What's going on with Carlton's list

[Gone Critical]

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

14068 postings and you suddenly have run out of time. You make me laugh. I will take your qualified concession and I know the reason is mostly or totally that you are wrong.

"I was wrong" I know it's almost impossible for you MK

 

[Collingwoodity]

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

Operative word

 

[Gone Critical]

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.

You are in fine form today. Your round 10 win:loss ratio may have been tha same as Hawthorn but sorry that's irrelevent to analysising what was going on with Carlton's season. That should be pretty self explanatory. You address those 4 losses you had between round 4-10. The 3 wins as well if you like. They were crucial in how your season turned out. I have given you detailed explanation of how I saw those games. If what I wrote was just superficial guff the points should be easy for you to refute.

 

[Monkey King]

You are in fine form today. Your round 10 win:loss ratio may have been tha same as Hawthorn but sorry that's irrelevent to analysising what was going on with Carlton's season.

The telling point is, as the Hawthorn comparison clearly demonstrates, it's what happened from round 10 onwards more than anything that came before it that defined how Carlton's season turned out. How this logic escapes you is beyond me. That Carlton lost a couple of games to 2 in-form sides and dropped a couple they shouldn't have does not discount in any way the affect injury had on their season.

14068 postings and you suddenly have run out of time. You make me laugh. I will take your qualified concession and I know the reason is mostly or totally that you are wrong.

Nah, I'm serious; my BF cut off for today was 15 minutes ago and I wanted to use my time to talk about what's most important to me ... Carlton.

 

[Collingwoodity]

The telling point is, as the Hawthorn comparison clearly demonstrates, it's what happened from round 10 onwards more than anything that came before it that defined how Carlton's season turned out. How this logic escapes you is beyond me. That Carlton lost a couple of games to 2 in-form sides and dropped a couple they shouldn't have does not discount in any way the affect injury had on their season.



Nah, I'm serious; my BF cut off for today was 15 minutes ago and I wanted to use my time to talk about what's most important to me ... Carlton.

You made sense until this part.

somehow Rounds 1-9 are not relevant.

 

[jasonwilde]

Hey Wayne - do you think Collingwood are a red hot chance of actually beating Carlton this year? I reckon youz are red hot specials mate - red hot. Figjam is the man mate - Figjam and Fat Eddie what a team mate - what a team!

Hey Justa- do you think that Collingwood supporters care more about winning the Premiership or beating Carlton this year?

(Glad you're setting the bar high in terms of your expectations, mate- what a team!)

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

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.

The Swan example is just to show that improvement can come from anywhere, and not doing anything in trade week, doesn't mean you can't improve. If you agree about scope for improvement, then the names involved do not matter.

If the draft pick Gibbs and Walker were taken at is relevant, then their scope for improvement if fit in Walker's case or coaches permanently in the midfield in Gibbs case are even greater since they have a higher level of previously recognised talent.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

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.

Pretty sure that he was talking about your depth after you won the spoon, not the flag. In other words, those players improved and thus the Eagles improved.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

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.

Maybe you can link me to your assessment of Jacobs pre-trade?

Then maybe you can tell me how Carlton let him go and how they were meant to stop him?

Carlton’s football operations general manager Steven Icke said the club was disappointed with Jacob’s trade request.

“While disappointed with Sam’s decision to return back to South Australia, the Club will now commence discussions with the Adelaide Crows to enable a suitable exchange,” Icke said.

Jacobs is a SA boy and wanted to return home. He was in our side at the end of the season and played 13 games in 2010 after taking a while to get going.

We picked up Warnock because our rucks had been terrible for years. At the time we got Warnock, Jacobs was a rookie with potential but had not earned a senior game to that point. Hampson was an athletic freak but still learning the craft as a latecomer to the game, and Kreuzer was 19 and had one season under his belt. Yes, we stocked up on ruckman because we wanted to ensure we got a couple of decent ones by the end.

Enough of these hindsight calls on Jacobs. Despite his decent finish to 2010, he had 17 games to his credit in 4 seasons, and Crows fans insisted he was not a walk up first ruck and what they were offering for him was fair enough. In the end, Carlton wanted more but helped to get him home rather than leave him to potentially walk into the PSD to get home.

We are happy with the players we picked up with the two picks we got for Jacobs just quietly. McCarthy and McInnes both debuted in 2012 and the latter was looking like a real find before doing his knee in round 22.

 

[Wayne Arnold]

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



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.

Be that as it may, it seems that a lot of your supporters were expecting big things during the FA and Trade period. I think there's a thread on the Carlton board nearly 200 pages long discussing such hopes, which have thus far netted pick 71. The possibility of Reimers may add to Carton's trade period (would include Brad Green but that's more a coaching coup).

Mick seems to have changed his tune a few times already during his short stint at the Blues. Initially he was hell bent on securing Cloke. Then he said the list is fine. Then he stated that no moves were made due to salary cap constraints. Now he claims 'not to mistake activity for achievement'. Make your mind up you cheeky old fox.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Be that as it may, it seems that a lot of your supporters were expecting big things during the FA and Trade period. I think there's a thread on the Carlton board nearly 200 pages long discussing such hopes, which have thus far netted pick 71. The possibility of Reimers may add to Carton's trade period (would include Brad Green but that's more a coaching coup).

Mick seems to have changed his tune a few times already during his short stint at the Blues. Initially he was hell bent on securing Cloke. Then he said the list is fine. Then he stated that no moves were made due to salary cap constraints. Now he claims 'not to mistake activity for achievement'. Make your mind up you cheeky old fox.

A lot of supporters thought that Malthouse was the coaching messiah that would bring in gun players, gun coaches, sponsors, everything. My feeling is that he is a coach that will extract the best out of players but doesn't have a massive track record for attracting players. Perhaps that is his hard ass reputation, perhaps not.

However, he didn't change his mind as such. We said if we couldn't get the top flight players that would improve our side we would not participate. We let Cloke know there was an offer there but at the end of the day, Carlton were just a bargaining chip in the Cloke negotiations. No harm, no foul. The salary cap stuff is just grist for the mill.

 

[mediumsizered]

Hey Justa- do you think that Collingwood supporters care more about winning the Premiership or beating Carlton this year?

It would seem Collingwood supporters are generally just happy to be involved in September. Again this year the old maxim "at least we were there" was rolled out after another unsuccessful September campaign, the 29th unsuccessful September campaign out of the last 31 finals campaigns the Pies have been involved in.

 

[Wayne Arnold]

It would seem Collingwood supporters are generally just happy to be involved in September. Again this year the old maxim "at least we were there" was rolled out after another unsuccessful September campaign, the 29th unsuccessful September campaign out of the last 31 finals campaigns the Pies have been involved in.

Pretty sure you guys would be hell bent on taking part in September action cosistently like Collinwood has over the last decade or so. Or are you still content to hang your hat on the one finals win in 10 years and what's fast becoming my favourite line 'one kick off a prelim in 2011'.

 

[Ted38]

Maybe you can link me to your assessment of Jacobs pre-trade?

Then maybe you can tell me how Carlton let him go and how they were meant to stop him?



Jacobs is a SA boy and wanted to return home. He was in our side at the end of the season and played 13 games in 2010 after taking a while to get going.

We picked up Warnock because our rucks had been terrible for years. At the time we got Warnock, Jacobs was a rookie with potential but had not earned a senior game to that point. Hampson was an athletic freak but still learning the craft as a latecomer to the game, and Kreuzer was 19 and had one season under his belt. Yes, we stocked up on ruckman because we wanted to ensure we got a couple of decent ones by the end.

Enough of these hindsight calls on Jacobs. Despite his decent finish to 2010, he had 17 games to his credit in 4 seasons, and Crows fans insisted he was not a walk up first ruck and what they were offering for him was fair enough. In the end, Carlton wanted more but helped to get him home rather than leave him to potentially walk into the PSD to get home.

We are happy with the players we picked up with the two picks we got for Jacobs just quietly. McCarthy and McInnes both debuted in 2012 and the latter was looking like a real find before doing his knee in round 22.

Now he Jacobs is their best ruckman, which was always going to be the case, you lot have still got that DUD Warnock and your ruck situation is no better off. Don't give me that shit about wanting to help Jacobs get home either, that's not part of the way Carlton does business and the players you got in return are only average at best. As I said RUBBISH!

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Now he Jacobs is their best ruckman, which was always going to be the case, you lot have still got that DUD Warnock and your ruck situation is no better off. Don't give me that shit about wanting to help Jacobs get home either, that's not part of the way Carlton does business and the players you got in return are only average at best. As I said RUBBISH!

Is that it? Just trolling rubbish with not a fact in sight? You are a bloody lightweight. Get off the main board.

 

[Gone Critical]

The telling point is, as the Hawthorn comparison clearly demonstrates, it's what happened from round 10 onwards more than anything that came before it that defined how Carlton's season turned out. How this logic escapes you is beyond me. That Carlton lost a couple of games to 2 in-form sides and dropped a couple they shouldn't have does not discount in any way the affect injury had on their season.

MK you are all over the place. Back a few pages (post 593)you asked me "how about you get back to your original point and explain it to me."

This is the original point

"The caveat that needs to be added here is Carlton's form had already slumped before their big injury run came. Little too easy to blame Carlton's season on injuries alone. The Ess, Adel, St K and Port losses were not explained by injury. It was those losses that wrecked Carltons season."

I went to considerable length to explain it as requested. You don't have to agree with what I said but put a little substance into your reasoning if you want to refute it. Changing the goalposts and bringing in Hawthorn and what happened after round 10 is irrelevent if you haven't 1st addressed the reply you requested from me.

The essennce of what we are discussing is "Is the form slump from round 4-10 explained mainly by injuries or mainly by other factors".

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The essennce of what we are discussing is "Is the form slump from round 4-10 explained mainly by injuries or mainly by other factors".

The answer is both. Our structure was greatly affected by the injuries. I don't know if somehow the players felt they had an excuse after that, but clearly in a couple of those games, we were lacking in application. Several players failed to apply themselves consistently this year but injury did not give us the luxury of sending messages.

Not sure why people want to put everything in the injury or other factors basket. There is clearly room for both. The only unclear factor is how much injuries affected the continuity and thus the mental attitude of the team.

 

[Buzz/Sticks/bryce]

Now he Jacobs is their best ruckman, which was always going to be the case, you lot have still got that DUD Warnock and your ruck situation is no better off. Don't give me that shit about wanting to help Jacobs get home either, that's not part of the way Carlton does business and the players you got in return are only average at best. As I said RUBBISH!

Do you think Carlton would be a better side with Jacobs #1, kreuzer resting & Warnock & hampson playing VFL? I don't. Your attempt at making the Carlton list management appear amateur, by agreeing to send Jacobs to his chosen destination is RUBBISH. Now how about a new reason to troll the Blues? Green, Reimers, tradeless, something else?

 

[Gone Critical]

The answer is both. Our structure was greatly affected by the injuries. I don't know if somehow the players felt they had an excuse after that, but clearly in a couple of those games, we were lacking in application. Several players failed to apply themselves consistently this year but injury did not give us the luxury of sending messages.

Not sure why people want to put everything in the injury or other factors basket. There is clearly room for both. The only unclear factor is how much injuries affected the continuity and thus the mental attitude of the team.

Mainly both??

I don't disagree Carltons season was injury affected but i also believe injuries aside you were in a position to expect more from your team. Especially against Port and St Kilda you lacked resolve. The loss to Adelaide was also very much the manner that you went down that was a concern. Essendo you folded too easily. Even with the injuries you should have been much better in those matches. They set the scene for the rest of the season.

For what it's worth i would apply the same blowtorch to Collingwood especially the 2 games v Carlton, the 2nd game aginst WCE and Hawthorn and the loss to North. While there were injury concerns for some of those games the way we lost them was unacceptable for a team looking to contend. Buckley has signalled as much by his post season comments about players getting to comfortable and losing urgency and his hard nosed approach to Dawes and the list. Not sure why MK has been so precious about my view.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Mainly both??

No other conclusion to make. In some games, even when decimated by injury, we simply did not show up. We played well in narrow losses to West Coast and Geelong with those same injuries, so you can reasonably expect we would have come close in other games if we just had the right mindset. Having said that, we were clearly lacking in structure in many games with no options to use, and there was no cohesion as you would expect if you keep the nuts and bolts of your best 22 together for much of the season.

 

[Hodgepodge]

Except this, except that, the last two years, blah blah, blah blah. Clause A, clause B. Sorry pal. Over the last few years we've had some good performances against top four sides that have resulted in wins, others that haven't resulted in wins

That's one way of putting it. Another would be that you just haven't been able to match it with Top 4 sides. Every Top 4 side, even Adelaide who just got in this year, would have beaten more than one Top 4 side in the last two years.

It's not a criticism of Carlton, it's just the next step that they need to make to become Top 4 material.

and definitely some poor performances to go with them. We have proven that we can match it with top four teams, just not consistently

Your inconsistency particularly this year has been mostly shown up against the lower teams like the Gold Coast and Port Adelaide. Carlton were even unconvincing in wins against GWS and Melbourne.

 

[JustaBattler]

Hey Justa- do you think that Collingwood supporters care more about winning the Premiership or beating Carlton this year?

(Glad you're setting the bar high in terms of your expectations, mate- what a team!)

Well the above was a response to Mr Wayne and his 'Waynersisms'...

to answer you question ( I can't speak for Collingwood supporters ) but Carlton supporters enjoy beating Collingwood and Essendon as far as H&A goes, probably at the margin a more friendly rivalry between Carlton and Collingwood and less friendly between the scum and ourselves - but premierships are what matters and (for Carlton) it has been a long time between drinks. Time to add to the tally over the next few years and put the last ten years behind us.

 

[Blue since 72]

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. 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.

And so can you.

I assume you'll concede that most clubs are at different points in their cycle and as such will have differing views on when and who to trade/draft/hire/fire.

Suggesting Carlton are standing still because we didn't participate to any real degree in the previous month is a pretty flippant assessment.

The club has publicly stated that it was only going after quality to improve the list and as the wider community likes to remind us ad-nauseum, we need a KPF.

After Cloke re-signed, which I might add, Carlton had publicly stated would happen all along the 'quality' that could have improved our list was gone.

Tippet was never coming to a Vic club and both Dawes and Lynch would have been no upgrade on what we have already, with Lynch's only advantage worth mentioning being his durability.

And as to the coaching appointment/s, yourself in particular should be well aware that Mick runs the show and does not necessarily require ex-champions with pedigree and vast experience to get the job done.

 

[forwardflanker]

Is that it? Just trolling rubbish with not a fact in sight? You are a bloody lightweight. Get off the main board.

Abusive posts like this achieve nothing. Carlton posters need to stop pulling the troll card every time their confronted with a strong argument. If you can't handle the criticism then I suggest you don't post.

 

[forwardflanker]

Do you think Carlton would be a better side with Jacobs #1, kreuzer resting & Warnock & hampson playing VFL? I don't. Your attempt at making the Carlton list management appear amateur, by agreeing to send Jacobs to his chosen destination is RUBBISH. Now how about a new reason to troll the Blues? Green, Reimers, tradeless, something else?

lol so your suggesting that Carlton would be better not having one of the top 3 rucks in the AFL on their list