Could Carlton be 1-8 after 9 rounds?

[mbosca]

Was on the verge of being considered a regular prior to his injury, but has not quite cemented this status as yet. I agree though that he could be a very handy player for the next few years, especially considering the improvement in him is greater than the average 27yo KPP.

While his body won't have the wear and tear (it was Hurling btw, not Gaelic), age will weary his physical/athletic attributes, which is going to limit his window for impact. He has a real thirst for the contest, so should he continue to get his head around how to play as a forward, he could give us 3-5 good years at best. He's never going to be a Carey, but he could be as good as, if not better than, a Mooney/Lynch - both of whom played key roles in premiership forward lines.

Biased? Setanta at 27 years old has kicked 30 goals in his career. Mooney and Lynch have kicked over 450 goals between them...

Setanta kicked 4 goals against, guess who.. Fremantle. Other than that his biggest haul this year was one goal. You are dreaming.

 

[Rosstickle]

(that is, unless they start deliberately losing games, which being carlton cant be put past them)

I doubt any teams will be tanking next year.

I thought Richmond supporters waited until round 6 before focusing on other clubs. Times are tough at Tigerland. The OP must be reeling: 12 delistings and Jordan McMahon is not one of them

Carlton will be just fine. A dramatic improvement in the midfield with experience, bulk and McLean defensive work. A backline that missed its CHF and a fit FB for most of 2009. A forward line that is not so one dimensional. Warnock into the ruck to free up Kreuz.

Your forward line was one dimensional with Fev in the team because he was your only star forward. They went to him all the time because he was the only reliable option. Betts is OK but he's a crumber. A triple-teamed Fev was still a better option than Cloke, Fisher, O'Hailpin etc.

I realise the prospect of 2010 must make Richmond supporters sick, but take deep breath, get out to Craigieburn - or whatever godforsaken place you train when the cricketers bump you off Punt Road oval - and stay positive.

It does look bleak down at Punt Road. If we lose to Melbourne in round 4 again our season will be basically over.

However, would you care to comment on which of those 9 games you think you'll win? I'm of the opinion that if you lose one of the Richmond, Essendon or Port games your season will be looking very grim also.

What an over simplified way to look at world; adding up games. Firstly the guy played until he was 36yo, which had something to do with his games tally, but also meant he played many games well past his peak. Compare this to Micheal Voss, who played 281 games, retired and is into his second year of coaching and still isn't 36yo.

I'd say playing till your 36 with a couple of years missing is a pretty full career. Even if you do exclude those 4 years it's still the equivalent of playing until your 32.

Lynch was a player that relied nearly solely on his strength so I think from 2001 onwards he would've been playing close to what he could've achieved in the mid 90's.

He managed 68, 58, 74, 78 and 40 goals (40 in 13) at 32,33,34,35 and 36 years of age respectively.

He missed about 90 games of footy. To put that into perspective Richo has missed 98 games of footy, many in his prime years between 95-2000. I'd consider both to have played very full careers, even if Lynch didn't completely fullfill his potential.

 

[Falchoon]

Carlton 1-8?

 

[Monkey King]

Biased? Setanta at 27 years old has kicked 30 goals in his career. Mooney and Lynch have kicked over 450 goals between them...

I don't think stats are relevant in this situation. Carlos has played all of 50 odd games, and only a few of those in the forward line. Please note I never said he would be as good as those guys, but that he could be as good for the Blues... and I honestly believe that the potential is there that he could. Certainly I don't subscribe to the write him off camp.

 

[Monkey King]

I'd say playing till your 36 with a couple of years missing is a pretty full career. Even if you do exclude those 4 years it's still the equivalent of playing until your 32.

Not really when you're dealing with prime years. And the fact he never got back to the player he once was. NEVER! Which really does give you an idea of how good this guy could have been. If you call that a full career, go for it... I don't agree.

If I gave you a pot filled half with beer and half with water, would you call that a full glass of beer just because it reaches the top of the glass?

Lynch was a player that relied nearly solely on his strength so I think from 2001 onwards he would've been playing close to what he could've achieved in the mid 90's.

In the end that's what he relied on, but not at the beginning of his career. He had athleticism out the clacker and could play in any KP on the ground at a pinch. Again I have to ask, how much did you see of the guy prior to his CFS?

He managed 68, 58, 74, 78 and 40 goals (40 in 13) at 32,33,34,35 and 36 years of age respectively.

Yes. He was a very good player wasn't he.

He missed about 90 games of footy. To put that into perspective Richo has missed 98 games of footy, many in his prime years between 95-2000. I'd consider both to have played very full careers, even if Lynch didn't completely fullfill his potential.

Richo 95-2000 (20-25yo)

95 - 9 games
96 - 22 games
97 - 19 games
98 - 16 games
99 - 20 games
00 - 3 games

You're getting stuck on games. I could say Lynch played 300+ games and played in 3 premierships... how could that not a full career. Yet I've made it perfectly clear I am talking about fullness of individual's quality here. How you fellas keep missing that point is beyond me.

FULLNESS OF QUALITY... NOT QUANTITY!

Does that make it easier?

In this respect I laugh at those saying Lynch had a full career.

 

[zero]

Your forward line wasn one dimensional with Fev in the team because he was only only star forward. They went to him all the time because he was the only reliable option. Betts is OK but he's a crumber. A triple-teamed Fev was still a better option than Cloke, Fisher, O'Hailpin etc.

yeah, im a bit baffled by this, O'Hailpin, Betts, Waite and Kreuzer will be much better off now because their midfielders will actually kick it to them.... of course all the good players and attention that used to go to Fev will now be on them.

carlton would most likely be best served by going for youth all the way...play kreuzer at CHF, henderson at FF, play waite as the third tall, garlett deep and yarran out at half forward, the best young forward they can get with their first pick, and keep playing them whether they suck or not.... just get games into them.

sure, all those 20 year olds will get some floggings next year by good defensive teams, but in 2012 they will have a genuinely kickass forward line. there are some really good players in that lot, they just need another 40 games to really blossom.

 

[Monkey King]

carlton would most likely be best served by going for youth all the way...play kreuzer at CHF, henderson at FF, play waite as the third tall, garlett deep and yarran out at half forward, the best young forward they can get with their first pick, and keep playing them whether they suck or not.... just get games into them.

I'm with you somewhat on this. These young guys need to get used to playing together in a new set up. However Kreuzer should not be wasted up forward, where he could be alright, at the expense of being an amazingly dominant around the ground player in the ruck.

I'd prefer Hampson to get a trial out of FF TBH. Has all the physical attributes of a KP forward - very tall and agile, incredibly quick off the mark, outstanding leap - just needs to hold his marks and understand how to play to as a forward more, which the Blues should work on this year.

Henderson is more suited to CHF and Carlos should get a look in somewhere, as he's shown a lot of potential as a forward in recent times. Waite can stay in the backline or take a wing while Walker, Robinson, Garlett or Betts can fill the smaller roles.

It will take us a bit longer, but we've got to balance between working on future structures and winning enough games to aid the development of young players. Please oh please no Cloke or Fisher.

 

[Rosstickle]

Not really when you're dealing with prime years. And the fact he never got back to the player he once was. NEVER! Which really does give you an idea of how good this guy could have been. If you call that a full career, go for it... I don't agree.

If I gave you a pot filled half with beer and half with water, would you call that a full glass of beer just because it reaches the top of the glass?



In the end that's what he relied on, but not at the beginning of his career. He had athleticism out the clacker and could play in any KP on the ground at a pinch. Again I have to ask, how much did you see of the guy prior to his CFS?



Yes. He was a very good player wasn't he.



Richo 95-2000 (20-25yo)

95 - 9 games
96 - 22 games
97 - 19 games
98 - 16 games
99 - 20 games
00 - 3 games

You're getting stuck on games. I could say Lynch played 300+ games and played in 3 premierships... how could that not a full career. Yet I've made it perfectly clear I am talking about fullness of individual's quality here. How you fellas keep missing that point is beyond me.

FULLNESS OF QUALITY... NOT QUANTITY!

Does that make it easier?

In this respect I laugh at those saying Lynch had a full career.

What your describing I wouldn't call an incomplete career, just one that didn't reach it's potential.

I was too young too remember him pre 3-peat days but he was unbelieveable during them. The thought of an even better far more mobile Lynch would've been scary.

 

[HereComesTheTruth]

I think 0-9.

Its far too unreasonable to assume that our young players (which is basically the whole team) will improve with another year of development.

And I don't know what i will do with myself when i see a one-on-one contest in our forward 50 for the first time in 7 years.

Furthermore, its not actually possible or in the rules for any other team to:
a) get injured players (key ones at that)
b) have a form slump
c) drop off from the previous year
d) feel the loss or need to cover for players that have effectively retired (i.e bowden, burgoyne, harley, lloyd, lovett, lucas, dew, croad, rocca)

(Note: the for mentioned circumstances are only caperble of affecting carlton and no one else)

But the hardest thing to swallow for me is putting up with a non-injury ravaged defense. i mean seriously jamieson/waite/austin/bower/thornton all playing injury free or even just 3 of them? now that disgusts me. its a shame because i really thought wiggins and kreuzer really blossomed at CHB, particularly in the gabba final.

i also think that the non-abuse from fev in the rooms towards young team mates will have a detrimental affect on us. i for one truly hope that someone in the forward line can step up and yell at kids for not kicking the ball to them. it'd be a real shame if our young players didnt have their confidence dented by a senior player every week.

so in all after round 9 we will be sitting on the bottom of the ladder with 10 losses and a percentage of -1million. i realise thats not mathematically possibly but i figure that the AFL will come to their senses, realise how shit we are and dish out a penalty to try to spur us on

 

[Monkey King]

What your describing I wouldn't call an incomplete career, just one that didn't reach it's potential.

I was too young too remember him pre 3-peat days but he was unbelieveable during them. The thought of an even better far more mobile Lynch would've been scary.

Just getting into semantics now, but you know what I mean so I don't get the hang up.

He was a far more mobile player at the Roys and got around the ground a lot more. Like I said, could take any KP on the ground with aplomb. It's hard to quantify, but IMO he could have been one of the best players of the 90's had he not had the complications he did.

Really came back on around the 3-peat years, but was pretty much his prime by that stage and was far more a strong, stay-at-home type in comparison to his early career. Was still a great player though, which only strengthens my point of how good he could have been.

 

[nuttinbutapeanut]

Below average backline, below average forward line, good midfield = no hope in hell without fevola. Im not exactly hanging my hat on garlett becoming a great player LMAO.

 

[no. 4]

As long as we are at least 3-6 by round 9 then we should make the finals but there are too many unknowns with Carlton at the moment to know exactly how they will go against the better teams.

 

[Notorious_29]

Good possibility, I have them more at 2-3 wins. With Judd out for the first 3 rounds and fevola gone, im not sure what to expect.

 

[Rosstickle]

Just getting into semantics now, but you know what I mean so I don't get the hang up.

He was a far more mobile player at the Roys and got around the ground a lot more. Like I said, could take any KP on the ground with aplomb. It's hard to quantify, but IMO he could have been one of the best players of the 90's had he not had the complications he did.

Really came back on around the 3-peat years, but was pretty much his prime by that stage and was far more a strong, stay-at-home type in comparison to his early career. Was still a great player though, which only strengthens my point of how good he could have been.

OK. I can barely remember why we're even talking about Lynch in the first place (apart from the fact that he's awesome).

 

[Audacious]

The no Fev no Judd for 3 rounds = 3 losses. One of Carltons young mids will cop the heavy tag that Judd otherwise would, which they wont be used to. And one of Carltons young forwards will cop the best defender which they are also not used to.

Who do Carlton draw inspiration from when they need a lift? Who is their natural leader on the park these days? Their best 2 players out for 3 weeks is massive. Look what happened when the Eagles lost Cousins and Judd at the same time. Sure Judd is coming back, but marquay players really are pivotal to a sides confidence and on-field performance.

Will be 3 and 6 for mine.

 

[raymagoo]

The no Fev no Judd for 3 rounds = 3 losses. One of Carltons young mids will cop the heavy tag that Judd otherwise would, which they wont be used to. And one of Carltons young forwards will cop the best defender which they are also not used to.

Who do Carlton draw inspiration from when they need a lift? Who is their natural leader on the park these days? Their best 2 players out for 3 weeks is massive. Look what happened when the Eagles lost Cousins and Judd at the same time. Sure Judd is coming back, but marquay players really are pivotal to a sides confidence and on-field performance.

Will be 3 and 6 for mine.

Excluding the brissy game defender wise (merrett), i think the blues will get off pretty lightly for best defenders & a hard tag in these games, Im not overly stressed over mcguane & daniel jackson (tigers) & pears who'll be great but is young too! not sure who tags for the bummers or lions either? leadership could be an issue? now is your chance jordan russell! If they get an early win should be ok but if not there could be problems!

 

[Hodgepodge]

It's a pretty soft draw for Carlton. They West Coast and then Fremantle at the Etihad in four weeks.

 

[QuietB]

Not really when you're dealing with prime years. And the fact he never got back to the player he once was. NEVER! Which really does give you an idea of how good this guy could have been. If you call that a full career, go for it... I don't agree.

If I gave you a pot filled half with beer and half with water, would you call that a full glass of beer just because it reaches the top of the glass?



In the end that's what he relied on, but not at the beginning of his career. He had athleticism out the clacker and could play in any KP on the ground at a pinch. Again I have to ask, how much did you see of the guy prior to his CFS?



Yes. He was a very good player wasn't he.



Richo 95-2000 (20-25yo)

95 - 9 games
96 - 22 games
97 - 19 games
98 - 16 games
99 - 20 games
00 - 3 games

You're getting stuck on games. I could say Lynch played 300+ games and played in 3 premierships... how could that not a full career. Yet I've made it perfectly clear I am talking about fullness of individual's quality here. How you fellas keep missing that point is beyond me.

FULLNESS OF QUALITY... NOT QUANTITY!

Does that make it easier?

In this respect I laugh at those saying Lynch had a full career.

Saying he "never got back to the player he once was" is a purely subjective opinion MK. I could argue that Dunstall never had a full career because he did a couple of knees late and never got to get the goal kicking record. Saying Dunstall didn't have a full career is laugable though, isn't it? Maybe Hird didn't have a full career because he had major stress fractures for part of it, but again I think it is laugable to suggest Hird didn't have a full career. That is footy, all sorts of players encounter all sorts of problems.

For the record, I saw enough of Lynch at Fitzroy although not as much as you see of opposition players these days. Lynch's best work didn't show up on the highlights too often.

 

[Smyth94]

Saying he "never got back to the player he once was" is a purely subjective opinion MK. I could argue that Dunstall never had a full career because he did a couple of knees late and never got to get the goal kicking record. Saying Dunstall didn't have a full career is laugable though, isn't it? Maybe Hird didn't have a full career because he had major stress fractures for part of it, but again I think it is laugable to suggest Hird didn't have a full career. That is footy, all sorts of players encounter all sorts of problems.

For the record, I saw enough of Lynch at Fitzroy although not as much as you see of opposition players these days. Lynch's best work didn't show up on the highlights too often.

I guess it depends when you cop that major injury. Hird was in coming into the prime of his career and effectively missed two full seasons of footy due to stress fractures.

Correct me if I'm wrong but did Dunstall cop his knee injury in his thirties?

 

[Monkey King]

Saying he "never got back to the player he once was" is a purely subjective opinion MK.

Yes it is. And I would go as far as saying that the Lynch who went down with CFS in the prime of his career never played again. He came back a different player. Agree or disagree as you will.

Dunstall or Hird comparisons are silly. From that point, Lynch was affected by his condition for the rest of his career and heavily affected for around 5 years. I would draw a similarity with Nathan Brown and his broken leg before I would Hird or Dunstall. That guy was never the same player again either. Fortunately for Lynch, he had a very long contract and was young enough to be a damn fine player when his condition started to improve.

 

[Kaladin Stormblessed]

Good call

 

[rofltown]

i think we could be sitting top 4 with that draw i cant see why carlton cant go 6-3 after 9 games.

Round 1 - Richmond @ MCG W
Round 2 - Brisbane @ Gabba L
Round 3 - Essendon @ MCG W
Round 4 - Adelaide @ AAMI L
Round 5 - Geelong @ MCG W
Round 6 - Collingwood @ MCG W
Round 7 - St. Kilda @ ES L
Round 8 - Port Adelaide @ AAMI W
Round 9 - Hawthorn @ MCG W

good call on the 6-3 as it is likely we will beat hawthorn and if sydney beat freo in sydney we'll be top 4

 

[carlton09]

Good call

great bump!

 

[invinciBlues]

Ambitious

I love the return from AAMI to beat geelong

So did we

 

[blue judd]

Below average backline, below average forward line, good midfield = no hope in hell without fevola. Im not exactly hanging my hat on garlett becoming a great player LMAO.

Good one!