What's going on with Carlton's list

[Ted38]

Either that, or we were ok for ruck talent. Maybe W.C will rookie a ruckman who won't have a chance of getting past NicNat and Cox?

Totally irrelevant.

 

[Ted38]

If you had been keeping up, you would realise that Carlton wanted to keep him. To that point though, he had shown no more than any of our other young rucks. We were selecting our ruckman based on form that year, and all showed potential. Let's not turn it into something it is not. This isn't politics.

Rubbish,

 

[Gone Critical]

And did you watch the Adelaide game? We'd been playing pretty well to when to when Murphy went down. Like I said, they're a good side and the Blues were a well and truly injury affected list by that stage; whereas you've suggested this match was before any injury issues ... so again; what's you actual point here? Rather than me pointing out you're wrong re injury at this stage and then you taking another "can't blame injury" tangent, how about you get back to your original point and explain it for me?

I will spell out my original contention, it's pretty simple. Carlton's season unravelled between round 4 and round 10 and that was largely independent of your injury list. Carlton was aiming to be a top 4 side when the season began. They started well, became flag favorites and if I am correct Ratten embraced that tag at the time. Expectations were high at the time. I was worried at how improved your mob looked. I thought I could see a flag possibilty.

When you smashed us on the MCG in round 3 injuries were not holding you back. Come round 4 and Essendon stunned you. You payed badly that day. Yes you lost Carrazzo. They lost Hurley early 2nd half. Carlton expected to win that match. A couple of so so wins against the Dockers/GWS followed. Next St Kilda, round 7, St Kilda who you say you predicted a loss to even though you were on top of the ladder with 5:1 win loss. Saints to that point had lost to Port Adelaide and Freo at Etihad and only beaten Suns Dogs and Demons. Why were you expecting to lose that day? Bookies had you overwhelming favs and match reports describe Carlton as red faced and stunned after being upset by the underdogs. No injuries listed in the match report.

You asked if I saw the Adelaide game, round 8. I did. When Murphy was subbed out you were 26 points down after kicking the 1st 2 goals. By half time there had been a 38 point turn around in the match. Yes Adelaide were a good side in 2012 but they had lost 15 matches straight in Victoria coming into this clash. You guys went in as favorites and no doubt thought you were a good chance that day. You lost by 69 points to an interstate club on your home ground. It's a bit rich to say injuries were the main culprit here.

Round 9 gave you a win against the Demons. Round 10 bought the poor old Power. Yes it was in Adelaide and yes the injury list had grown but you rightly went in as favorites that night. I can remember being shocked, delighted but shocked, at how terrible you were. Your team was insipid and you managed to make the Power look very capable. No injuries recorded on the match report. A 54 point demolition in heavy rain. You may want to explain that one away as being mainly due to your pre game injury list but no one else would buy that.

I can do a Collingwood apologists view of our round 3 loss to you as a contrast. Collingwood coming off a six day break and with a significant injury list (Krak, Tarrant, Brown, MacCaffer,Didak) were jumped by Carlton. They lost their other main KPP backman at the start of the 2nd Q leaving Keefe, our 4th choice KPB with <10 games experience as our only big backman. Still Collingwood came back hard at Carlton and were only 9 points down when Luke Ball did his ACL and we were left with only 2 on the bench with 2 and a half Qs left. From there not surprisingly Carlton pulled away to a comfortable victory. Sounds plausible if you wanted to go that way but that would be bullsh-t. Carlton pulled our pants down that night. We had no excuses for a performance like that. Hiding behind injuries would be weak and I can tell you something that Malthouse is loathe to do.

So that's it. Yes Carlton's injuries grew as the season progressed and by the end you were a basket case injury wise. However the main damage to your season occurred round 4-10 and the injury list was not the main explanation.

That's all

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Rubbish,

Come on then smart guy. Put up or shut up.

 

[forwardflanker]

Couldn't even stick to the topic that you created. Absolute classic.

Don't lump all other supporters in with your own stupidity and tendency to troll. I've seen many responses in here, and in other threads discussing similar topics, acknowledging that injuries, whilst not the sole reason for our poor season, played an enormous part in us failing to make the final 8.

There aren't many Carlton supporters who think we have the best young players in the game. As is the case with every other club in the league, there are a minority who tend to over-exaggerate the quality on the list. I see you have to resort to generalizing in order to push your own failed agenda. Another classic tell that your argument is flimsy, and you are simply trolling. What's next - pointing out a simple spelling or grammatical error? Or am I giving you too much credit?




Some, yes. However once again you are focusing on the minority. There are supporters at every club who ignore the rational, preferring the hysteric and the overly-critical. If you believe that the opinion of a hysterical minority is validation for a rational argument, then good luck to you. If recruiting a player who is a near certainty to play 250+ games at a very solid level is to be considered a 'major disappointment' - then yes, I suppose Bryce Gibbs is a major disappointment.



And I predict that over the next 10 or so pages you will continue to be queried on several dubious and flimsy points you have raised. Further to that, I predict that you will continue to fail to respond directly to such queries, and thus continuing to confirm that you are nothing but a troll who in fact isn't interested in discussing any of the 'valid points' you seem to think you have raised in this thread. Everything defies explanation if the person you are trying to explain it to has their head firmly shoved up their rectum.

Stick to the thread topic please, if you want to act like a 5 year old then I suggest you do it on the Carlton board or on bay 13. We're problem solving here, not criticizing the opinion of other non Carlton supporting posters

 

[Jeremias]

Stick to the thread topic please, if you want to act like a 5 year old then I suggest you do it on the Carlton board or on bay 13. We're problem solving here, not criticizing the opinion of other non Carlton supporting posters

I'm going off topic, am I?

Every one of my posts in this thread, apart from this one, has discussed Carlton's list, or aspects of it. You know, as the OP requests.

You, on the other hand, have admitted to discussing matters outside of the original point of the thread. Strange and hilarious considering you are the one who started the thread.

There are plenty of non-Carlton supporting posters in this thread who have raised very valid and legitimate queries with regards to the state of Carlton's list. There are others, however, who have used this thread to push their hatred of the Carlton Football Club, and who have preferred to troll rather than enter in any serious or rational discussion. You are one such poster, and now it seems you're not that happy that you've been called out on it. Try harder next time.

You are problem solving to the same extent as the producer of the Kony video that went viral on social media earlier this year.

 

[forwardflanker]

I'm going off topic, am I?

Every one of my posts in this thread, apart from this one, has discussed Carlton's list, or aspects of it. You know, as the OP requests.

You, on the other hand, have admitted to discussing matters outside of the original point of the thread. Strange and hilarious considering you are the one who started the thread.

There are plenty of non-Carlton supporting posters in this thread who have raised very valid and legitimate queries with regards to the state of Carlton's list. There are others, however, who have used this thread to push their hatred of the Carlton Football Club, and who have preferred to troll rather than enter in any serious or rational discussion. You are one such poster, and now it seems you're not that happy that you've been called out on it. Try harder next time.

You are problem solving to the same extent as the producer of the Kony video that went viral on social media earlier this year.

Starting to get sick of Carlton supporters playing the troll card on anything critical of their football club. Ironically it is posters like you who are the real trolls, cluttering up what has otherwise been a very constructive thread. Once again I suggest that if you can't handle criticism (which you clearly can't) go back to your own board where constructive criticism is banned. We're problem solving here, not attacking other posters. Carlton supporters itt are crying about trolling almost as much as they have been crying about injuries ... almost.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Starting to get sick of Carlton supporters playing the troll card on anything critical of their football club. Ironically it is posters like you who are the real trolls, cluttering up what has otherwise been a very constructive thread. Once again I suggest that if you can't handle criticism (which you clearly can't) go back to your own board where constructive criticism is banned. We're problem solving here, not attacking other posters. Carlton supporters itt are crying about trolling almost as much as they have been crying about injuries ... almost.

If the cap fits ....

 

[Malifice]

No, still doesn't make sense. Carlton's depth was tested in 2012 and they failed to make the eight. Coll and WC also had their depth tested and finished fourth and fifth respectively. Your side remains the same as there have been no trades during the off season. Hence, your depth remains the same.

What happened to WCE's depth after they won the spoon?

Pretty sure that spuds like Masten and so forth actually started to play a bit.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

What happened to WCE's depth after they won the spoon?

Pretty sure that spuds like Masten and so forth actually started to play a bit.

They will never take improvement into account. I can point to Collingwood posters writing Dane Swan off after his first couple of years. A few Cats players did not look crash hot in 2006 either.

If you look at the best form of all of our players, there is plenty of scope for improvement just by getting them to play consistently and ingraining some mental fortitude.

 

[Blue and Silver]

Constructive criticism = your opinion is wrong, Carlton is crap and needs a complete re-build?

or maybe some milder version thereof.

This thread and others like it are an attempt to rub salt in the wound that was 2012.

 

[Wayne Arnold]

Well it looks like the Blues might throw Kyle Reimers a lifeline using a late pick in the National Draft. Would possibly be pick 71, so effectively Jordan Russell for Reimers. Think this may be a high risk/high reward type move. Reimers has a certain x factor which not many players possess. His problem is his attitude and application. Mick knows how to get the best out of young players and this could be a move that pays dividends.

 

[BM123]

Yeah I know, there are some shockers/



2k time trial doesn't really depend on speed that much, just fitness. Gibbs has stated a number of times he wants to be in the midfield, I would expect him to be pumped in the off-season with a new coach coming in and planning to play him in the mid, and get fitter than everyone else. But he didn't even partake so that was completely my mistake.

Maybe I'm just hard on him because he does my head in.

Imagine having him on your team

 

[HARKER]

They will never take improvement into account. I can point to Collingwood posters writing Dane Swan off after his first couple of years. A few Cats players did not look crash hot in 2006 either.

If you look at the best form of all of our players, there is plenty of scope for improvement just by getting them to play consistently and ingraining some mental fortitude.

Consistency is important but continuity is vital.
Carlton simply had no continuity in any part of the ground but when you can't keep something resembling your best back 6 together, you know you're in big trouble.

TALLS:
Our defence had issues early on with Laidler going down for the year in the round 4 loss against Essendon and it was all down-hill from there.
Jamison started late after no pre-season and couldn't carry his back injury for the year. Played well below his best accordingly.
Henderson attained his injury issue in round 6, played a couple of more games thereafter under duress and was then pulled for the year. Effectively didn't play the year.

That makes for our first picked talls that were effectively useless for the whole of 2012 and any team without their 3 best defenders will have issues.

SMALL/MID SIZED BACKS:
Yarran got his turf toe in the round 4 loss against Essendon, missed several games and didn't capture form until the mid part of the year.
Duigan came off injuries in the pre-season, started late and didn't really get going at any point in time. Wouldn't have even been called up were it not for injury.
White was injured for the bulk of the year and was rushed in for round 19 just to cover our lack of talls and played the 5 games for the year.

KIDS:
Tuohy did his back in round 10 and wouldn't have played the rest of the year had it not been out of necessity.
McInnes cam in at round 15, had played good football but did his knee late in the year and will now be out until May next year.
Watson broke his thumb in round 20 and missed the last three games, just for good measure.

The team largely lost confidence as did the coaching panel for trying to make sense of what they had left to work with.
It just became a mess for all concerned and the fun was probably taken out of the mix, altogether.

 

[tigers_of_old_08]

Well it looks like the Blues might throw Kyle Reimers a lifeline using a late pick in the National Draft. Would possibly be pick 71, so effectively Jordan Russell for Reimers. Think this may be a high risk/high reward type move. Reimers has a certain x factor which not many players possess. His problem is his attitude and application. Mick knows how to get the best out of young players and this could be a move that pays dividends.

Would love to see what MM can do with Reimers, as you said he has that x factor. Would be an interesting pick up to follow.

 

[Gone Critical]

They will never take improvement into account. I can point to Collingwood posters writing Dane Swan off after his first couple of years. A few Cats players did not look crash hot in 2006 either.

If you look at the best form of all of our players, there is plenty of scope for improvement just by getting them to play consistently and ingraining some mental fortitude.

I agree with what you say about Carlton's room for improvement. Dane Swan though is a really poor example. He was a draft pick in the 50's with not a great attitude. He almost wrecked his career through his own stupidity and was lucky MM stuck by him. There was nothing much ever to write off as he was never worth much to begin with. That he changed that round so stunningly is to his credit but is by no means a standard story.

Its not the same as say Gibbs or Walker who started as valuable commodities and have struggled to live up to the billing for injury and form reasons. There is scope for you to regain losses as they should improve next year.

 

[laminex]

I agree with what you say about Carlton's room for improvement. Dane Swan though is a really poor example. He was a draft pick in the 50's with not a great attitude. He almost wrecked his career through his own stupidity and was lucky MM stuck by him. There was nothing much ever to write off as he was never worth much to begin with. That he changed that round so stunningly is to his credit but is by no means a standard story.

Its not the same as say Gibbs or Walker who started as valuable commodities and have struggled to live up to the billing for injury and form reasons. There is scope for you to regain losses as they should improve next year.

Why is everyone so hard on this guy, when ever he has played he has played well. He has lost so much time due to his shoulders and hip but people on big footy would rather say he is crap than admit he missed a year because he was injured.

 

[ziad]

What happened to WCE's depth after they won the spoon?

Pretty sure that spuds like Masten and so forth actually started to play a bit.

Just skimmed this thread. Not particularly interested in the Carlton list, but this bizarre off topic comment caught my eye.
I am not 'pretty sure' but I know that Masten wasn't drafted until after Judd left - a year after the Premiership, thus very unlikely he would have been playing during the Premiership year.
Your point is?
Deflect on.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Age reporting that exciting talent Karl Reimers being eyed off by Carlton in what would be stunning recruiting coup for the Malthouse era.

 

[Monkey King]

I will spell out my original contention, it's pretty simple. Carlton's season unravelled between round 4 and round 10 and that was largely independent of your injury list.

Again I point out that coming into round 7 Carlton were 5-1. So I dismiss this suggestion of yours almost out of hand. You could perhaps say that between round 7-10 Carlton's season started to unravel, but this is of course, nothing more than a retrospective insight. Had Hawthorn's season unravelled by round 10? I doubt you'd make that claim, but loh and behold by round 10 these two clubs had the exact same win-loss record and comparable percentage. In Carlton case, compounding injuries to even our second tier players meant we were not afforded a genuine opportunity to right the ship. So you can retrospectively take that opportunity to make the specious claim above that injuries had little to do with our season "unravelling". I just consider that a very shallow analysis of the season, particularly as injuries indeed played their part in those round 7-10 losses; although granted there were other reasons, one being we played a couple of very good in-form sides.

Wow MK, is it impossible for you to concede even a little point.

Ok. I will concede ... mostly because I don't have time to talk about Collingwood today.

 

[Monkey King]

Consistency is important but continuity is vital.

It's a well known point in football and I've been making it all year. When you cast your eye over the Swans list, you will see they had 18 players play all but 3 games together. This is a significant factor in putting together a season.

 

[Masto]

Carlton did muck up with Jacobs. He was the best ruckman on their list and they didn't realise it. Worse than this, they overpaid for an inferior player in Warnock and let him go.

 

[Gone Critical]

Again I point out that coming into round 7 Carlton were 5-1. So I dismiss this suggestion of yours almost out of hand. You could perhaps say that between round 7-10 Carlton's season started to unravel, but this is of course, nothing more than a retrospective insight. Had Hawthorn's season unravelled by round 10? I doubt you'd make that claim, but loh and behold by round 10 these two clubs had the exact same win-loss record and comparable percentage. In Carlton case, compounding injuries to even our second tier players meant we were not afforded a genuine opportunity to right the ship. So you can retrospectively take that opportunity to make the specious claim above that injuries had little to do with our season "unravelling". I just consider that a very shallow analysis of the season, particularly as injuries indeed played their part in those round 7-10 losses; although granted there were other reasons, one being we played a couple of very good in-form sides.

You don't really need to point out what I had already pointed out in my post above. The 5:1 was an impressive start, esp the 1st 3. You may want to term my above analsis as shallow but if that's the case I am surprised you haven't addressed specifically any of the many points I made.

Your reply is just a couple of general broadbrush statements and you reckon my analysis is shallow. Give me your analysis of those games with a bit of detail.

 

[Monkey King]

No, I think I was being slightly condescending in the previous post. I was pointing out that Mick (or any coach for that matter) can spout off lines after the fact to suit what has passed (inactivity and all that nonsense). It's all just a bit of spin.

It's actually a useful premise for trading on financial markets and comes from a legendary US coach.

No spin; just straight up sense. You should drop your defenses and consider it a moment

But hey, you moved on a few coaches, poached Brad Green and will take part in the draft, so I guess you ain't standing still.

Of course we're not. We're refining our list and remodeling the coaching staff. You'd have to have a pretty serious case of confirmation bias to deny that. Getting a few ho-hum players doesn't mean Collingwood are on the move anywhere. It just means you got a few ho-hum players. Carlton not getting ho-hum players doesn't mean we're standing still; it just means we didn't get those ho-hum players. The rest is your brain filling in what you want to believe and filtering out what you don't.

 

[Monkey King]

Your reply is just a couple of general broadbrush statements and you reckon my analysis is shallow. Give me your analysis of those games with a bit of detail.

Rubbish. I have simplified the issue into it's key components and challenged your premise at its weakest point. I have highlighted how you are bound to a retrospective viewpoint and indicated our round 10 position being the same as Hawthorn's ... do you seriously claim their season fell apart as well by round 10? Or do you think post-round 10 had a lot to do with the differing fortunes of these two teams from that point? These are the key questions that make or break your claims. There is no need to move beyond these flaws without them first being addressed; and that is what good analysis does.