Opinion The 'Carlton related stuff that doesn't need it's own thread' thread Part 2

[thylacine60]

Plenty of rubbish over his short muck raking media journey actually, and one of his best was that Cripps & Fyfe were going to be traded/swapped!!! If the TRUTH newspaper was still in business he would write for them the bloody little lying bastard that just loves a headline regardless of it having no truth whatsoever. He is a cheap shot that is all about his own ego and adds nothing of any substance to the culture of the game........Jezza and his 1970 G.F. mark not being worthy of being in the top 50 marks of all time for instance, but of course like someone else said, it`s all about him putting himself on the front page to gain attention!!! It`s about time that all the journalists stopped thinking that they are more important than the game itself, and this bloke is the worst example of that........the bloody nark!!!!! that`s what his brain is made of by the way...........

I meant what's he said that's incorrect in that article?

 

[Jabba73]

Our players getting knocked off the ball is worse than our tackling, let’s the opposition have clean possession from a 50/50 contest.

Killed us in the first quarter of the Dees game.

 

[Beast__Mode]

I meant what's he said that's incorrect in that article?

absolutely nothing. If in 15 months time we’re spinning our wheels Cripps would be well within his rights to chase success.

Re: tackling. my view on the tackling is we don’t have very clever or disciplined players. They collectively get sucked into the contest like moths and lose the ability to tackle/contain when the opposition spreads. So unless there’s a stoppage and the ball is more or less static, we allow a lot of easy spread which immediately results in low tackle numbers. If the players were more disciplined in their spacing they’d have an opportunity to pressure beyond the immediate zone of the ball.

 

[norway blue]

absolutely nothing. If in 15 months time we’re spinning our wheels Cripps would be well within his rights to chase success.

Re: tackling. my view on the tackling is we don’t have very clever or disciplined players. They collectively get sucked into the contest like moths and lose the ability to tackle/contain when the opposition spreads. So unless there’s a stoppage and the ball is more or less static, we allow a lot of easy spread which immediately results in low tackle numbers. If the players were more disciplined in their spacing they’d have an opportunity to pressure beyond the immediate zone of the ball.

On tackling and pressuring to the boundary. Tackle him and read him .


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[thylacine60]

so yeah, war - what is it good for?

absolutely nothing. If in 15 months time we’re spinning our wheels Cripps would be well within his rights to chase success.

Re: tackling. my view on the tackling is we don’t have very clever or disciplined players. They collectively get sucked into the contest like moths and lose the ability to tackle/contain when the opposition spreads. So unless there’s a stoppage and the ball is more or less static, we allow a lot of easy spread which immediately results in low tackle numbers. If the players were more disciplined in their spacing they’d have an opportunity to pressure beyond the immediate zone of the ball.

 

[bigm386]

Just watching footy classified. From about 18 mins in they talk about us.

Loved some of the points such as Eddie Betts coming in is he taking a spot off a Dow for example from Lyon. Are we a developing list? So why did we get Betts?

Also liked his points on players not going hard enough and excuses having to end, highlighted SPS tackle miss early leading to goal, Curnow not crunching Petracca for an easy mark and Murphy falling over again. All in the first quarter was actually sad to rewatch.

 

[HARKER]

Just watching footy classified. From about 18 mins in they talk about us.

Loved some of the points such as Eddie Betts coming in is he taking a spot off a Dow for example from Lyon. Are we a developing list? So why did we get Betts?

Also liked his points on players not going hard enough and excuses having to end, highlighted SPS tackle miss early leading to goal, Curnow not crunching Petracca for an easy mark and Murphy falling over again. All in the first quarter was actually sad to rewatch.

I can't see what else ECurnow could have done. I don't know why that was highlighted on the day and why it's being brought up again.

I also don't think Walsh's two kicks late in the game were as awful as has been highlighted, given the situation around them.

SPS - He didn't think that one through well enough.

Murphy - We just have to get used to Murphy being what he is right now. A definite best 22 starter, but not a fire-starter any more,

Re. Betts - Dow for Betts is a fail on many fronts. Not same/same and would only destroy him eventually, having to play forward.

 

[Jeremias]

Loved some of the points such as Eddie Betts coming in is he taking a spot off a Dow for example from Lyon. Are we a developing list? So why did we get Betts?

I can't tell if you're making fun of Footy Classified or asking this as a serious question.

 

[bigm386]

I can't see what else ECurnow could have done. I don't know why that was highlighted on the day and why it's being brought up again.

I also don't think Walsh's two kicks late in the game were as awful as has been highlighted, given the situation around them.

SPS - He didn't think that one through well enough.

Murphy - We just have to get used to Murphy being what he is right now. A definite best 22 starter, but not a fire-starter any more,

Re. Betts - Dow for Betts is a fail on many fronts. Not same/same and would only destroy him eventually, having to play forward.

Basically Ed Curnow should have at least crunched him even if it meant a free. Didn't impact the contest at all.

Murphy is expected to do grunt work and either can't or is just not willing. In terms of tackling and winning contested ball. Again I have no idea where to put him on the field due to lacking height and speed.

Dow for Betts wasn't a like for like, more why bring in senior players who play a year or two when we are not finals bound? Developing kids miss a spot in the 22 to bring Betts in was the point. More the list strategy is confused when considering the decision to bring in Betts.

 

[bigm386]

I can't tell if you're making fun of Footy Classified or asking this as a serious question.

Not making fun, I think the point is valid. From a list management perspective if we are a developing side and not going to make finals bringing in a player in their 30s seems confused. Was Lyon's point.

 

[HARKER]

Not making fun, I think the point is valid. From a list management perspective if we are a developing side and not going to make finals bringing in a player in their 30s seems confused. Was Lyon's point.

We knew what was going to come about and why. Was it he right decision though?

In terms of pre-season showing - Williamson may have had it 60/40 over Newman, likewise with O'Brien over Newnes and probably Philp over Lang but we went in predictably safe to start. I think most of us just somehow knew this was going to happen and maybe just as many thought this would change......and it will.

 

[footyfan1978]

Not making fun, I think the point is valid. From a list management perspective if we are a developing side and not going to make finals bringing in a player in their 30s seems confused. Was Lyon's point.

That pretty much seemed part marketing angle for Liddle influence and future coaching staff role for Eddie which lead to the deal happening.
Part of reason the list management team as a whole, beyond the list management people were not on same page in end. SOS focus was getting list right for club. One or two others wanted other factors come into play. Hence part of the mess of last trade period regarding this and Ellis talk.
SOS made sure the cost was not too high in end but Eddie was not a priority to him. Papley was but Swans would not let that happen once Daniher deal was not going ahead.
Personally I get the marketing angle of Eddie back and still think he can play. What I do not get is the thought you have that Eddie taking Dow spot. Dow is midfielder first, not a small forward and presently injured anyway.
Eddie taking no one spot as we lack small forwards anyway. If we had got Papley he would have been surplus to needs but without Papley got no issue with getting him in trade week.

 

[bigm386]

That pretty much seemed part marketing angle for Liddle influence and future coaching staff role for Eddie which lead to the deal happening.
Part of reason the list management team as a whole, beyond the list management people were not on same page in end. SOS focus was getting list right for club. One or two others wanted other factors come into play. Hence part of the mess of last trade period regarding this and Ellis talk.
SOS made sure the cost was not too high in end but Eddie was not a priority to him. Papley was but Swans would not let that happen once Daniher deal was not going ahead.
Personally I get the marketing angle of Eddie back and still think he can play. What I do not get is the thought you have that Eddie taking Dow spot. Dow is midfielder first, not a small forward and presently injured anyway.
Eddie taking no one spot as we lack small forwards anyway. If we had got Papley he would have been surplus to needs but without Papley got no issue with getting him in trade week.

Lyon wasn't saying a like for like swap Eddie for Dow.

But if Eddie wasn't there one of our kids would likely be playing forward (Let's just say Fisher, SPS, Cunningham etc) and someone like Dow may be able to come into the 22 in is the point he was making.

 

[Jeremias]

Not making fun, I think the point is valid. From a list management perspective if we are a developing side and not going to make finals bringing in a player in their 30s seems confused. Was Lyon's point.

Sorry, but the point is a ridiculous one.

Ross may have had a point if we had brought in multiple in that age demographic, but we brought in one. One. In a squad of 46. It is a complete non-issue.

Was Brisbane "confused" when they brought in a 33 (?) year old Luke Hodge not long after they finished last in 2017?

We're still developing plenty of our kids, and bringing in Eddie doesn't have the slightest negative impact on that development. The positives far outweigh any possible negatives.

 

[footyfan1978]

Lyon wasn't saying a like for like swap Eddie for Dow.

But if Eddie wasn't there one of our kids would likely be playing forward (Let's just say Fisher, SPS, Cunningham etc) and someone like Dow may be able to come into the 22 in is the point he was making.

Ok, thanks for explaining. We still need a small forward so still do not see Eddie taking anyone spot. Cunningham is playing and the only other player that may become a small forward specialist long term.
Far more concerned with Newnes in 22 that was de-listed free agent that, for mine, should be seen as foot soldier depth in time of injuries, not an automatic 22 player. Someone like Stocker or Willamson should be in 22 before him when development thoughts are the context.

 

[bigm386]

Sorry, but the point is a ridiculous one.

Ross may have had a point if we had brought in multiple in that age demographic, but we brought in one. One. In a squad of 46. It is a complete non-issue.

Was Brisbane "confused" when they brought in a 33 (?) year old Luke Hodge not long after they finished last in 2017?

We're still developing plenty of our kids, and bringing in Eddie doesn't have the slightest negative impact on that development. The positives far outweigh any possible negatives.

I think saying a list of 46 disregards the fact that we have 22 spaces come match day.

Plus Brisbane had a much younger age demographic Hodge made much more sense. In round 2 we had an older list on the park compared to Richmond and Collingwood.

When we continue to play Simpson, Murphy, Kruzer (when fit) and E Curnow and consider players like Doc/Cripps are not exactly kids anymore I don't think our list was in the same position as Brisbane at the time.

Again not saying Lyon is 100% correct and you are wrong but it is an interesting take.

 

[HARKER]

Lyon wasn't saying a like for like swap Eddie for Dow.

But if Eddie wasn't there one of our kids would likely be playing forward (Let's just say Fisher, SPS, Cunningham etc) and someone like Dow may be able to come into the 22 in is the point he was making.

I feel we need to put the right pieces into the right slots.
Betts isn't taking anyones place right now. Had we attained Papley though, it may have been a different argument.

Right now though, Philp looks a possible forward starter given his tackling ability. That doesn't make him a forward, but it may be a starting slot for him but it wasn't something we could have taken into account at last years trade period.

When we took on Betts it made sense. If it doesn't play out that way, it doesn't make the initial reasoning wrong.

 

[bigm386]

I feel we need to put the right pieces into the right slots.
Betts isn't taking anyones place right now. Had we attained Papley though, it may have been a different argument.

Right now though, Philp looks a possible forward starter given his tackling ability. That doesn't make him a forward, but it may be a starting slot for him but it wasn't something we could have taken into account at last years trade period.

When we took on Betts it made sense. If it doesn't play out that way, it doesn't make the initial reasoning wrong.

I know someone like Polson cops a lot of flack, but his 1% and pressure acts is something we are crying out for. If someone like Philp can do the same and find more of the ball yes please

Tackling cannot be optional in the modern game.

 

[Coops93]

Eddie was brought in for a multitude of reasons and only one of which is for his playing ability.

- We have one of the best mentors in the game, further to that he's an indigenous icon of the game and is known to be an especially good mentor to the young indigenous players.
- Then there's the marketing side, kids everywhere will want to watch Eddie and buy #19 jerseys.
- Obviously on field where, let's not so easily forget, he had 3 scoring shots on the weekend which is not a bad effort by a small forward.
- Bringing him back even trickles into his post playing career, he's likely going to hang around as an indigenous relations/mentors kind of role. This has already paid off to some degree as Eddie was a big reason Jack Martin wanted to come here such was his excitement to be around him.

If you can't see why we brought Eddie back and why he's an asset then I feel like you're looking for problems rather than what his value actually is, which is exactly what the media people are doing. What's an easy target to criticise and make some engaging TV? Hey, that guy is older, let's say he was a bad pickup and is keeping young kids off the list. That's easy for the laymen to understand!

 

[footyfan1978]

Polson is only seen as back pocket type now or still midfield if he can ramp it up getting ball but so far he not on radar but there is a role for quick small defender as year goes on if he can make it his.

 

[HARKER]

I know someone like Polson cops a lot of flack, but his 1% and pressure acts is something we are crying out for. If someone like Philp can do the same and find more of the ball yes please

Tackling cannot be optional in the modern game.

I agree. Tackling should not be an option, but some just do it better than others; Murphy & Dow won't wrap you up the way Cripps and Martin do.

We have to forget the idea of repeating the Polson experiment. That won't happen again, one wouldn't think.
Still makes me laugh a little when I recall Teague speaking about his forward set-up comprising Polson, ECurnow & Gibbons last year. One could tell he didn't believe what he had to say.....but had to say it.

I'd sooner see Philp play in the back-line, as on profile at least, he may make for a good Simpson replacement but just at this stage, it seems as though that it's Ramsay who's been given that role in the scratch matches.

 

[Own The Future]

I think saying a list of 46 disregards the fact that we have 22 spaces come match day.

Plus Brisbane had a much younger age demographic Hodge made much more sense. In round 2 we had an older list on the park compared to Richmond and Collingwood.

When we continue to play Simpson, Murphy, Kruzer (when fit) and E Curnow and consider players like Doc/Cripps are not exactly kids anymore I don't think our list was in the same position as Brisbane at the time.

Again not saying Lyon is 100% correct and you are wrong but it is an interesting take.

I do agree with these points.
I think we have a few too many older guys in the team at the moment, greatly skewing our avg age much higher than it should be. Take away Betts and Simmo and replace them with guys in their early/mid-20s and the avg age immediately plummets. I love Simmo but I can’t help thinking his is the spot in the team we need to seriously consider. I think there are multiple options to replace what he brings, whereas the unique skill set of Eddie has a real place in the team.
When we get onto Kreuzer - obviously not currently part of that avg age from rnd 2 - I also think a tough call needs to be made. A brilliant player in his day, and still capable of high quality play, but realistically he has possibly one year left after this. His body just won’t hold up much longer. I’d be playing Pitt and/or TDK as much as possible, as currently they are the rucks of the future. Having Kreuz as a mentor/training partner will help immensely.
The comparison of Hodge and Betts is not really fair. Hodge is one of the best captains of the modern era, a real organiser of the backline and would demand a high standard both in game and at training. Would not shy away from giving a teammate a deserved bake - an attribute I think this “nice” Carlton team is crying out for. He was just what that younger Lions team needed, and the results speak for themselves. While Eddie can still turn it on at times, I - as do many others - feel that his acquisition was largely PR based. That is totally fine with me, it’s a feel good story and my heart swells when I see him back in the Navy Blue. As I mentioned earlier he still provides skills and attributes this team desperately needs, so I’m all for it. If we are still relying on him to kick a winning score in the latter part of next season - I’ll be less on board.
I don’t know all the answers, as forcing beloved champions of the club to retire is often a PR nightmare. But sometimes the tough calls need to be made.

 

[Jeremias]

I think saying a list of 46 disregards the fact that we have 22 spaces come match day.

OK. Even 1/22 isn't exactly a huge deal, particularly when we don't have much by way of competition for that spot.

Answer me this: which kid isn't being developed properly due to Eddie's inclusion? And for any kid you list, how do you know their development isn't being handled properly because Eddie is there?

Plus Brisbane had a much younger age demographic Hodge made much more sense. In round 2 we had an older list on the park compared to Richmond and Collingwood.

They had a much younger age demographic...I'd be interested in seeing those stats please.

Brisbane had plenty of experience in 2017. Beams, Rockliff, Zorko, Rich, Martin, Mayes, Lester and Bastinac all played the vast majority of games that season. Let's not rewrite history - they weren't just playing kids.

Re: last weekend. We were older, but clearly not significantly - and that is very heavily skewed by Simpson in particular.

Raising the point about an older list demographic is alarmist with not much thought going into it. Context is king.

When we continue to play Simpson, Murphy, Kruzer (when fit) and E Curnow and consider players like Doc/Cripps are not exactly kids anymore I don't think our list was in the same position as Brisbane at the time.

As above. You can't just ignore the experienced players that Brisbane had, and they had plenty.

Not sure why Kreuzer enters this discussion given he's likely out for the year having played just the one game.

 

[Coops93]

OK. Even 1/22 isn't exactly a huge deal, particularly when we don't have much by way of competition for that spot.

Answer me this: which kid isn't being developed properly due to Eddie's inclusion? And for any kid you list, how do you know their development isn't being handled properly because Eddie is there?

The only one you could make the case for is maybe Owies, however how do we know that Eddie isn't helping his development? I would make the case that he would help his development more than hinder it.

 

[bigm386]

OK. Even 1/22 isn't exactly a huge deal, particularly when we don't have much by way of competition for that spot.

By this logic we might as well play Lang every week because his huge 4-6 possession games have no impact on the team, I mean it's only one player after all? This logic is why we have been putrid for years, EVERY SINGLE SPOT should be earned and deserved. We have and continue to give spots to players because it is the norm for Carlton.

Answer me this: which kid isn't being developed properly due to Eddie's inclusion? And for any kid you list, how do you know their development isn't being handled properly because Eddie is there?

We actually do have more competition for that spot than you think, we have Owies who is a small forward and did just draft two small forward prospects in Honey and Fraser Phillips. Not to mention mids that we seem to put everywhere BUT the midfield who could have potentially trained as forwards. NOT to mention the opportunity cost pre season of not targetting a need because of the intention to play Eddie. I am not even saying Eddie isn't deserving but so far it seems the best argument is what he brings off field? Lyons point which again I DO NOT 100% agree with is that we are not a finals side most likely why did we bring in a 30 odd year old after retiring a 30 odd year player? Just seems confused as was stated by Lyon.

They had a much younger age demographic...I'd be interested in seeing those stats please.

Brisbane had plenty of experience in 2017. Beams, Rockliff, Zorko, Rich, Martin, Mayes, Lester and Bastinac all played the vast majority of games that season. Let's not rewrite history - they weren't just playing kids.

Wow speaking of not rewriting history firstly Rockliff left at the end of 2017 and Beams rumblings of off field issues has started, remembering he stepped down as captain in early 2018. Not exactly great leaders for the 2017 season.

Brisbane average list age at the end of 2016 was 22 years a 200 odd days, youngest in the comp and it was 23 years old and 128 days eend of 2017. So as mentioned Carlton adding a veteran cannot be compared to Brisbane adding a desperately needed born leader with multiple premierships.

Re: last weekend. We were older, but clearly not significantly - and that is very heavily skewed by Simpson in particular.

Raising the point about an older list demographic is alarmist with not much thought going into it. Context is king.

As above. You can't just ignore the experienced players that Brisbane had, and they had plenty.

You are also making it sound like Mayes, Lester and Bastinac are A graders. Which is nuts.

Not sure why Kreuzer enters this discussion given he's likely out for the year having played just the one game.

Kruzer enters the discussion as I mentioned IF he is fit he plays.