Autopsy Rd 18 Blues storm home to beat Pies and honour Serge

[Santo the king]

No one has given him a cool nickname like Rhino yet so he can’t be that good.

Wasnt it Uncle? Greg williams tella some verry funny stories aboit rhino.

 

[Jimmyonesix]

The counter to that is that the midfield line coach might be less important than Head of Development, and may also be an easier position to fill with somebody who is good at it?

Yep I'd leave him as development as he has got these young guys to gel over the last twelve months not 5 weeks -- just that now he giving the instruction they listen-- if Lyons doesn't coach anywhere next year I would go after Lenny Hayes

 

[katmanblue]

Deliberate trip using his own foot, Smith limped off injured, should of got a week, need to stamp that sh*t out !!

Like when Howe got Fisher. Fisher hasn't been the same since.

 

[NavySteel]

Just finished watching replay.

Implore all to look at 3:40 to go on last just after SoS hanger and H goal. That centre clearance was pure silk; TDK clean tap to Walsh to Fisher, lace out to almost an H mark - I did a Sam Walsh

18

Sam Walsh

Age

24

Ht

184cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

25.1

5star

K

13.5

5star

HB

11.6

5star

M

5.1

5star

T

3.2

5star

CL

3.4

5star

No current season stats available

D

26.2

5star

K

15.4

5star

HB

10.8

5star

M

6.0

5star

T

3.2

5star

CL

4.8

5star

heat map.

TDK got the better of Grundy in the last. More of this.

Edit: it wasn't Grundy, it was Darcy. Same principle tho...

 

[Dramoth]

Na was def Weiters

Yeah, watched the last Q again just now. Was Weiters... and it was Adams who started the melee in the centre with Fisher, by trying to bounce Fisher's head off his fists and it appears the ground. I saw a pumping motion with Adams standing over Fish. The next vision of it shows Newman and, I think Plow, dragging Adams off Fish.

 

[windows1]

The good thing is it’s a simple fix. Fitness. This week was the most clear example of that, even though he had a good game.

9 touches in q1, 1 in q2, 7 in q 3 and 0 in q4.

If he can put his head down and arse up for one more preseason, he’s going to explode.

They anticipated his lack of fitness this week and took him off the ball (for Fisher) in the last. Worked a treat.

 

[Funk]

Matt Kennedy's renaissance has been so good. Him and Walsh ran all day.

Amazing what a player can when his ankle is not rooted.

 

[thylacine60]

Is Stocker worthy of the Woof?

nope and he wouldn't want it ....

 

[BlueBayou]

Don't get me wrong; I've been saying for a while that Cripps/Jack as rotating ruckmen is the only way forward, and that it's the only way either player should attend a centre square stoppage. Just, let's be absolutely clear what we're getting from him when in there; he'll slam into their ruck and get up as high as he can - and he's a good deal smarter than most rucks footywise, so he's going to tap it to good areas if he gets near it - and he'll be an extra big mid on the ground, but he's not going to be able to consistently win taps against the best.

In short, he's as good a backup ruck as there is, provided he's not against someone who's going to monster him from a taps perspective (Gawn, Witts) or a power perspective (Mumford, Natanui, Lycett). And let's face it; over time, TDK will need less rest and will spend longer in the ruck, so it will become less of a problem.

I sort of agree and don't 'quite' agree Geth, with respect.

As I've been banging on about for some time, I think Jack is a natural ruck-rover.... Personally I would be loath to use him in the tap ruck position except as we just did, in a 'break glass in emergency' situation. The ruck -rover was probably invented for Barassi; tall enough to compete in the ruck when needed, strong enough to be what is these days called a 'big bodied mid' and skillful enough to find, win and dispose of the ball accurately.

Jack, like his dad and grand-dad, can and will play wherever needed. I can see him as a stand in CHB if needed, on ball if needed, CHF if needed, high half forward if needed. 'whatever you want, coach'

We need a second 'first class' ruckman to be the foil for TDK, or even better, to be first ruck and let TDK play more up forward with Chas And H. We will not be a serious contender without a serious and durable/reliable ruck division.

Yout thoughts?

 

[BlueBayou]

would never sell the farm for a ruckman ever - they dont win you flags.

don't agree with this Frumpy. Great ruckmen win you games, week in, week out, and get you to finals in the first place. I reckon if someone did the stats, the team that wins the ruck duels on GF day wins the flag probably 70/30.

 

[BlueBayou]

Won’t be a popular view around here, but I tend to agree that they got a pretty raw deal from the umps. The 50m penalty in the middle of the ground that led to the ZW goal, the paid mark and non-play on with Eddie and the HTB against Side Steelebottom stood out as particularly harsh.
Not saying they were the sole reason we won, but they certainly helped.

did you read all seven pages??? I did, rollicking good laugh...

 

[CarltonBlooz]

Won’t be a popular view around here, but I tend to agree that they got a pretty raw deal from the umps. The 50m penalty in the middle of the ground that led to the ZW goal, the paid mark and non-play on with Eddie and the HTB against Side Steelebottom stood out as particularly harsh.
Not saying they were the sole reason we won, but they certainly helped.

Happens every game, you win some you lose some, next week it'll be against us.

 

[Arr0w]

FMD, I must have watched a different game to many

Apart from the Cats, who had a 4 qtr dominance, every other winner dropped a qtr if not 2.

After the Pies kicked the first 3, we won the next 3 qtrs and we outscored them 13 to 6 goals

 

[Gethelred]

I sort of agree and don't 'quite' agree Geth, with respect.

As I've been banging on about for some time, I think Jack is a natural ruck-rover.... Personally I would be loath to use him in the tap ruck position except as we just did, in a 'break glass in emergency' situation. The ruck -rover was probably invented for Barassi; tall enough to compete in the ruck when needed, strong enough to be what is these days called a 'big bodied mid' and skillful enough to find, win and dispose of the ball accurately.

Jack, like his dad and grand-dad, can and will play wherever needed. I can see him as a stand in CHB if needed, on ball if needed, CHF if needed, high half forward if needed. 'whatever you want, coach'

We need a second 'first class' ruckman to be the foil for TDK, or even better, to be first ruck and let TDK play more up forward with Chas And H. We will not be a serious contender without a serious and durable/reliable ruck division.

Yout thoughts?

I understand the desire to have the second ruck; it ensures that at no point are you sacrificing that all important initial contest. My issue comes from the sacrifices that need to be made in order to at best have a worse performer in the position than the first ruck and an extra player who is slower, less skilled and less agile than a midfielder, and not good enough a KPF to play as a pure KPF.

Let's face it; a ruckman is not the reader of the game a CHF/CHB is, nor do they have the skills if a FF. They can't read the game like a FB, and unless their surname is McEvoy they can't play much more than a kick behind at the best of times. I can bear having one in the 22 if they're like TDK; he's agile as a cat, leaps over players in the ruck, marks as well as most KPF's, and is an acceptable shot at goal, but even he makes mistakes with disposal, gets that rush of blood to the head which portrays a lack of understanding of the game (which he'll get better at, because he's really young as far as ruckmen go anyway).

I see Jack as being more valuable the closer he is placed to the balldrop, and there is no position onfield that's closer to the balldrop than the ruck. And call me too modern for my own good, but the outnumber the second the ball hits dirt is better value than winning the tap is. And you're not always losing the tap, either; he's not an incapable ruckman, and he's much, much smarter gamewise than most ruckmen ever will be so if he wins, the tap's valuable.

At the root of it all is my genuine dislike of hybrid players. If you have a specialist in any given position (say, Lachie Hunter or Andrew Gaff) are you telling me that you'd really take the hybrid(Mark Blicavs or Nick Cox)? Jaryd Roughead and Kurt Tippett (hybrids) over Jeremy Cameron, Dean Cox, or Brendon Fevola? Even if you go small - Josh Gibson, Stewart Crameri - are you really going to take the hybrid over the genuine KPP (Scarlett, Grundy) or the genuine small (Stratton, Enright)?

Give me a specialist in their position every time, instead of a jack of two trades that is good 'for their size'.

Jack is a compromise I'm willing to make, because he struggles when he's not naturally around the ball. Put him right beside it, and he's going to make every contest count.

 

[Arr0w]

I understand the desire to have the second ruck; it ensures that at no point are you sacrificing that all important initial contest. My issue comes from the sacrifices that need to be made in order to at best have a worse performer in the position than the first ruck and an extra player who is slower, less skilled and less agile than a midfielder, and not good enough a KPF to play as a pure KPF.

Let's face it; a ruckman is not the reader of the game a CHF/CHB is, nor do they have the skills if a FF. They can't read the game like a FB, and unless their surname is McEvoy they can't play much more than a kick behind at the best of times. I can bear having one in the 22 if they're like TDK; he's agile as a cat, leaps over players in the ruck, marks as well as most KPF's, and is an acceptable shot at goal, but even he makes mistakes with disposal, gets that rush of blood to the head which portrays a lack of understanding of the game (which he'll get better at, because he's really young as far as ruckmen go anyway).

I see Jack as being more valuable the closer he is placed to the balldrop, and there is no position onfield that's closer to the balldrop than the ruck. And call me too modern for my own good, but the outnumber the second the ball hits dirt is better value than winning the tap is. And you're not always losing the tap, either; he's not an incapable ruckman, and he's much, much smarter gamewise than most ruckmen ever will be so if he wins, the tap's valuable.

At the root of it all is my genuine dislike of hybrid players. If you have a specialist in any given position (say, Lachie Hunter or Andrew Gaff) are you telling me that you'd really take the hybrid(Mark Blicavs or Nick Cox)? Jaryd Roughead and Kurt Tippett (hybrids) over Jeremy Cameron, Dean Cox, or Brendon Fevola? Even if you go small - Josh Gibson, Stewart Crameri - are you really going to take the hybrid over the genuine KPP (Scarlett, Grundy) or the genuine small (Stratton, Enright)?

Give me a specialist in their position every time, instead of a jack of two trades that is good 'for their size'.

Jack is a compromise I'm willing to make, because he struggles when he's not naturally around the ball. Put him right beside it, and he's going to make every contest count.

While a pure elite ruckman only, is somewhat of a waste and has been for well over a decade, one that can chop out in the ruck and be a threat forward is vital to team structure

Find a forward/ruck, such as a Chol, Daniher, Sinclair type and our side looks so much more dangerous

 

[FRUMPY]

don't agree with this Frumpy. Great ruckmen win you games, week in, week out, and get you to finals in the first place. I reckon if someone did the stats, the team that wins the ruck duels on GF day wins the flag probably 70/30.

You need a good ruckman but they aren't worth paying millions for. Without looking into it, I think most premiership teams ruckman is an average player and not your superstar big dollar player.

Sent from my CPH2005 using Tapatalk

 

[thylacine60]

Happens every game, you win some you lose some, next week it'll be against us.

Yep. Every single club, every single game.

 

[gunslingr]

the paid mark and non-play on with Eddie

I'd suggest the positioning of body + ball means there's no video proof it wasn't a mark and Eddie would actually have no idea himself considering where he/the ball was. Plus, I think it was paid by an umpire to the right of the pack (i.e., behind Eddie's back) so a fair enough call.

Now the play on, though - sheesh. Eddie can absolutely create something from nothing, but with a mass of legs all around him and him on the ground with only a powerless leg swing as an option? As someone yelled at Fisher earlier in the game "JUST TAKE THE STOPPAGE FISH EDDIE"

 

[BlueBayou]

I understand the desire to have the second ruck; it ensures that at no point are you sacrificing that all important initial contest. My issue comes from the sacrifices that need to be made in order to at best have a worse performer in the position than the first ruck and an extra player who is slower, less skilled and less agile than a midfielder, and not good enough a KPF to play as a pure KPF.

Let's face it; a ruckman is not the reader of the game a CHF/CHB is, nor do they have the skills if a FF. They can't read the game like a FB, and unless their surname is McEvoy they can't play much more than a kick behind at the best of times. I can bear having one in the 22 if they're like TDK; he's agile as a cat, leaps over players in the ruck, marks as well as most KPF's, and is an acceptable shot at goal, but even he makes mistakes with disposal, gets that rush of blood to the head which portrays a lack of understanding of the game (which he'll get better at, because he's really young as far as ruckmen go anyway).

I see Jack as being more valuable the closer he is placed to the balldrop, and there is no position onfield that's closer to the balldrop than the ruck. And call me too modern for my own good, but the outnumber the second the ball hits dirt is better value than winning the tap is. And you're not always losing the tap, either; he's not an incapable ruckman, and he's much, much smarter gamewise than most ruckmen ever will be so if he wins, the tap's valuable.

At the root of it all is my genuine dislike of hybrid players. If you have a specialist in any given position (say, Lachie Hunter or Andrew Gaff) are you telling me that you'd really take the hybrid(Mark Blicavs or Nick Cox)? Jaryd Roughead and Kurt Tippett (hybrids) over Jeremy Cameron, Dean Cox, or Brendon Fevola? Even if you go small - Josh Gibson, Stewart Crameri - are you really going to take the hybrid over the genuine KPP (Scarlett, Grundy) or the genuine small (Stratton, Enright)?

Give me a specialist in their position every time, instead of a jack of two trades that is good 'for their size'.

Jack is a compromise I'm willing to make, because he struggles when he's not naturally around the ball. Put him right beside it, and he's going to make every contest count.

I think we might be talking at cross purposes, Geth. I'm advocating for a genuine ruck, as I think TDK can be the ruck/forward. I'm talking about someone like the big bloke from Freo (Darcy??) or yes, if a young McEvoy type was around grab him.

The trouble with conceding the ruck tap and relying on an outnumber at the fall of the ball is twofold.

1, if their ruck is dominant, there may be no 'fall' as the pill is delivered lace out to their on ball fleet by the tap.

2, we miss out on sublime pieces of play as evidenced in the last qtr on Sunday, where TDK puts the ball down the throat of a blitzing Walsh who delivers onto the chest of a leading H. Sausage! Call me old fashioned, but that was as near to perfectly poetic football as I've seen from CFC for some time.

I totally agree with you re Jsos. As I said, I think he is a natural on baller. Smart, classy, tough, a great reader of the game.

While a pure elite ruckman only, is somewhat of a waste and has been for well over a decade, one that can chop out in the ruck and be a threat forward is vital to team structure

Find a forward/ruck, such as a Chol, Daniher, Sinclair type and our side looks so much more dangerous

An 'elite ruckman' is no waste in my books. Vital to have at least an B+ grade Nankervis type. Elite ? even better.

You need a good ruckman but they aren't worth paying millions for. Without looking into it, I think most premiership teams ruckman is an average player and not your superstar big dollar player.

Sent from my CPH2005 using Tapatalk

Agreed. superstar ruckmen are rare. Gawn? Peak Grundy? a Fit NicNat? Find us someone of that quality to pair with TDK as 2nd ruck/forward and we will be on to a winning combo.

 

[thylacine60]

Eddie got away with onetwo there.

 

[Gethelred]

While a pure elite ruckman only, is somewhat of a waste and has been for well over a decade, one that can chop out in the ruck and be a threat forward is vital to team structure

Find a forward/ruck, such as a Chol, Daniher, Sinclair type and our side looks so much more dangerous

Play a second KPF, and our side looks much more dangerous. Play a proper third KPF, and our side looks much more dangerous.

 

[Blueballs38]

Williamsesk with his handballs

 

[Gethelred]

I think we might be talking at cross purposes, Geth. I'm advocating for a genuine ruck, as I think TDK can be the ruck/forward. I'm talking about someone like the big bloke from Freo (Darcy??) or yes, if a young McEvoy type was around grab him.

I don't understand why you would want TDK anywhere but in the ruck. He doesn't have an instinctive read of the game as you need in a KPF. He is athletically outrageous, and he's useful when he's by himself; put him against a genuine KPD, and they're just going to towel him up.

McEvoy is a CHB trapped in the body of a ruckman, and without the quality around him gets exposed for lack of pace and an inability to adapt to the ball kicked where he isn't. For all that he was an absolute ****ing wall of a kick behind for almost 10 years, if your opponent has time to go around you it's a waste of a position that can be better used a) as part of a zone defense anyway, or b) in and around the stoppage as an extra mid.

The trouble with conceding the ruck tap and relying on an outnumber at the fall of the ball is twofold.

1, if their ruck is dominant, there may be no 'fall' as the pill is delivered lace out to their on ball fleet by the tap.

... in which case, you have an outnumber, and you're set up to be able to defend that laceout tap.

The point of the second ruck is not to win the tap but to give the first ruck a rest while neutralizing that laceout tap. That's it.

2, we miss out on sublime pieces of play as evidenced in the last qtr on Sunday, where TDK puts the ball down the throat of a blitzing Walsh who delivers onto the chest of a leading H. Sausage! Call me old fashioned, but that was as near to perfectly poetic football as I've seen from CFC for some time.

We only miss out on it while TDK isn't in the ruck, and there were more than a few centre clearances from Walsh, Dow, Fish or Kennedy reading the tap off Grundy's palm anyway. I can also remember a straight win from Jack down to Walsh, anyway.

 

[BlueBayou]

... in which case, you have an outnumber, and you're set up to be able to defend that laceout tap.

The point of the second ruck is not to win the tap but to give the first ruck a rest while neutralizing that laceout tap. That's it.


We only miss out on it while TDK isn't in the ruck, and there were more than a few centre clearances from Walsh, Dow, Fish or Kennedy reading the tap off Grundy's palm anyway. I can also remember a straight win from Jack down to Walsh, anyway.

Ok, it looks like we have differing philosophies about this and I concede I may be 'old fashioned' in my thinking. Perhaps I hark back too much to the old Carlton doctrine of game plan A -
i, Have the best backline in the league (we are getting there)
ii, Have the best ruck division in the league (think Nick and Percy/Fitz and WOW/ Harry and whoever) paired with a vv good on ball division (again, we are getting there)
iii Goals will take care of themselves if we have good players around the ball.

 

[Gethelred]

Ok, it looks like we have differing philosophies about this and I concede I may be 'old fashioned' in my thinking. Perhaps I hark back too much to the old Carlton doctrine of game plan A -
i, Have the best backline in the league (we are getting there)
ii, Have the best ruck division in the league (think Nick and Percy/Fitz and WOW/ Harry and whoever) paired with a vv good on ball division (again, we are getting there)
iii Goals will take care of themselves if we have good players around the ball.

The plan A you mention is great, right up until it doesn't work.

Now, this could very well be just me, but we've seen multiple 'great' ruckmen in recent years get into a grand final - Sandilands, Grundy - and get trounced because the opposition planned to be flexible and to neutralise the taps rather than to outright win them. Collingwood and Fremantle's plan A was to win the tap; because they were no longer winning the tap, they were already being prevented from their best game.

One of the reasons Barker was a poor midfield coach was that he had a profound overreliance on winning the tap; if we lost it or even they just halved it, the opposition found easy exits from the stoppage every time.

If we go with my desired structure, we're not wedded to winning the tap; if we do, we're set up to be able to take advantage anyway and that's a bonus. If we lose the tap - from mildly to badly - we're set up to still impact the exit or to read the tap anyway, and having that outnumber at the centre stoppage is worth its weight in gold once the ball starts moving. The opposition ruckman goes for the ball in the taps; if they're a good ruckman, they'll straight line the ball in the next play, but due to their size and lack of agility they've no sidestep, and can only impact the followup play once.

Their opponent - Jack or Cripps - can just hunt the ball.