Opinion The 'Carlton related stuff that doesn't need it's own thread' thread Part 3

[GT619]

Whateley: “So, what if they’re just no good?”
Buckley: “Well, they are not.
“They’re not. Footy is a hard game, and one thing that is abundantly evident is that they just don’t have the legs.
“They can’t cover the ground fast enough or long enough.
“The game is too long, and the game is too fast for Carlton at the moment.
“That is not a good position to be in.”

Put this quote on the board in the change rooms please...

better yet offer him the job

 

[RPCB]

Don’t think a lake, campfire, some beers and a few nudie runs ain’t gonna cut it this time.

The most overhyped camp in history that was. To think players airing their differences somehow turned them into a super team that won 9 games in a row. Sounds like the plot of a shit Hallmark movie.

 

[Stamos]

better yet offer him the job

I'd hazard a guess that that's unlikely with Graham Wright in charge.

 

[Gointocarlton]

Whateley: “So, what if they’re just no good?”
Buckley: “Well, they are not.
“They’re not. Footy is a hard game, and one thing that is abundantly evident is that they just don’t have the legs.
“They can’t cover the ground fast enough or long enough.
“The game is too long, and the game is too fast for Carlton at the moment.
“That is not a good position to be in.”

Put this quote on the board in the change rooms please...

Some of our blokes couldn't cope with this appraisal.

 

[Gethelred]

Some of our blokes couldn't cope with this appraisal.

There's a reason the people delivering it are in the media and not within a coaching department...

 

[myblueroan]

The most overhyped camp in history that was. To think players airing their differences somehow turned them into a super team that won 9 games in a row. Sounds like the plot of a shit Hallmark movie.

I love Hallmark movies. Especially Christmas ones.

 

[Bennyboy7777]

Never have I felt more confused by analysis in my life.

Their major point is Carlton are far too tall at the moment (I agree) and then they essentially rant about all of these changes that need to be made. These include moving Silvagni who has been playing well as a defender forward which just adds another tall. And then also move McGovern to the forward which again makes us taller up forward.

They then say we struggle with run from HB and yet want us to drop Saad? And then want us to move Cerra to HB which just shows they clearly don't watch Carlton player as that has been tried before and it's not good. Plus we need someone that can spread from stoppage to fix the midfield issues. They also want Walsh to go to HB! Bizarre considering they have been critiquing his disposal.

And to top it all off they are still talking about Cripps rucking which happened a massive 2 times on the weekend. The second McKay is back in the team Cripps will barely get a ruck contest unless they use it to break a tag or something. Oh and McKay is another tall up forward. So looking forward to a forward line of McKay, Curnow, Silvagni, McGovern and Kemp. Good luck defending that.

It's just reactive analysis where they recommended changing 87 things at once for the sake of changing things. And if one works they can claim credit. It's very

Agree 10000000% with everything you’ve said!!! What baffling analysis. JSOS down back has been a great move and as you say, their multiple comments contradict each other.

 

[gbatman]

Whateley: “So, what if they’re just no good?”
Buckley: “Well, they are not.
“They’re not. Footy is a hard game, and one thing that is abundantly evident is that they just don’t have the legs.
“They can’t cover the ground fast enough or long enough.
“The game is too long, and the game is too fast for Carlton at the moment.
“That is not a good position to be in.”

Put this quote on the board in the change rooms please...

I was saying this in 2022. I was also saying that the rest of the competition would adjust and if we didn't they would go past us. We have done absolutely nothing. This is on the coach as much as the list management. Voss has been big and slow bodies over those who can run. Very evident with his team selection. I pointed to the 2023 finals series team changes. This has been happening his entire time. List management has also brought in very little speed but going by who Voss favours, I would say their direction from the coach has not been inline where the game has headed.

Very blind coaching group, very poor performing recruiting team.

I think our list is in a fair bit of trouble. It will take some very very good recruiting to get us out of this.

 

[gbatman]

Not sure it's about 'how fast' someone is, more about the speed of ball movement.

Drop the poor kickers in the team and bring in better ones (and I'm not talking about kicking percentages, more about risk takers that can execute the high reward kick). Give our forwards a chance 1-on-1.

You need to be able to run with the footy to open up space and create options. That is where "good kicking" comes from. You also need quality in front of the ball and we don't have that. We don't and can't run with the footy. You also need to be able to be fast to chase and apply pressure because they game is not played with huge numbers around the ball anymore.

If you don't have a spread of leg speed around the ground in this era you are f***ed.

 

[Jatz]

There's a reason the people delivering it are in the media and not within a coaching department...

Because they don't mind being honest? Haha

 

[Gethelred]

Because they don't mind being honest? Haha

Because it's simply not motivational.

I don't know about you, Jatz, but I was one of the last waves of blokes to get a coach who didn't mind a bake. I didn't mind them, and I know I responded to them; I also know a number of young blokes who hard switched off because of them, not because they were soft but because it just didn't work. They tuned out, the way an awful lot of people do when someone starts yelling; the manner of your speech is remembered, even if the content is not.

A bake is a one time effort boost at best, and an active demotivator at worst.

Then, you get to the problem with telling someone they're not pulling their weight. You do that, you're simply not going to end up with motivated people; you are, at best, going to get one person desperate to prove you wrong and a bunch of them perfectly happy to live down to your worst expectations of them.

Feedback is always difficult to give. My job is, quitely literally, catering to individual needs when providing feedback in such a way as to motivate them in a sustainable way.

Then, you get to why those on these talkshows and in the media are the exceptional, instinctive forwards and guns. These blokes do not know what it is to struggle; this sport came naturally for most of them. Their insight is stale 5 years out of the game unless they're as passionate an observer as we ****ing are, and most of them would rather be watching gridiron or golf than footy by the end of their careers.

If they were any good at coaching, development or motivation, they'd put their money, their reputations and their livelihoods where their mouth is.

 

[Jatz]

Because it's simply not motivational.

I don't know about you, Jatz, but I was one of the last waves of blokes to get a coach who didn't mind a bake. I didn't mind them, and I know I responded to them; I also know a number of young blokes who hard switched off because of them, not because they were soft but because it just didn't work. They tuned out, the way an awful lot of people do when someone starts yelling; the manner of your speech is remembered, even if the content is not.

A bake is a one time effort boost at best, and an active demotivator at worst.

Then, you get to the problem with telling someone they're not pulling their weight. You do that, you're simply not going to end up with motivated people; you are, at best, going to get one person desperate to prove you wrong and a bunch of them perfectly happy to live down to your worst expectations of them.

Feedback is always difficult to give. My job is, quitely literally, catering to individual needs when providing feedback in such a way as to motivate them in a sustainable way.

Then, you get to why those on these talkshows and in the media are the exceptional, instinctive forwards and guns. These blokes do not know what it is to struggle; this sport came naturally for most of them. Their insight is stale 5 years out of the game unless they're as passionate an observer as we ****ing are, and most of them would rather be watching gridiron or golf than footy by the end of their careers.

If they were any good at coaching, development or motivation, they'd put their money, their reputations and their livelihoods where their mouth is.

Buckley was good at coaching, you don't make a grand final if you aren't. He also has put his money/reputation/livelihood through that.

Just because the game came naturally to Bucks, didn't mean he didn't struggle. You think losing back to back grand finals isn't a struggle?

I know what you're trying to say, and I agree that it applies to some in the media landscape. Someone like Buckley though has earned his right to provide that feedback. As has someone like an Adam Simpson. We can stick our fingers in our ears and complain they're being overly critical etc or we can take be sensible about it and realise they have a point.

I'm curious as to what part specifically you disagree with him about from that quote by the way. Everything he says is evident to me.

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

So did the Pies stray away from these basics and fundamentals last year

Which clubs do these so called basics and fundamentals which don't and why don't they

Get the feeling it's a win/loss clickbait analysis

It's an anyone who's been a good coach or is a thoughtful human analysis. It doesn't take away from the fact we have list issues but it doesn't blame everything on that in some silly.excuse that ignores the data on the ability this core has shown and isn't showing now.

Fundamentals have and will always be the key to success. In every endeavour. You may never be as good but you can make up for it. Steve Waugh was a fundamentals freak. Wasn't faster, stronger, or more talented than anyone state cricketers. Was certainly more consistent and 'better' though.

Every good coach drives home the importance of fundamentals and the speed at which they decay when ignored and not prioritised. Pretending otherwise is bloody daft.

 

[Gethelred]

Buckley was good at coaching,

... once he was told, forcibly, to chill the **** out.

Just because the game came naturally to Bucks, didn't mean he didn't struggle. You think losing back to back grand finals isn't a struggle?

Look at the demands he made of his players.

Not enough to be good at one game style, he wanted his team to be capable of all of them. Be the best team at the short game and the best at going quick; be the best at contested and uncontested ball. Have the best contested marking game but also have the best small forwards. Be the best both with the ball and without it.

Just, be me guys. Be the best at marking, the best at kicking, the best at tackling. Be able to kick the running goal from the pocket or take an inspirational mark when your team needs you to.

Why aren't you as good as I was? It's not good enough.

It's telling that the second he let that go, allowed the team to be good at just one thing - transition footy - they made the granny.

I know what you're trying to say, and I agree that it applies to some in the media landscape. Someone like Buckley though has earned his right to provide that feedback. As has someone like an Adam Simpson. We can stick our fingers in our ears and complain they're being overly critical etc or we can take be sensible about it and realise they have a point.

I'm not casting aspersions over the criticism of us so much as I'm disputing the place where that criticism comes from.

There is always criticism for us, and there's always criticism for a team with no wins. They've got us coming and going; so much to criticise, so much time and many pages to fill.

I'm curious as to what part specifically you disagree with him about from that quote by the way. Everything he says is evident to me.

Again: it comes back to what is good feedback versus shit feedback.

I'm minded of Ross Lyon's criticism of us under Teague: he took Teague's desired assessment of us - Teague wanted to be a high scoring and front half team - and marked us under Teague's parameters. In short, he looked at a) what we were trying to do, and then b) marked us successful or failing to get there.

That is good feedback, good advice. What Bucks is providing there is too general, too nebulous; 'can't run for long enough' is as close as he gets to something that's actionable.

That's my problem: so much criticism, not all that much to actually do.

That's the difference between good criticism and bad criticism. One is negativity without direction, the other addresses the failings in context. At the moment, an awful lot of the criticism - both on here and in the media landscape - is shit.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Buckley was good at coaching, you don't make a grand final if you aren't. He also has put his money/reputation/livelihood through that.

Just because the game came naturally to Bucks, didn't mean he didn't struggle. You think losing back to back grand finals isn't a struggle?

I know what you're trying to say, and I agree that it applies to some in the media landscape. Someone like Buckley though has earned his right to provide that feedback. As has someone like an Adam Simpson. We can stick our fingers in our ears and complain they're being overly critical etc or we can take be sensible about it and realise they have a point.

I'm curious as to what part specifically you disagree with him about from that quote by the way. Everything he says is evident to me.

The main difference with media (and fans) v actual current coaches is that there's no repercussions if they make wrong calls

 

[Jatz]

... once he was told, forcibly, to chill the **** out.

Look at the demands he made of his players.

Not enough to be good at one game style, he wanted his team to be capable of all of them. Be the best team at the short game and the best at going quick; be the best at contested and uncontested ball. Have the best contested marking game but also have the best small forwards. Be the best both with the ball and without it.

Just, be me guys. Be the best at marking, the best at kicking, the best at tackling. Be able to kick the running goal from the pocket or take an inspirational mark when your team needs you to.

Why aren't you as good as I was? It's not good enough.

It's telling that the second he let that go, allowed the team to be good at just one thing - transition footy - they made the granny.

I'm not casting aspersions over the criticism of us so much as I'm disputing the place where that criticism comes from.

There is always criticism for us, and there's always criticism for a team with no wins. They've got us coming and going; so much to criticise, so much time and many pages to fill.

Again: it comes back to what is good feedback versus shit feedback.

I'm minded of Ross Lyon's criticism of us under Teague: he took Teague's desired assessment of us - Teague wanted to be a high scoring and front half team - and marked us under Teague's parameters. In short, he looked at a) what we were trying to do, and then b) marked us successful or failing to get there.

That is good feedback, good advice. What Bucks is providing there is too general, too nebulous; 'can't run for long enough' is as close as he gets to something that's actionable.

That's my problem: so much criticism, not all that much to actually do.

That's the difference between good criticism and bad criticism. One is negativity without direction, the other addresses the failings in context. At the moment, an awful lot of the criticism - both on here and in the media landscape - is shit.

Yeah, we disagree entirely on his ability to coach.

I thought it was a well thought out point and largely agreed with what he had to say, I really don't dwell on it any more deeply than that. He's paid to make comments on football and that's what he's come up with. If you don't think it's worth listening to, don't. There's plenty of other opinions out there that may be closer to what you're looking for.

 

[Jatz]

The main difference with media (and fans) v actual current coaches is that there's no repercussions if they make wrong calls

Of course. Buckley is one of the few to have done both however.

I have far more time for listening to him than say a Kane Cornes or even a Gerard Whately.

 

[DangerousD]

... once he was told, forcibly, to chill the **** out.

Look at the demands he made of his players.

Not enough to be good at one game style, he wanted his team to be capable of all of them. Be the best team at the short game and the best at going quick; be the best at contested and uncontested ball. Have the best contested marking game but also have the best small forwards. Be the best both with the ball and without it.

Just, be me guys. Be the best at marking, the best at kicking, the best at tackling. Be able to kick the running goal from the pocket or take an inspirational mark when your team needs you to.

Why aren't you as good as I was? It's not good enough.

It's telling that the second he let that go, allowed the team to be good at just one thing - transition footy - they made the granny.

I'm not casting aspersions over the criticism of us so much as I'm disputing the place where that criticism comes from.

There is always criticism for us, and there's always criticism for a team with no wins. They've got us coming and going; so much to criticise, so much time and many pages to fill.

Again: it comes back to what is good feedback versus shit feedback.

I'm minded of Ross Lyon's criticism of us under Teague: he took Teague's desired assessment of us - Teague wanted to be a high scoring and front half team - and marked us under Teague's parameters. In short, he looked at a) what we were trying to do, and then b) marked us successful or failing to get there.

That is good feedback, good advice. What Bucks is providing there is too general, too nebulous; 'can't run for long enough' is as close as he gets to something that's actionable.

That's my problem: so much criticism, not all that much to actually do.

That's the difference between good criticism and bad criticism. One is negativity without direction, the other addresses the failings in context. At the moment, an awful lot of the criticism - both on here and in the media landscape - is shit.

I have heard Buckley in the past really go to town on us for failing at the fundamentals of the game, kicking, handballing, blocking, missing short kicks and handballs, he went on to say that he thinks we dont work hard enough on it and if he were in charge that it would be his main focus.

So whilst his comments recently might not have things to work on, he has in the past offered areas of improvement.

There is a lot of criticism and a lot of it is hot air, but often they say bits that are true for all to see, i dont see why we need to play Weits, Haynes, Gov and SOS in the same side, we are carrying one too many there, then having Young, Kemp, Charlie because neither Kemp and Young are much good i find this excessive too.

Cutting one or two of those could easily help with the supposed lack of ability to ruin out a game.

 

[Gethelred]

Yeah, we disagree entirely on his ability to coach.

Cool. Agree to disagree, then.

 

[Bluebag13]

Can anyone recommend any carlton pubs in Brissy to watch the good friday north game next week?

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Do you believe Voss hasn’t been telling them something similar?

Well there's two scenarios:

1 - Voss is telling them something similar. The playing group are not following, no buy in.

2 - Voss is not telling them something similar. The playing group are following Voss' instructions.

Either way, there's a pretty big problem...

As for what I believe, Voss isn't a tactically sound coach. He knows one way to play the game and it shows out on the field. So no, I don't think he's giving them a similar message to what Bartel said.

 

[tarczonandjane]

A bit of an update on Jezza, whose daughter has married Trent Croad: https://archive.md/ws8nN

 

[Gethelred]

It's interesting to me how the Giants having 4 tall defenders is seen as a strength that the Aints have to overcome, but others are criticised in the media for fielding a 22 with too many defensive talls.

 

[JJBagger]

It's interesting to me how the Giants having 4 tall defenders is seen as a strength that the Aints have to overcome, but others are criticised in the media for fielding a 22 with too many defensive talls.

Amazing how they are almost exactly the same in regards to role and skillset
Taylor = Weitering
Buckley = Silvagni
Himmelburg = Haynes
Idun = McGovern

 

[Gethelred]

Amazing how they are almost exactly the same in regards to role and skillset
Taylor = Weitering
Buckley = Silvagni
Himmelburg = Haynes
Idun = McGovern

Pretty much.

It's not that we haven't underperformed, we obviously have. Pundits pointing to a supposed structural failing by suggesting dropping one or more of that group are the precise same ones who would be singing glowing praise in favour of each member of that group if things were going well. There's also the fact that we have the 6th best defense as assessed by points against and have a percentage over 100 despite being 1-4.

The defense has been holding up pretty well, but that's not the story.