. With Charlie as the only recognised key forward, we are more predictable than when we have two genuine marking targets. Academically, we should target others more often, but the reality is that we go to Charlie a lot on the assumption that even in a 1v2 situation he can still halve the contest more often than not.

Beyond that, I think there are significant factors outside of the forward 50 ramifications. Having both bigs allows us to push one up the ground to aid in transition without leaving the cupboard bare up front.

It also means that in situations like the final minute of the GC game we can have one extra tall behind the play as well as a tall ahead of the play - extra defensive presence and extra bail-out target - with only one we have to choose between those options.

There's also the dreaded injury risk. Play only one key forward and a head knock can leave us without a focal point up forward for the rest of the game.

For all the media agitating for us to leave Harry out (let's be honest, we know what their motivation is), it is absolutely never going to happen. Even if one of the keys is out of form, Vossy will almost certainly back them in to recover form whilst playing a role in the seniors (see Harry being used up the ground when his yips got on top of him) rather than drop one to the VFL.

If we desperately want the extra small forward/mid rotation, it would need to come at the expense of one of the two rucks. Or you go light on dedicated mids (ie. just Cripps, Walsh, Cerra) and trust that rotations from Doc, Acres, Cunners, Martin, Fog, Fisher, Motlop etc. can shoulder enough of the load.

 

[Sinjin Smith]

Serious question, when was the last time we won in the last round of the regular season? Honestly cant remember.

On top of going, I really really want the win, I hope we play at full strength I mean we must lock in a home final. GWS are in hot form besides the debacle against Port. They have weapons all over the ground that we will have to match. Hopefully we turn out in force and make Marvel a boiler room. I know I'm in the minority but really want Cripps to play and I have heard he is chomping at the bit to play. I am a bit hesitant not having him play for two weeks but then again if he is really banged up and the doc's think he should miss then so be it.

Expecting a tight one, GWS have it all to play for now Geelong have put the cue in the rack I'm expecting a Bulldogs win so GWS will be playing out of their skin. Cant afford a slow lazy start like last week, must come out like we did against Melbourne. Full of intensity and put the first 3 goals on the board.

 

[Sinjin Smith]

Daniel hoyne on Sen saying we cop too many goals on turnover and our goals from clearance is unsustainable. Can our better players in fix this

Well then Daniel Hoyne has done a complete backflip from a couple of weeks ago. He was lauding our ability to score from turnovers and quick transition before we played the Pies. Along with our clearance game he was praising our gameplan. Maybe he can make up his mind.

 

[Sam The Doc]

Well then Daniel Hoyne has done a complete backflip from a couple of weeks ago. He was lauding our ability to score from turnovers and quick transition before we played the Pies. Along with our clearance game he was praising our gameplan. Maybe he can make up his mind.

Hope he has told voss and our other coaches, otherwise we are stuffed!!

 

[Kismet]

Trivia time...

The Bulldogs/Footscray joined the VFL/AFL in 1925.

They're the only team of the original twelve in the competition we've never played in a final.

After 98 years it's probably about time.

 

[Arr0w]

Forgetting finals connotations, form wise, GWS will be our toughest contest in the last 10 weeks

Two players that need to be shut down, Toby and Whitfield

Prefer not to meet GWS come finals, given their formline

 

[Stamos]

Forgetting finals connotations, form wise, GWS will be our toughest contest in the last 10 weeks

Two players that need to be shut down, Toby and Whitfield

Prefer not to meet GWS come finals, given their formline

I don't think they're tougher than Melbourne were.

Giants had a good win against the Crows, but since their win by 2 points against the Dees in Round 16 at Darwin, they've had pretty average opponents, and got done by Swans and touched up by Port.

And we should have a significantly stronger side picked this week than we did against the Dees.

 

[gab213]

Nah. Saints are finishing strong. You don’t expect an easy final but, Dogs limping to the 8th spot would be ideal.

Anyone. Anywhere. Anytime. If we are good enough we win and advance, if we lose it means we just weren't good enough.

 

[Thrawn]

Anyone. Anywhere. Anytime.

Will 13CABS get us there?

 

[F_therest]

Serious question, when was the last time we won in the last round of the regular season? Honestly cant remember.

On top of going, I really really want the win, I hope we play at full strength I mean we must lock in a home final. GWS are in hot form besides the debacle against Port. They have weapons all over the ground that we will have to match. Hopefully we turn out in force and make Marvel a boiler room. I know I'm in the minority but really want Cripps to play and I have heard he is chomping at the bit to play. I am a bit hesitant not having him play for two weeks but then again if he is really banged up and the doc's think he should miss then so be it.

Expecting a tight one, GWS have it all to play for now Geelong have put the cue in the rack I'm expecting a Bulldogs win so GWS will be playing out of their skin. Cant afford a slow lazy start like last week, must come out like we did against Melbourne. Full of intensity and put the first 3 goals on the board.

Let's say we have a home final locked in though before our game though, I'm conflicted about whether we go 100% to win.

Aside from possibly managing some players, if we go 100% it could be argued that, given the quirk that we might play GWS again in the first final, we are showing our hand and they get 2 weeks to come up with a counter tactic.

Should we intentionally hold something back that we can surprise them with in the finals?

Other arguement is you don't want to flirt with form and beating them will give our guys confidence to beat them again next game.

 

[Arr0w]

I don't think they're tougher than Melbourne were.

Giants had a good win against the Crows, but since their win by 2 points against the Dees in Round 16 at Darwin, they've had pretty average opponents, and got done by Swans and touched up by Port.

And we should have a significantly stronger side picked this week than we did against the Dees.

The stakes could be high for GWS and not suggesting they will beat us, but like the Demons, their defensive game is exceptional at the moment

 

[F_therest]

Anyone. Anywhere. Anytime. If we are good enough we win and advance, if we lose it means we just weren't good enough.

Yes that is the right attitude but in reality, getting the right opponent at the right time matters.

Avoiding Brisbane at the Gabba for example is an easier pathway to a GF given its just about the hardest game to win.

For any tennis fans, heres an example. The only French open where Federer won, he did so because he didn't have to play against Nadal. A guy named Soderling surprisingly beat Nadal. Federer has lost to Nadal at the French Open many times and likely would have again. So, he got an easier pathway and won without playing his bogey opponent...still counts as a grand slam win.

 

[Stamos]

The stakes could be high for GWS and not suggesting they will beat us, but like the Demons, their defensive game is exceptional at the moment

Not disputing that at all, just think the Dees was a tougher contest.

 

[Juice030103]

Gws are good sure


But they don’t have Charlie Curnow

30

Charlie Curnow

Age

28

Ht

194cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

13.3

3star

K

9.7

4star

HB

3.6

3star

M

5.3

5star

T

2.2

4star

G

1.3

5star

No current season stats available

D

10.8

3star

K

6.4

3star

HB

4.4

4star

M

3.2

4star

T

1.6

4star

G

0.8

4star

so blues by 3+ goals and then we beat them again week 1 of finals

 

[Benaly28]

The buzz word moving forward is:

IMPACT.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[myblueroan]

Anyone. Anywhere. Anytime. If we are good enough we win and advance, if we lose it means we just weren't good enough.

Yeah.
That, or, you know the goal umpire might make a mistake.
So there's that...
But probably yeah.

 

[Earls Smother]

Yeap, it's actually very simple

Sustained defensive pressure, causes more opposition turnovers. Do it in your forward half is generally more ideal

Scoring on the counter once the turnover occurs comes down to the system of both sides, how quickly the opposition can get back defensively versus how quickly you can move it into a dangerous scoring position

Scoring from centre clearances is great, scoring from turnovers is a better source

Simple theory, both sides average around 140 turnovers a game, you might only have 30 centre bounces a game

The stats refer to all clearances though, not just the centre bounces. In our last 2 games there have been 88 and 77 clearances, so the 30 centre bounces is not really relevant to the discussion. You could have 8 centre bounces but 75 ball ups around the ground.

A bounce or throw up is a neutral situation. A turnover by nature starts with the opposition having the ball, so you need them to make an error.

With our clearance dominance, repeat ball ups in our forward line is likely to result in us having a shot on goal. Is it better to let the opposition have the ball in the hope we can win it back off them via turnover?

I would have thought being dominant in a neutral situation is better than relying on a situation where the opposition have the starting advantage?

 

[HyphensBack]

I'm not sure many people would consider extra time a second chance.

Your probably right but nowadays it’s not extra time it’s whole new grand final

Some players might even get a real second chance ie recovery from injury in prelim or even concussion protocols

 

[Arr0w]

The stats refer to all clearances though, not just the centre bounces. In our last 2 games there have been 88 and 77 clearances, so the 30 centre bounces is not really relevant to the discussion. You could have 8 centre bounces but 75 ball ups around the ground.

A bounce or throw up is a neutral situation. A turnover by nature starts with the opposition having the ball, so you need them to make an error.

With our clearance dominance, repeat ball ups in our forward line is likely to result in us having a shot on goal. Is it better to let the opposition have the ball in the hope we can win it back off them via turnover?

I would have thought being dominant in a neutral situation is better than relying on a situation where the opposition have the starting advantage?

We aren't top 4 for scoring from centre bounces, but we are top 4 for scoring from stoppages between the arcs

Top 4 for scoring from repeat entries, essentially from turnovers

Scoring from turnovers is the best scoring source, it's an indirect result from a strong system and pressure intent

Ultimately, sides that are rated top 4 for acts without the footy, generally win or are in contention for premierships

 

[Stamos]

Your probably right but nowadays it’s not extra time it’s whole new grand final

I assume you mean in the old days, not 'nowadays'?

 

[The Sultan]

on form GWS are playing well but they've been playing some lower ranked sides and losing against Sydney and Port. Think game will be greatly influenced by whether it's "live"or not
. If we've locked in 5th and they're in the 8 could see it being pretty bruise free hit out.

 

[Earls Smother]

We aren't top 4 for scoring from centre bounces, but we are top 4 for scoring from stoppages between the arcs

Top 4 for scoring from repeat entries, essentially from turnovers

Scoring from turnovers is the best scoring source, it's an indirect result from a strong system and pressure intent

Ultimately, sides that are rated top 4 for acts without the footy, generally win or are in contention for premierships

I'm trying to understand the Champion data perspective.

If Collingwood try to clear the ball, Melbourne cause a turnover and go forward and score = score from turnover.

If Collingwood try to clear the ball, Carlton shut them down and cause a stoppage. Ball up, Carlton win possession and go forward and score = score from stoppage.

The net result is exactly the same surely? The "source" is irrelevant.

I would rather be a team that can score directly from turnover, but also be the best at scoring from stoppages if you can't directly win possession from the opposition when you shut them down. That combination has to be better doesn't it?

 

[CCurnow3votes]

The buzz word moving forward is:

IMPACT.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Don’t think … DO!

 

[Magruder]

Would be handy if the people reading stats actually understood them & also explained the limitations. Having an actual grasp on the English language would be handy as well.
“Sustainable” & “Turnover” is an oxymoron- turnovers by their very nature are random occurrences & created by an error- it is a reactionary measure.
How can it be “Sustainable” (able to be maintained at a certain level or rate) to rely on random errors? What if they produce no errors?
Argument goes completely out the window, as the base premise “Sustainable Turnover” is just bullshit.

A facility for language appears to be of less and less importance to an occupation ostensibly charged with communication.



Don’t get me started on his routine and pervasive preposition abuse.

 

[HarryFlashman]

I'm trying to understand the Champion data perspective.

If Collingwood try to clear the ball, Melbourne cause a turnover and go forward and score = score from turnover.

If Collingwood try to clear the ball, Carlton shut them down and cause a stoppage. Ball up, Carlton win possession and go forward and score = score from stoppage.

The net result is exactly the same surely? The "source" is irrelevant.

I would rather be a team that can score directly from turnover, but also be the best at scoring from stoppages if you can't directly win possession from the opposition when you shut them down. That combination has to be better doesn't it?

Win the stoppage go forward & score. Lose the stoppage, apply pressure, create turn over - go forward and score.
Plan A is win the ball first & score, Plan B is create turnover then score- it’s actually pretty simple. Plan A is always stronger as it takes out the variable of them having the ball. Opposition can’t score if u have the ball.