Undermanned?

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Fat Red
OK, that's fair, I'll move back slightly, but you consistently overrate your players and underrate opposition players. You apply different logic to your team's chances than to other team's chances.

OK but who doesn't do that?

besides, are you quite sure that I overrate them by as much as you think I do? Last year Crows were widely tipped for the spoon, and yet they came 8th, even though they stuffed up quite a number of winnable games. It seems to me that under-estimating Crows is a national passtime.

Given that the media editorial content is mostly controlled for a national "syndicated" audience, and given that sports "reporting" in the preseason in particular is really about drumming up an interested audience, then I perceive it is in the self-interest of a national media to under-rate Crows. That gives Collingwood a place in the 8 if Crows are going to dip out, if you follow. As far as a national audience goes, Crows would be a bit of a favourite to predict a slide for. Good for circulation, bugger the reality.

This is all IMO, but perhaps you can catch the drift here? That is why Crows would be "embarrased" if they were to lose a preseason game to the premiers at the Gabba, but Carlton at the same time can lose a preseason game to West Coast and it does not mean anything. Yes I know there are other factors at play, but if you get this stuff over and over from every media source, soon you are going to be thinking Crows aren't really much chop and that idiot on Bigfooty is way overstating their chances.

Meanwhile, Crows make the 8 again this year, and again they will have "played above themselves" or something. See where it goes?

Make up your own mind, but don't underestimate the power of the press.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Originally posted by ok.crows
I did not claim Johncock necessarily in Crows top 22 ... Ricciuto did. Take it up with him.

But you felt strong enough about Ricciuto's opinion to argue that the Crows were weakened by his absence.

I would have Johncock in Crows top 26 though and so he would have been in the squad to go to Brisbane. He missed out through injury. WTF is your problem with any of this?

My problem was that if I use poetic licence to describe the calibre of player that was missing for the Blues, you drag out the "you guys always overrate you team" generalisation. But it was so important to you that somebody that may or may not make your best 22 was missing from your side. WTF was your problem with what I said? I am still yet to hear a valid reason why the players missing from Carlton's side were not far more valuable than the players missing from West Coast's team. I challenge you to answer that and I'll look forward to your answer with much amusement.

As far as your getting the spoon goes ... who ever said that? All I have thought is that Carltons list is a little suspect ... missing as it does Kouta & SOS from last year and gaining only McKernan (of dubious added value). Your results on the weekend were a very poor showing. Half that team were your youngsters ... that shows does it not that you don't have up and coming replacements.

It shows that no team should play too many youngsters at once as the experienced players are put under far too much pressure to hold it all together while the youngsters learn their trade at a new level. I agree that Carlton have held back their youngsters for far too long but though you say you have had reservations about the Blues for a while, you can ONLY have judged their "up and coming replacements" on one game.

 

[ok.crows]

ODN:

Firstly about Johncock - all I ever said about him was that he was missing due to injury from the squad of 26 that Crows would have taken to Brisbane.

You still have not highlighted what was wrong with that - it is 100% accurate.

I am still yet to hear a valid reason why the players missing from Carlton's side were not far more valuable than the players missing from West Coast's team. I challenge you to answer that and I'll look forward to your answer with much amusement.

I never claimed that omissions from Carltons team were not more valuable. In fact I (somewhere) said the opposite - that the addittions to each side might have meant that Carlton made up the difference to West Coast.

Now I must admit I am losing track here a bit & I can't be bothered to backtrack - but was it not you who claimed that the additions to Carltons side were light years ahead of West Coast players?

That is a very far cry from simply more valuable that you describe above.

So at least I have got you blues zealots to tone it down a bit.

Your players are not light years ahead of players in other squads. Some of them may be a little better, yes, but puuuuhleaseeee light years ... I don't think so.

Lets get it a little more back on the reality track now shall we?

You had some first choice players out. So did west Coast. You had more out than they. You were at home, they had to travel. They are not fancied much, your fans (some of them) are claiming top 4 contenders. Round 1 Wizard Cup you got spanked by supposed cellar-dwellers.

Pick your poison: - either you have a lot of work to do; or - you are in the same class as West Coast when you each get back your absent players (Carlton get back more, make up the difference).

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Originally posted by ok.crows
ODN:

Firstly about Johncock - all I ever said about him was that he was missing due to injury from the squad of 26 that Crows would have taken to Brisbane.

You still have not highlighted what was wrong with that - it is 100% accurate.



I never claimed that omissions from Carltons team were not more valuable. In fact I (somewhere) said the opposite - that the addittions to each side might have meant that Carlton made up the difference to West Coast.

Now I must admit I am losing track here a bit & I can't be bothered to backtrack - but was it not you who claimed that the additions to Carltons side were light years ahead of West Coast players?

That is a very far cry from simply more valuable that you describe above.

So at least I have got you blues zealots to tone it down a bit.

Your players are not light years ahead of players in other squads. Some of them may be a little better, yes, but puuuuhleaseeee light years ... I don't think so.

Lets get it a little more back on the reality track now shall we?

You had some first choice players out. So did west Coast. You had more out than they. You were at home, they had to travel. They are not fancied much, your fans (some of them) are claiming top 4 contenders. Round 1 Wizard Cup you got spanked by supposed cellar-dwellers.

Pick your poison: - either you have a lot of work to do; or - you are in the same class as West Coast when you each get back your absent players (Carlton get back more, make up the difference).

Neither thanks. Our youngsters have a lot of development left to do but our absent players are worth far more than 35 points. McKernan and Whitnall would score that between them not to mention how much they would create for others. The supply from Ratten in the midfield is second to none and would be further responsible for more scoring.

You choose your own arguments here but you are making up the outcomes. Where does it say that the Blues would only make up a further 35 points at the most with McKernan, Ratten, Houlihan, Whitnall, McKay, Hickmott and co back in the side? Sorry doesn't wash with me. We are not talking about middle tier Blues players here. I think in my recent review of our list, I had those particular players ranked 1,2,4,5,6 and Houlihan ranked conservatively because of his inexperience. Did Eagles have the same calibre of player out? Consider here that the Blues are a finals side while the Eagles were relatively low last season so our overall talent is higher. So it stands to reason that our very best players would be considerably higher or far more valuable as I said (note the far and thus the lack of backtracking). Considering it is impossible to measure a players talent in 'light years', I thought the use of it wouldn't be taken so literal or as an excuse to stereotype our fans. One would think that I was using creative licence to describe a fair distance and I stand by that with every fibre of my being. Just so you can get a better grasp of this, I am NOT saying that Carlton players collectively are so far ahead of West Coast players, I am saying that the missing Carlton players collectively are far ahead of the missing West Coast players. You tell me why they are not. West Coast still had their Cousins, Jackovich, Peter Matera, Braun etc so I am not casting doubts over their abilities. West Coast's team on Saturday was better than Carlton's team but our absences were far better than their absences. Come one, come all .... feel free to disagree and discuss the relative playing talents of each missing player in the two sides.

My argument about Johncock does not exist. As I continue to state, I feel if it is okay for you to claim a loss of strength due to his absence (and I don't care either way) then you shouldn't be critical of me claiming our side was weakened through the absence of several top liners. I have made that point, please read it so that I don't have to make it again.

 

[Howard Jones]

Originally posted by Danny Chook Fan Club
Hawthorn was missing both key defenders and a small defender who has played the last 48 games straight.

Interesting that not being gay at Hawthorn is so unusual that you thought to make mention of it.

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by ok.crows
ODN:


Pick your poison: - either you have a lot of work to do; or - you are in the same class as West Coast when you each get back your absent players (Carlton get back more, make up the difference).

I dunno how you can make these assertions and predictions after just one pre season game. I mean god...teams have different goals in pre season. Some want to win the thing...others want to trial rookies, others want to trial experienced players in new positions, others simply couldnt care. The seasons results are not going to follow this one trial games results. Richmond and Collingwood wont be dismally pathetic. Essendon wont be average. Geelong wont be magnificent and electric. its one trial game. A LOT of changes will occur again before the real stuff begins.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Macca19


I dunno how you can make these assertions and predictions after just one pre season game. I mean god...teams have different goals in pre season. Some want to win the thing...others want to trial rookies, others want to trial experienced players in new positions, others simply couldnt care. The seasons results are not going to follow this one trial games results. Richmond and Collingwood wont be dismally pathetic. Essendon wont be average. Geelong wont be magnificent and electric. its one trial game. A LOT of changes will occur again before the real stuff begins.

What prediction, based on that game?

Assertion - blues have work to do. What is wrong with that? They had half a team of youngsters and half a team of regulars. None of them with the possible exception of Camporeale played that well. This implies they have work to do to get a near-full team on the park and playing in form by round 1.

Can't see anything wrong with that.

ODN - I don't see any point in more discussion. Eagles omissions were less important than were blues - agreed. Crows omissions were less important than were Brisbanes - agreed. All 4 teams still had a full complement of players. I hold the view that the high-profile players are heavily over-rated in comparison with the ones at the other end of the list - these are all top level professional footballers after all, and it is a team game. All of the players are important to the team.

So yes, when you add blues omissions, and subtract the players they would replace, and then add West Coast omissions, and subtract the ones they would replace - who knows really but IMO blues would have been able to make up the 35 points. That is my opinion. Your raving hero-worship about blues superstars is not going to change it.

 

[Blues2001]

Originally posted by ok.crows


What prediction, based on that game?

Assertion - blues have work to do. What is wrong with that? They had half a team of youngsters and half a team of regulars. None of them with the possible exception of Camporeale played that well. This implies they have work to do to get a near-full team on the park and playing in form by round 1.

Can't see anything wrong with that.

Blues2001 - I don't see any point in more discussion. Eagles omissions were less important than were blues - agreed. Crows omissions were less important than were Brisbanes - agreed. All 4 teams still had a full complement of players. I hold the view that the high-profile players are heavily over-rated in comparison with the ones at the other end of the list - these are all top level professional footballers after all, and it is a team game. All of the players are important to the team.

So yes, when you add blues omissions, and subtract the players they would replace, and then add West Coast omissions, and subtract the ones they would replace - who knows really but IMO blues would have been able to make up the 35 points. That is my opinion. Your raving hero-worship about blues superstars is not going to change it.

Do you mean Old Dark Navys?

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Blues2001


Do you mean Old Dark Navys?

Sorry, yes I do.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Originally posted by ok.crows


ODN - I don't see any point in more discussion. Eagles omissions were less important than were blues - agreed. Crows omissions were less important than were Brisbanes - agreed. All 4 teams still had a full complement of players. I hold the view that the high-profile players are heavily over-rated in comparison with the ones at the other end of the list - these are all top level professional footballers after all, and it is a team game. All of the players are important to the team.

So yes, when you add blues omissions, and subtract the players they would replace, and then add West Coast omissions, and subtract the ones they would replace - who knows really but IMO blues would have been able to make up the 35 points. That is my opinion. Your raving hero-worship about blues superstars is not going to change it.

You don't see the point in any more discussion but see the need to put the whole thing down to my "raving hero-worship". I'm not into hero worshipping. I love my team and will criticise the players if it is warranted. If West Coast had Cousins, Wirrpunda, Matera and Gardiner out while the Blues had Freeborn, Christou and Manton out for example, I would recognise the worth of Manton who I do rate but still summise that the players missing for the Eagles were well in advance of the players missing for the Blues.

You won't debate the respective qualities of the missing players from each side so you have no argument for saying that I am not correct. Since you don't want to discuss it anymore but still wanted to have a parting shot, it looks like I have the last word on the subject and I'll assume you have no argument.

 

[Fat Red]

Originally posted by ok.crows



I hold the view that the high-profile players are heavily over-rated in comparison with the ones at the other end of the list - these are all top level professional footballers after all, and it is a team game. All of the players are important to the team.

If that is your view then what is your basis for your prediction (made before the Wizard Cup) that Carlton are likely so slip this year?

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's
You don't see the point in any more discussion but see the need to put the whole thing down to my "raving hero-worship". I'm not into hero worshipping. I love my team and will criticise the players if it is warranted. If West Coast had Cousins, Wirrpunda, Matera and Gardiner out while the Blues had Freeborn, Christou and Manton out for example, I would recognise the worth of Manton who I do rate but still summise that the players missing for the Eagles were well in advance of the players missing for the Blues.

You won't debate the respective qualities of the missing players from each side so you have no argument for saying that I am not correct. Since you don't want to discuss it anymore but still wanted to have a parting shot, it looks like I have the last word on the subject and I'll assume you have no argument.

I certainly would argue and have done so that the respective qualities of the missing players (over and above the players that did play and who would have to make room) would make for some improvement in blues performance - and I even quantified it to around the 35 points that was the difference in the round 1 game.

There is absolutely no point in arguing the respective qualities of the players. You are going to rate them at about 15 goals difference or something. I have already rated them as making about six goals difference. Where is there any point in taking this any further?

We have already each stated our view. There can be no arguement beyond these subjective assesments that we each hold since they are just opinion. So how about I continue to assume that you have no arguement either (as is apparently the case) and we leave it there?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Originally posted by ok.crows


I certainly would argue and have done so that the respective qualities of the missing players (over and above the players that did play and who would have to make room) would make for some improvement in blues performance - and I even quantified it to around the 35 points that was the difference in the round 1 game.

There is absolutely no point in arguing the respective qualities of the players. You are going to rate them at about 15 goals difference or something. I have already rated them as making about six goals difference. Where is there any point in taking this any further?

We have already each stated our view. There can be no arguement beyond these subjective assesments that we each hold since they are just opinion. So how about I continue to assume that you have no arguement either (as is apparently the case) and we leave it there?

I'm more than fine with agreeing to disagree but then I wasn't the one who had to have the parting shot last time around about my "raving hero-worship" now was I? I contend that this is not the case and my opinion of our top liners is every bit as valid as yours and judging by responses elsewhere, many others would feel the same in the same situation. Since you decided not to have another shot this time around, I am quite happy to leave this with our respective opinions intact. By the way, it might be subjective but my argument on player abilities would have some merit to it.

 

[Blues2001]

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's
By the way, it might be subjective but my argument on player abilities would have some merit to it.

Is that a parting shot ODN?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Originally posted by Blues2001


Is that a parting shot ODN?

Let's call it the last word B2001.

I gave credit for no parting shot in the last post but then realised that saying I also had no argument was a parting shot so I suggested that I would have merit. That's not to suggest that my argument is the only one though. Besides which I'm not the one who wants to have a say and then walk away from it.

I should have known either you or Red would pick me up on it though.

 

[Port01]

Someone will eventually get the last laugh on this thread.

Ironic that it won't be because of anything either side has said.

 

[MarkT]

We are talking pre season games here.

The issue is attitude. If the club takes it seriously as opposed to treating the game as a practice match, then the anaysis is different. The undermanned aspect is generally a reflection of the clubs attitude to the ame. SOme teams are near full strength and some "rest" players. The are always genuine injuries but many of the "outs" would play in a "real" game.

The real point, what does the club hope to achieve from the game v what did they achieve.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Originally posted by MarkT
We are talking pre season games here.

The issue is attitude. If the club takes it seriously as opposed to treating the game as a practice match, then the anaysis is different. The undermanned aspect is generally a reflection of the clubs attitude to the ame. SOme teams are near full strength and some "rest" players. The are always genuine injuries but many of the "outs" would play in a "real" game.

The real point, what does the club hope to achieve from the game v what did they achieve.

Well put Mark. Carlton have had a lot of doubts over them in the offseason due to Kouta's injury and SOS' retirement and the fact that they did not recruit to replace them. We all recognise that Carlton had to unearth some ready made replacements fast so we had no choice but to throw our young players into the mix to see if they sink or swim.

From our point of view, lack of success in the Wizard Cup is not as important as finding options for a 22 round premiership season and hopefully finals series. This is how I evaluate our choice so far.

Ian Prendergast has shown he has taken the next step and could even be used in a key post (CHB or CHF). If he is used at CHF, then McKernan can be used at CHB giving the backline some experience back and guaranteeing we make the contests.

Luke Livingston has shown some poise in defence and that is where we should play him.

Bret Thornton is a rookie from nowhere that looks ready made to play. Given Kouta's injury, I would like to see Thornton elevated immediately.

Andrew Merrington has shown he is not much of a senior ruckman but could be useful in defence.

Scott Camporeale was forced to take on more of a leadership role with so many youngsters in the team and made a good fist of it.

Glenn Manton and Simon Beaumont have shown that they recognise the extra responsibility on them this year and looked very professional out there.

Jim Plunkett is still improving as his BOG for the Blues suggested last week.

Eccles, Gallagher, Wiggins and Sporn all showed glimpses of talent and though they did not star they look like genuine senior material during the year.

Just a few examples there and IMO they add up to the Blues getting another step closer to where they want to be come Round 1.

 

[Blues2001]

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's

Bret Thornton is a rookie from nowhere that looks ready made to play. Given Kouta's injury, I would like to see Thornton elevated immediately.

So we can do that (ie. we haven't already promoted someone else have we? And how long does Kouta have to be out for in order to promote someone (ie. if Kouta makes a remarkably speedy recovery, do we have to wait a certain amount of time before we can play him?)?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I think the nature of Kouta's injury saw him automatically get put onto the long term injured list. Ordinarily it is up to the discretion of the AFL medical staff to judge how long a player will be out. We had Pickering, Plunkett and Prendergast all elevated last year because of injuries to a few lesser lights on the list (Livingston, Mathews etc) Actually Plunkett was elevated because of Allan's injury so I think it has to be minimum of 8-10 weeks. Kouta can play as soon as he is ready and the rookie will have to drop back again unless they can replace another long term injury. If we need the player, maybe we can arrange to have some of the struggling senior listers kneecapped by Tonya Harding!