Prediction Who will be better in 2025? Carlton or Hawthorn

[carlton_99]

2 flags to 1 without Rance. Their defence improved as they moved away from Rance being on his own to playing more as a defensive unit. Cox destroyed Rance cost them 2018.

Rance was a great defender but having 6 defenders working together is better than 1 trying to do most of the work as good as he was. It took some adjusting for them when Rance went down but it resulted in a better defensive output.

The post was about 2017 - the Tigers relied on their best players just like any club does. And I don't think 2 flags to 1 without Rance means in anyway they were better because Rance wasn't in the team. Richmond were just not a great team for much of Rance's career and peaked when he was near retirement.

 

[peetoo]

Just happy this is a live conversation, it would have been derided early 2024. I reckon the current thread vote 2-1 to hawthorn just reflects who voted.
May the best team win

 

[H00t]

The post was about 2017 - the Tigers relied on their best players just like any club does. And I don't think 2 flags to 1 without Rance means in anyway they were better because Rance wasn't in the team. Richmond were just not a great team for much of Rance's career and peaked when he was near retirement.

It’s pointless to only look at 2017 though.

Those 4 players all played well in 2016 and earlier when the tigers were average at best. It took the tigers changing the gameplan and focussing on getting all 22 players involved that made them improve.

So while they were their best players they relied on the improvement of the rest of their team to compete. As just relying on them in 2016 saw them miss finals.

 

[Fadge]

It’s pointless to only look at 2017 though.

Those 4 players all played well in 2016 and earlier when the tigers were average at best. It took the tigers changing the gameplan and focussing on getting all 22 players involved that made them improve.

So while they were their best players they relied on the improvement of the rest of their team to compete. As just relying on them in 2016 saw them miss finals.

Yep.

Understand to roles of the likes of Lambert, Prestia, Vlaustin, Houli, etc.

Hawthorn have those equivalents; who are they at Carlton?

 

[carlton_99]

Hawthorn have those equivalents; who are they at Carlton?

Carlton have no role players, didn't you know? They made back to back finals series with a PF in 2023 off the back of 5 players. Voss just selected the other 18 every week randomly out of a hat and they sat on the sideline cheering with some pom poms in hand.

 

[Fadge]

Carlton have no role players, didn't you know? They made back to back finals series with a PF in 2023 off the back of 5 players. Voss just selected the other 18 every week randomly out of a hat and they sat on the sideline cheering with some pom poms in hand.

There we go again, the famous 'back to back finals series'!

 

[carlton_99]

There we go again, the famous 'back to back finals series'!

Yes back to back finals series is a massive improvement from what they were showing prior to 2023. Cripps/Walsh/Weitering/McKay/Curnow were all on the list prior to 2023. Carlton have shown improvement because of growth outside of just those five. You not being able to recognise that is not my problem.

 

[Fadge]

Yes back to back finals series is a massive improvement from what they were showing prior to 2023. Cripps/Walsh/Weitering/McKay/Curnow were all on the list prior to 2023. Carlton have shown improvement because of growth outside of just those five. You not being able to recognise that is not my problem.

Carlton 2021 (8 wins from 22 games) - Strong years from McKay (Coleman - 58 goals), Walsh (30 Brownlow votes from 9 games) and Weitering (played all games and runner up in B&F). Down year from Cripps and Curnow only played 4 games. 87 of 110 games played between the 5 players.

Carlton 2022 (12 wins from 22 games) - Strong years from Cripps (Brownlow Medal), Curnow (Coleman Medal) and Walsh (3rd in B&F). Down years from McKay and Weitering. 100 of 110 games played between the 5 players.

Carlton 2023 (13 wins from 23 games) - Strong years from Curnow (Coleman Medal) and Weitering (Club Best and Fairest). Cripps slightly down on output, Walsh got going from the middle of the season but down year from McKay. 115 from 130 games played between the 5 players.

Carlton 2024 (13 wins from 23 games) - Strong years from Cripps (Brownlow), Weitering (AA and 4th in B&F) and McKay. Walsh started well but faded late, playing well enough to finish 3rd in Carlton's B&F. Curnow leading the Coleman until fading late. 108 from 120 games played between the 5 players.

Carlton have had similar total output from their top 5 players across the last three seasons, and produced similar results. The outlier of the last 4 years was 2021, when Curnow barely played and Cripps had a down year, which led to an 8 win season.

Averaging between 87% and 91% of games played between the 5 players is about as good as can be expected, which has been the case across the last 3 seasons.

You can't draw the line at 2023 because you qualified for finals by winning an additional game than you did in 2022 (when there was an additional home and away game on offer), and say 'See, growth outside of our top 5 has led to our improvement!'

 

[carlton_99]

You can't draw the line at 2023 because you qualified for finals by winning an additional game than you did in 2022 (when there was an additional home and away game on offer), and say 'See, growth outside of our top 5 has led to our improvement!'

Making finals is a massive stage in a team's progression from the bottom. That is why I drew the line at 2023. But ever since Voss joined in 2022 we have seen improved performances from the players around our core group. We have also recruited heavily to supplement this area in the last few years. Once again this is AFL football - your performance is very rarely dictated by the games of just five or so players. It's completely nonsensical.

 

[Fadge]

Making finals is a massive stage in a team's progression from the bottom. That is why I drew the line at 2023. But ever since Voss joined in 2022 we have seen improved performances from the players around our core group. We have also recruited heavily to supplement this area in the last few years. Once again this is AFL football - your performance is very rarely dictated by the games of just five or so players. It's completely nonsensical.

But Carlton's results haven't materially improved.

12 wins in 2022 from 22 games.
13 wins in 2023 from 23 games.
13 wins in 2024 from 23 games.

And you've got about the same total output from your top 5 players across each of those seasons.

Surely if Carlton's list outside of these players has improved, we'd be seeing improved win/loss ratios?

 

[carlton_99]

But Carlton's results haven't materially improved.

12 wins in 2022 from 22 games.
13 wins in 2023 from 23 games.
13 wins in 2024 from 23 games.

And you've got about the same total output from your top 5 players across each of those seasons.

Surely if Carlton's list outside of these players has improved, we'd be seeing improved win/loss ratios?

When did Voss join Carlton again? Pretty sure it was 2022 and that was the big spike in our improvement.

 

[Fadge]

When did Voss join Carlton again? Pretty sure it was 2022 and that was the big spike in our improvement.

Same year as McRae joined Collingwood.

And McRae, who inherited a list that finished 17th in 2021, and was apparently going nowhere, already has a flag to his name.

 

[carlton_99]

Same year as McRae joined Collingwood.

And McRae, who inherited a list that finished 17th in 2021, and was apparently going nowhere, already has a flag to his name.

You know full well Collingwood's list in 2022 still had a bunch of core players that had been part of successful teams for years. You don't do anything the last three years without those players still on your list. Carlton prior to 2022 hadn't made finals since 2013 and hadn't had much real success at all in the 2000s. They have had to completely build up some sort of winning culture from scratch and it's still a work in progress.

Bottom line, Voss has had a much tougher job than what McRae has had at bringing the teams from where they were to finals and beyond.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Just happy this is a live conversation, it would have been derided early 2024. I reckon the current thread vote 2-1 to hawthorn just reflects who voted.
May the best team win

Agreed campaigner. Good to see the Hawks fans up and about even if you are an intolerable lot.

 

[RCAB]

It's actually a good thing - Carlton have apparently made back to back finals series

Congratulations

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

It's actually a good thing - Carlton have apparently made back to back finals series with only five or six decent players with the rest actually being a detriment to the team to this point. Any improvement from those other 39 players on the list should have us as a shoe in for the flag.

Yeah but Hokball made more tiktoks!

 

[carlton_99]

Congratulations

Maybe read the whole post and you'll get it

 

[RCAB]

Maybe read the whole pos

No

 

[JustaBattler]

I think "be better" needs some clarification for example Carlton's guernsey can't be 'better' it is the best was the best and always will be the best - sory brown and yellow stripes dont cut teh mustard in the be better stakes.

These 'be better' threads are too ambiguous and allow too much squiggle room eg witness the contortions that the Collingwood supporters have put themselves through in arguing that Collingwood was better than Carlton in 2024.

I'd appreciate some clarity around what exactly does 'be better' mean - and then I can respond to a clear definition of the question being put to the forum.

 

[carlton_99]

I think "be better" needs some clarification for example Carlton's guernsey can't be 'better' it is the best was the best and always will be the best - sory brown and yellow stripes dont cut teh mustard in the be better stakes.

These 'be better' threads are too ambiguous and allow too much squiggle room eg witness the contortions that the Collingwood supporters have put themselves through in arguing that Collingwood was better than Carlton in 2024.

I'd appreciate some clarity around what exactly does 'be better' mean - and then I can respond to a clear definition of the question being put to the forum.

There was this from early on which I appreciated and agree with. Furthest progression in finals and if KO'd in same week go to H+A ladder positions. Not sure what others think

Can we all first agree on what “better” means? I will state what I think is obvious- furthest progression in finals, if both knocked out in same round, higher end of H&A season ladder position is next criteria (though am open to view of head to head record in 2025 as being next).

 

[JustaBattler]

There was this from early on which I appreciated and agree with. Furthest progression in finals and if KO'd in same week go to H+A ladder positions. Not sure what others think

well that is an acceptable definiiton and I could work with that - however it woulod be better to change the title of the thread and get rid of the be better reference because be better also implies that to be true - the team that is be better than the other team has to show more progress than the previous year as well...

Carlton therefore woud have to finish hihgher than 8th and Hawthorn woudl have to finish higher than they did last year- if the be better tag was to hold 0ne coudl extend the analogy to include likely outcomes for either team - eg winning less games in H&A than previous year and still finishing higher on the ladder - because the competition is closer...etc etc..

 

[Mr Meow]

There was this from early on which I appreciated and agree with. Furthest progression in finals and if KO'd in same week go to H+A ladder positions. Not sure what others think

Let's say Carlton and Hawthorn both finish on 52 points, but due to Hawthorn's better % they finish 6th, while Carlton finish 8th. Both of them make it to a SF and lose that. But Carlton won both of the h2h games. That's a scenario where I wouldn't be confident saying Hawthorn were better than Carlton. But I wouldn't be confident saying the reverse either. So let's hope it's not that close.

 

[carlton_99]

Let's say Carlton and Hawthorn both finish on 52 points, but due to Hawthorn's better % they finish 6th, while Carlton finish 8th. Both of them make it to a SF and lose that. But Carlton won both of the h2h games. That's a scenario where I wouldn't be confident saying Hawthorn were better than Carlton. But I wouldn't be confident saying the reverse either. So let's hope it's not that close.

I personally don't think the H2H games really matter when evaluating the season. Two games are in no way representative of a 23-game season imo. But if people agree on that as a tiebreaker than fair enough. As long as the criteria is set and consistent I'm content with whatever.

Being "better" according to this thread doesn't mean there has to be a significant difference between the two teams. It just seems silly to have a thread about who is better go for a full season and then end with the conclusion that the teams were the exact same. So I think there should be a team that comes out on top no matter what happens.

 

[Mr Meow]

I personally don't think the H2H games really matter when evaluating the season. Two games are in no way representative of a 23-game season imo. But if people agree on that as a tiebreaker than fair enough. As long as the criteria is set and consistent I'm happy with whatever.

Being "better" according to this thread doesn't mean there has to be a significant difference between the two teams. It just seems silly to have a thread about who is better go for a full season and then end with the conclusion that the teams were the exact same.

What I don't understand is why people can't accept "we were about the same". Like if your sides are separated by only percentage after 24 rounds, and the h2h disagrees with who had the higher %, you can't really get any closer than that. Ideally in such a situation one team would obviously prove themselves better in finals. It just doesn't always happen. All you need to do is get 2 more points, or advance further in finals, and it's concrete. Most times with threads like this teams will separate themselves in those terms.

I can sort of understand the logic behind setting the terms you suggest. Because otherwise both supporters will be able to support their side being better with justification, and to neutrals that basically amounts to a draw. It doesn't mean the actual terms would make one side better than the other though. Which is the actual point of the thread. Not "we will finish on the same amount of points but with 1% better percentage".

 

[Chronz]

I think "be better" needs some clarification for example Carlton's guernsey can't be 'better' it is the best was the best and always will be the best - sory brown and yellow stripes dont cut teh mustard in the be better stakes.

These 'be better' threads are too ambiguous and allow too much squiggle room eg witness the contortions that the Collingwood supporters have put themselves through in arguing that Collingwood was better than Carlton in 2024.

I'd appreciate some clarity around what exactly does 'be better' mean - and then I can respond to a clear definition of the question being put to the forum.

I'm very proud of you JAB. You spelt Collingwood correct twice with capitalisation!