Coach Michael Voss

[52Goals4inGranny]

People are deluded to think the poor actions of a small minority of supporters would have any impact at all. That is not how professional organisations operate, making decisions based on the actions of an irrational group of supporters. They may have made some noise but they were NOT representative of the vast majority of Carlton supporters.

There was no 'outpouring' from anybody but the self-entitled few. Those scenes that we saw on television were disgraceful, cowardly people emboldened by mob mentality. There is no justification ever for such behaviour.

I disagree. I personally don't sit there booing but I'm not surprised some of the efforts we put out induced some booing, unhappy fans, and major pushback.

It seems to have righted istelf now fortunately

 

[52Goals4inGranny]

What nonsense.

I note you said on television.

At the ground there was plenty of booing going on.

Outside the ground the discontent was very obvious.

Not some small insignificant minority you'd like to paint it as.

The pushback from fans did lead to a wake up call.

Imagine thinking the only time fans can impact things is when the team is winning, that's illogical.

The players mention the fans in almost every post game interview, media committment, radio segment etc.

We have a huge impact on the club

 

[52Goals4inGranny]

Stop making things up.

I didn't defend it did I, but I can understand the frustration.

Frustration comes out in many different ways for fans.

I think fans are weak when they just keep clapping no matter how poorly ran the club is, no matter what woeful efforts the players put in.

That kind of meek support never brings about change.

Disapproval needs to be shown at times.

A lot of these people would literally do anything for an AFL player. It's sickening!

If the fans have no influence on Carltons decision making, then there has been some weird sackings and hirings over the years.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

A lot of these people would literally do anything for an AFL player. It's sickening!

If the fans have no influence on Carltons decision making, then there has been some weird sackings and hirings over the years.

Sacking Ratts and hiring Salthouse being the most obvious examples.

Bolton tried his best and is a good guy, but was hindered by a very under resourced football dept, but he did a very good job in terms of fixing our club and party boy playing culture (we have barely had an off field scandal involving our players since he was coach) and for that he deserves our warmest thanks.

Teague started off well in his caretaker role, but the board made a mistake appointing him full time coach without doing due diligence/extensive interview of other prospective candidates, and ultimately DT proved to be out of his depth as senior coach.

Now whether by luck or design (probably both) we have found our coach for the long term, one i am confident who will take us to our next grand final in Vossy (eventually)

 

[52Goals4inGranny]

Sacking Ratts and hiring Salthouse being the most obvious examples.

Bolton tried his best and is a good guy, but was hindered by a very under resourced football dept, but he did a very good job in terms of fixing our club and party boy playing culture (we have barely had an off field scandal involving our players since he was coach) and for that he deserves our warmest thanks.

Teague started off well in his caretaker role, but the board made a mistake appointing him full time coach without doing due diligence/extensive interview of other prospective candidates, and ultimately DT proved to be out of his depth as senior coach.

Now whether by luck or design (probably both) we have found our coach for the long term, one i am confident who will take us to our next grand final in Vossy (eventually)

For sure, all of those were sacked due to fans, and David Teague was hired (then sacked) due to fans.

We have a massive say on the club. Most sponsors, broadcasters, and the AFL know that Carlton has a huge fanbase and we are rewarded for it accordingly.

With the good comes the bad, the powers that be are very aware of our powerful fanbase

 

[Arr0w]

Imagine if we had sacked Voss as many had wanted, not to mention Sayers for hiring him

"Yes, yes, it was due to us fans melting, ranting, abusing people at the club that forced change and our turnaround"


Footy

 

[52Goals4inGranny]

No one says they are right, or wrong. But they have a huge input. Luckily there was a upturn in performance.

Having said that, we haven't made finals yet. I wouldn't want us to miss

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

For sure, all of those were sacked due to fans, and David Teague was hired (then sacked) due to fans.

We have a massive say on the club. Most sponsors and the AFL know that Carlton has a huge fanbase and we are rewarded for it accordingly.

With the good comes the bad, the powers that be are very aware of our powerful fanbase

The fans can deny it, but they/we definitely had a big say in Ratts sacking.

Every week on talk back radio during our losses during Ratts final season, so many angry (entitled) fans went on the airwaves blasting Ratts and wanting change.

You are right about the (arguably unhealthy) influence of our powerful fan base, esp when it comes to coaching, which is why I am delighted we have Brian Cook and the current board steering our ship, they have backed Vossy to the hilt, given our players and coaching staff overall some much stability and continuity (something we haven't had since Parko was coaching us)

 

[Blue and Blue]

I think you'd be surprised how deep the coaching influence is on just about every aspect of what we see on field. I would argue in some respects (maybe Carlton 2023?) that overcoaching is prevalent in AFL.
Consider some pivotal changes in our lifetime -
Hawthorn players rushing behinds in the 2008 GF wasn't organic.
Fitzroy players begin huddling at kick-ins one day in the 1980s
Footscray players flooding Essendon's forward line in 2000
Wayne Carey wasn't smart enough to engineer Pagan's Paddock
Every game where Ross Lyon is involved as coach?

Reality is coaches are responsible for more change in our game than any other group of people. The rule makers are constantly responding to changes driven by tactics implemented by coaches. Talent scouts are continually viewing potential draftees through a lens of modern football onfield trends (remember when athletic traits became a thing ... now it's termed "running capacity").

In my view coaches not only have incredible influence on match day but are also the major drivers of generational onfield change.

I didnt say match day I said match time. Big difference. And yes we can coach a certain concept of where to run and when such as a defensive flood but too often the ball dictates whether that works or falls apart.
I have coached and once the ball is bounced one is more or less a spectator other than moving players around.

Edit
Yes I agree that overcoaching is a thing in general.

 

[52Goals4inGranny]

The fans can deny it, but they/we definitely had a big say in Ratts sacking.

Every week on talk back radio during our losses during Ratts final season, so many angry (entitled) fans went on the airwaves blasting Ratts and wanting change.

You are right about the (arguably unhealthy) influence of our powerful fan base, esp when it comes to coaching, which is why I am delighted we have Brian Cook and the current board steering our ship, they have backed Vossy to the hilt, given our players and coaching staff overall some much stability and continuity (something we haven't had since Parko was coaching us)

Very fortunate. I am on record saying to sign Vossy up for 5 years, but then I admit I wavered after the Essendon humiliation

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Very fortunate. I am on record saying to sign Vossy up for 5 years, but then I admit I wavered after the Essendon humiliation

I honestly think 5 yeat extensions for any coach is too risky.

Happy to sign up Vossy for 2 more after this season (even if we miss finals, which seems unlikely but given our injuries ...) and go from there.

 

[52Goals4inGranny]

I honestly think 5 yeat extensions for any coach is too risky.

Happy to sign up Vossy for 2 more after this season (even if we miss finals, which seems unlikely but given our injuries ...) and go from there.

I just think it's a role you grow into and learn from. Every year (as long as you are showing improvements) you get more experienced and better.

Should be minimimum 5-7 year contracts unless the results are horrific and seriously going backwards

 

[HarryFlashman]

Very fortunate. I am on record saying to sign Vossy up for 5 years, but then I admit I wavered after the Essendon humiliation

To be fair, after the * fiasco, hung & quartered wasn’t that much of an overreaction. Personally I wanted him tarred & feathered as bare minimum

 

[52Goals4inGranny]

To be fair, after the * fiasco, hung & quartered wasn’t that much of an overreaction. Personally I wanted him tarred & feathered as bare minimum

33 tackles against the filth and scum bogans from Windy Hill infuriated me. It literally sent me over the edge the way we came out after half time

 

[gbatman]

I was going to respond, until I saw SpiritOfCarlton's post just above.

That pretty much explains the perspective of myself and others. No use just repeating ad nauseum the same points.

Just on Walsh. He played forward more due to the lack of other available options. Doc also played forward a bit. Now that Cunners, Martin, Fog and Cotts are available, he can be deployed elsewhere. He also had his own fitness battles and there may have been an element of protecting him from himself as he returned to full fitness.

That was not what I meant re Walsh. I was talking about positioning at the stoppage. Walsh had been getting a lot of the ball in the front end of the stoppage, racking up junk possessions. We didn't really implement a runner as teams are now until recently. Walsh has been positioning behind the stoppage running through. I'd been going on about implementing a runner at stoppages and using him in that role for months so I've been delighted to see it.

Footy at the moment resembles late 90s early 2000's footy more than it resembles footy in 2018 for example. With a few modern touches of course, but when teams are in full flight moving the ball up and down the field, the game has not been that game for a long time. It's nice to see. Also nice to see some of the scores and goal kickers resembling the time as well.

No no point going on about things but that's very much what I see. I was a huge critic of Voss' game plan for a long time, even last year when we were going ok, I got that right what I was saying came to be. Very very happy with it now, it had to move with the times.

I think where a lot of teams followed the Collingwood model, we tried to be a team that bucked the trend and develop a system that would defend against these teams who moved the ball up the middle and took risks and got the ball into their hands of their runners. It had merit but it didn't work. It resulted in us having less shots on goal and hence relying on very accurate goal kicking and also created a game plan we could not possibly have the energy to hold for 4 quarters. Scrapping that and modernising things for a more offensive game plan based around applying pressure with leg speed, chasing, tackling and playing close to the man has been where we have turned things around.

I think not only did the old game plan not work but the players had completely bought out of it. I think they have heavily bought into this and that's what we are seeing.

What we were trying to do re ball movement, how we position forward of the ball when we don't have it, what we are doing now at stoppages and how we are defending and applying pressure, being willing to go into the middle and risk turning it over now compared to not at all. It's chalk and cheese.

Would not be surprised if the changes were player driven, coaching group had no option but to go with it as the season was failing and players had bought out. That's what it looked like to me. You don't often see a captain arguing and making a point with a coach on the sidelines.

What happened behind closed doors will stay there. Because we know something happened we will get fed a PG version of what happened. We will get told everyone sat around in a circle and and sung Kumbaya and all walked out better players who just play better and harder. What really happened I am willing to be will never make the light of day but would be very much the opposite to that. There's the romantic version fed to fans and the real one we will never know about. Either way it worked, that is the main thing.

I think what we are both saying is right. I think both of us are right regarding what has changed. I think a lot has come together including new players coming into the side. There are more pieces to come together such as getting players back from injury. IMO we are in a situation where all pieces can come together and we have a shot at a flag this year IMO, but that needs to happen. Beating St Kilda with some important men down is one of those things that needs to happen. IMO that's as big of a challenge now that the Collingwood game was.

 

[gab213]

Would not be surprised if the changes were player driven, coaching group had no option but to go with it as the season was failing and players had bought out. That's what it looked like to me. You don't often see a captain arguing and making a point with a coach on the sidelines.

Another day, another theory I guess, so many different scenarios are being created to avoid acknowledging that the coach can actually coach.

 

[gbatman]

Another day, another theory I guess, so many different scenarios are being created to avoid acknowledging that the coach can actually coach.

We forget coaches are like players and need time to develop and learn. There is a lot to learn and experience, like with all jobs is crucial. He's made mistakes, even the good ones do. Horse Longmire said when he took over at the Swans he tried to put his spin on things and change a few things, said it didn't work and he had to changed some things back and they then won a flag under him. Not sure what he was talking about but he was open about it. Coaches make mistakes and get things wrong, the good ones learn and make things right.

 

[gab213]

We forget coaches are like players and need time to develop and learn. There is a lot to learn and experience, like with all jobs is crucial. He's made mistakes, even the good ones do. Horse Longmire said when he took over at the Swans he tried to put his spin on things and changes a few things, said it didn't work and he had to changed some things back and they then won a flag under him. Not sure what he was talking about but he was open about it. Coaches make mistakes and get things wrong, the good ones learn and make things right.

Can't disagree with any of that, good post

 

[Arr0w]

We forget coaches are like players and need time to develop and learn. There is a lot to learn and experience, like with all jobs is crucial. He's made mistakes, even the good ones do. Horse Longmire said when he took over at the Swans he tried to put his spin on things and changes a few things, said it didn't work and he had to changed some things back and they then won a flag under him. Not sure what he was talking about but he was open about it. Coaches make mistakes and get things wrong, the good ones learn and make things right.

Each coach/leader has a vision of what they believe is achievable.

They know the resources required and will release and add to find a perfect mix

But they never stray from the path, no matter short term results, if they are strong in their conviction

Voss isn't learning about himself, his learning about the resources for that mix

 

[Blue and Blue]

Another day, another theory I guess, so many different scenarios are being created to avoid acknowledging that the coach can actually coach.

I have a theory ...they can all coach if they win and can't when they don't.......

 

[gbatman]

Each coach/leader has a vision of what they believe is achievable.

They know the resources required and will release and add to find a perfect mix

But they never stray from the path, no matter short term results, if they are strong in their conviction

Voss isn't learning about himself, his learning about the resources for that mix

100%. You go into a game with a vision of game plan, how every individual will play and how you want to play the game. Sometimes that works out, sometimes it doesn't.

The thing is Brad Scott changed the game with his new rules quite a lot. There have been fundamentals in the game for 15 years that coaches have had to move away from which is not always easy. Teams are doing things now that in the past you just do not do. I don't think I have seen the ball go into the middle and get turned over in the middle as much as this in a very long time.

I think a few coaches had their own visions of how the game would be played and won with the rule changes. I think Collingwood's coaching group nailed it and that's the big reason they are up the top. They have been playing that brand for longer than any other team. I think we had a vision and it failed in a fairly big way and we have done something very difficult. Change game plan mid season and a lot of that is changing mentality and what you do instinctively on the field. A lot of that is dumping some teams rules. A lot of clubs would have had the rule of not risking a turnover in the middle a year or two ago. That's been the way for 15 years and it's gone now. Means changing players habits.

 

[JustaBattler]

FUN FACT: Carlton is just the third team in VFL/AFL history to win six straight games immediately after losing six straight games (Bulldogs 1974, Hawks 2010).

So what's changed? What's sparked the stunning turnaround?

The Blues have doubled down on their footy identity, going all in on the contested aspect of their game that Michael Voss introduced last year. They're not just doing it well, they're doing it as effectively as we've ever seen. Carlton's +235 points from scores from clearances over the last six weeks is the best any team has produced in a six-game stretch. Ever. For context, the next best in this period is Sydney at 'just' +97.

The contest, and winning clearance and contested possession is where it all begins for the Blues and, as you'll see, they enjoyed a serious trickle down effect when dominating that aspect of the game:

CARLTON'S STAGGERING TURNAROUND
MEASURE ROUNDS 8-13 ROUNDS 14-20
POINTS FOR 17 1
POINTS FROM STOPPAGE 15 1
POINTS FROM TURNOVER 16 6
CONTESTED POSSESSION 4 1
PRESSURE 16 4
INSIDE 50 DIFFERENTIAL 10 4
BALL MOVEMENT 14 7

The Six Points: Batman doesn't need a Robin; Blues a flag chance

This week's Six Points feature the failed Gawn-Grundy experiment, the charging Blues (and what's changed), why Ollie Wines is no longer playing like a top 100 player, and the Nick Daicos bet I'd love to make.

www.espn.com.au

The source is ESPN article above. ( FWIW)

In bold is an opinion about Voss's focus - contested endeavour if you like
In red are some relevant stats regarding the impact of lifting the all ground work rate - intent if you like

Note that 'ball movement' has moved from 14th to 7th rated in this period - far far below the other stats as a factor. BVall movement is the lowest area of improvement with Carlton rated (only) 7th in that area - although that has improved.

It os a fair quesiton to ask - what has made the difference - but as far as stats go- execution around the ground has lifted as far as defensive effort goes- to top4 standards. Carlton is meeting out pressure all over the park. That is a defensive game in a nutshell. Where defensive excellence turns into offensive capability.

 

[bigblueboy]

From everything coming from people like Sayers and Cook it was never a consideration. The club for once behaved in a professional manner and stuck together. This has been a big turning point for the club.

It is something that should be celebrated. We are showing the signs of being a proper football club, it's more than just about the on-field turn around, we have made massive strides off-field.

Sayers has been on the board since 2012. Ratten, Malthouse, Bolton, Teague. He’s an expert in sacking coaches and led the charge in seeking out Clarkson and Lyon.
Voss’ position was undoubtedly (and thankfully) more secure with Cook in the CEO chair.

 

[Arr0w]

100%. You go into a game with a vision of game plan, how every individual will play and how you want to play the game. Sometimes that works out, sometimes it doesn't.

The thing is Brad Scott changed the game with his new rules quite a lot. There have been fundamentals in the game for 15 years that coaches have had to move away from which is not always easy. Teams are doing things now that in the past you just do not do. I don't think I have seen the ball go into the middle and get turned over in the middle as much as this in a very long time.

I think a few coaches had their own visions of how the game would be played and won with the rule changes. I think Collingwood's coaching group nailed it and that's the big reason they are up the top. They have been playing that brand for longer than any other team. I think we had a vision and it failed in a fairly big way and we have done something very difficult. Change game plan mid season and a lot of that is changing mentality and what you do instinctively on the field. A lot of that is dumping some teams rules. A lot of clubs would have had the rule of not risking a turnover in the middle a year or two ago. That's been the way for 15 years and it's gone now. Means changing players habits.

Gman, your head is still stuck with the gameplan, but I will address it

Fly didn't invent his gameplan, it's a revised Tigers gameplan.

“Most innovation involves doing the things we do every day a little bit better rather than creating something completely new and different.“

He also, stated that he could move to the next phase of his vision, as the Pies already had defensive continuity, via Buckley

Now, let's step away from the gameplan, as we know that our players have recently confirmed that Voss nor his messaging has change all year

It was more about learning who could play the roles, not changing that gameplan/vision

While Voss (most of us) knew, the likes of Martin and Cuners would be integral, I am confident that Fogarty may not have been in his (and ours) initial consideration

But, this was the discovery, finding the right mix. In essence, it wasn't Fogarty as such, it was those attributes that complement the whole

It's less about the gameplan, it's about each cog willing to play their role and I suspect, most players have had that light bulb moment

 

[Kruezing]

FUN FACT: Carlton is just the third team in VFL/AFL history to win six straight games immediately after losing six straight games (Bulldogs 1974, Hawks 2010).

So what's changed? What's sparked the stunning turnaround?

The Blues have doubled down on their footy identity, going all in on the contested aspect of their game that Michael Voss introduced last year. They're not just doing it well, they're doing it as effectively as we've ever seen. Carlton's +235 points from scores from clearances over the last six weeks is the best any team has produced in a six-game stretch. Ever. For context, the next best in this period is Sydney at 'just' +97.

The contest, and winning clearance and contested possession is where it all begins for the Blues and, as you'll see, they enjoyed a serious trickle down effect when dominating that aspect of the game:

CARLTON'S STAGGERING TURNAROUND
MEASURE ROUNDS 8-13 ROUNDS 14-20
POINTS FOR 17 1
POINTS FROM STOPPAGE 15 1
POINTS FROM TURNOVER 16 6
CONTESTED POSSESSION 4 1
PRESSURE 16 4
INSIDE 50 DIFFERENTIAL 10 4
BALL MOVEMENT 14 7

The Six Points: Batman doesn't need a Robin; Blues a flag chance

This week's Six Points feature the failed Gawn-Grundy experiment, the charging Blues (and what's changed), why Ollie Wines is no longer playing like a top 100 player, and the Nick Daicos bet I'd love to make.

www.espn.com.au

The source is ESPN article above. ( FWIW)

In bold is an opinion about Voss's focus - contested endeavour if you like
In red are some relevant stats regarding the impact of lifting the all ground work rate - intent if you like

Note that 'ball movement' has moved from 14th to 7th rated in this period - far far below the other stats as a factor. BVall movement is the lowest area of improvement with Carlton rated (only) 7th in that area - although that has improved.

It os a fair quesiton to ask - what has made the difference - but as far as stats go- execution around the ground has lifted as far as defensive effort goes- to top4 standards. Carlton is meeting out pressure all over the park. That is a defensive game in a nutshell. Where defensive excellence turns into offensive capability.

Which correlates with what Voss was saying during our crapola run of games … he kept banging on about defense … maybe he was right …