5 things i learnt vs essendon

[bomba4eva]

I learnt that weren't as many Baby Bombers out there as their supporters and the media believes.


Source: Blueseum, Round 3 2009

• The average age of this Carlton side was 23 years and 166 days old with an average experience of 72.7 games per player.
• Essendon's average age was 23 years and 359 days and average experience of 77.0 games per player.
• Dustin Fletcher was the oldest player at 33 years and 340 days old and the most experienced footballer with 297 games.
• Essendon had three players who had played more games than Nick Stevens.
• Essendon had 6 players who had played 20 games and 4 who played less than 10 games.
• Only one Essendon player who had played less than 20 games, has played less games than the 4 Carlton players playing their 3rd match.
• Carlton had 4 players under 20 years of age.
• Essendon also had 4 players aged under 20.

And the Blues were considered sodas when we had the younger side.

Yet we lost to the Baby Bombers if you've seen the media reports.

Carlton has no upside if you've read the posts of Bomba4eva...

You'll find that Lloyd, Lucas and Fletcher greatly push up the average age of our team. The team was young no doubt and you only had to look at the backline to see how inexperienced it really was.

I never said Carlton had no upside. In fact I said both teams development was pretty much on par. I merely stated we have more key players to return.

I don't want to push it as I've been told I'll be banned from this board but you are taking my posts out of context.

 

[Salaryman]

You'll find that Lloyd, Lucas and Fletcher greatly push up the average age of our team. The team was young no doubt and you only had to look at the backline to see how inexperienced it really was.

I never said Carlton had no upside. In fact I said both teams development was pretty much on par. I merely stated we have more key players to return.

I don't want to push it as I've been told I'll be banned from this board but you are taking my posts out of context.

It's quite obvious to all we have a more talented list than yours....the sooner you come to accept that and pi$$ off our board, the better for everyone

 

[SurreyBlue]

I HATE ESSENDON WITH A PASSION.
The fact they are beating us when we have a better team frustrates me even MORE.
We have no-one but ourselves to blame and must take it on the chin ... again.

 

[Boucks09]

I learnt that weren't as many Baby Bombers out there as their supporters and the media believes.

Source: Blueseum, Round 3 2009
· The average age of this Carlton side was 23 years and 166 days old with an average experience of 72.7 games per player.
· Essendon's average age was 23 years and 359 days and average experience of 77.0 games per player.
· Dustin Fletcher was the oldest player at 33 years and 340 days old and the most experienced footballer with 297 games.
· Essendon had three players who had played more games than Nick Stevens.
· Essendon had 6 players who had played 20 games and 4 who played less than 10 games.
· Only one Essendon player who had played less than 20 games, has played less games than the 4 Carlton players playing their 3rd match.
· Carlton had 4 players under 20 years of age.
· Essendon also had 4 players aged under 20.
And the Blues were considered sodas when we had the younger side.

Yet we lost to the Baby Bombers if you've seen the media reports.

Carlton has no upside if you've read the posts of Bomba4eva...

I spoke about this in the pre match discussion thread. The average age and games played stat is misleading due to extremely high and low numbers on both sides. The MEDIAN figure is much more accurate as it takes out the possibility of a couple of numbers skewing the overall result. Lloyd, Lucas and Fletcher have all played over 250 games...we know that. You had 4 guys playing their 3rd game...we all know that. However if you look at the median number of games played we are both around the mid 50 mark which shows that we are both very close in regards to experience.

Obviously in the coming weeks we will gain McVeigh, McPhee and Welsh who have played over 150 games which will give us more experience as your team will with Scotland and Carazzo , but in a couple of years I believe we will both be reaping the rewards of our young talent.

These are all interesting talking points but rendered irrelevant if our mids and forwards create the same pressure they did against Richmond or against Brisbane in the second quarter.

You see the team that has first and best (un-harassed) use of the ball always looks fast, the team that is chasing always slow.

I'm not sure how many AFL games you have ever seen, but when you are in a stoppage situation the first use of the ball is contested and heavily harassed, hence its importance. That is why players such as Judd, Watson, and Mitchell are so valuable because they win the hard ball and make the right decision when under immense pressure. They then give to the ball to the outsider players who (depending on the quality of the dish out or their own evasiveneness and speed) get into space to use the ball more effectively.

In regards to Saturday night, Carlton won the tackle count 43-42. It was not as if we completely out tackled your team and gained a decisive advantage here. Both sides were down in this area.

You also won the Centre Clearances decisively 33-19 which would mean you had the ‘first and best use of the ball’ (given that Judd and Murphy had 5 and 4 clearances respectively). So going off your theory of the team having 'the first and best (un-harassed) use of the ball, it should be Essendon that looked slow NOT Carlton.

The team with the ball always looks to have pace the other not.

We had the ball 5 more times that Carlton (328 - 323), so we didn't smash you in terms of 'having the ball'. You also can't say that most of your possessions were in the back half as we only won the inside 50's 49-47. We looked fast because we are fast. We take risks and run down the corridor. It is the quickest way to goal and everybody knows it. You can’t exert tackling pressure if you aren’t able to catch us.

About 94 times out of 100 our mids and forward line pressure would smash your average list and force you to confront your obvious (to the bookmakers, media, most other fans) weaknesses.That we didnt bring that game for 1 of the 6/100 times only prolongs your insistance that it is not real.

Given your propensity to only look at statistics from this year I am amazed that you can draw the conclusion that '94 times out of 100' your midfield and forward line pressure would smash our average list. This has only been a feature of Carlton's play from TWO out of THREE games this year. That is hardly a compelling argument or a long standing trend. Given that Garlett and Joseph will probably not get a game this week, it will be interesting to see how you continue this trend of tackling pressure, because there is only so much tackling that Judd and Hadley can do each game.

Adios. As I said to your friend earlier, send us a postcard from the depths. Perhaps by the next time you (although by then I feel your spirit will be truly sapped and we may not see you again for some years) visit us round 13ish you will acknowledge that our dire predictions were correct and you now see.

What depths would they be? Wooden spoons? Board turmoil? Financial loans from the AFL?

We've had our time at the bottom and will not be returning there any time soon. We know where our list is at and are not blinded by our egos or flagrant disregard of other teams to believe otherwise. We are on the improve and will continue to do so over the coming years...without the massive hype.

Even if your 'dire predications' come true and we don't win another game by Round 13 we will still be 2-11, which is hardly reason to 'lose faith' (a Carlton term?). We were 3-10 when we beat you last year and our run is considerably easier in the second half of the year.

You will see us for many years to come so best you get used to the idea, rather than continually embarrassing yourself with posts that don't address the questions you are asked.

If you are going to respond to this post you really should look at expanding your vocabulary to include words other than irrelevant because as per your lack of understanding regarding elite and decent you don't seem to grasp the meaning of the word. Also try and refrain from the unnecessary chest thumping, personal attacks and other childish bullying tactics as all it does is show you actually don’t have the ability to have a decent (satisfactory) discussion.

Adios.

Oh I almost forgot...

And if we just get over the line against them I will be a little disappointed that we are not quite as hard at it as I thought we were. No excuses. No oh young teams come off a bit every now and then. We are either contenders or we are not. I think we are and will SMMMMAAASHHHH them.

Does this mean that your excuses about defensive pressure don’t cut it anymore? Are you contenders? If you are going to make big statements at least have the fortitude to stand by your own words.

Well if it is any consolation, at least you will have been reminded in no uncertain terms this weekend of where your list really is at.

5 things I learnt against Carlton
1. Our midfield pace will trouble most teams in the competition
2. Our skill efficiency is improving under pressure
3. We have a young spine capable of holding down key positions
4. Jobe Watson is cool under pressure and has exceptional footy smarts
5. There is nothing better than a massive crowd at the MCG

 

[Brighton_Diggins]

1. Simpson's early miss was so crucial. Would've
added more pressure. Missing is not an option in those
circumstances.
2. Carlos could've/would've been perfect on Gobba.
3. Average players like jobe watson seem to suddenly switch on
and become decent, then switch off for the rest of the year. Why us?
4. Kruezer got belted from pillar to post and still stuck his head over it.
He could fit straight into a powerade commercial where his sweat
and blood is blue.
5. Sometimes Judd shapes-shifts into a Clydesdale and pulls the entire
wagon.

 

[Bluebear]

I never said Carlton had no upside. In fact I said both teams development was pretty much on par. I merely stated we have more key players to return.

Sure.

We all do.

I'd take Warnock, Walker, Fisher, Scotland and Hartlett (our version of Gumbleton - y'know.......full of hope but never acutally plays ) over anything you'd like to offer.

Oh.....and Jamison.

Hell, that'd be your starting spine.


Just another "thing we have learned":
- Don't handpass off when you have a kick from 50m out, to a guy who will have to play on.......and kick from about 50m out.
Clokey, Robbo......take your damned kicks.

Fev - get back to the goal square......and Simmo.....if you ever.....EVER call for one from Cloke from 50m out when you'll have to go onto your left into the left HFF......FFS guys THINK a little bit.

Ahh.....that feels a bit better.

 

[NavyGuns_2008]

1. Lloyd has probably kicked more than 75% of his career goals from dubious free kicks, ie Bret Thornton bumps his shoulder and he gets a kick.

2. Dempsey kicks a goal from a 50m penalty after Grigg legitimately attempts to spoil in a marking CONTEST, yes it is supposed to be a contest.

3. Alwyn Davey could get more money overseas in Hollywood.

4. AFL needs to define the goal line rule, ie Eddie Betts's goal was over the goal line and hit the back of the post and was given a point.

5. Fev is injured.