Malthouse - under the pump.

[E Shed]

Freo were criticized for trading picks 1, 20 and 36 for trent croad and Luke McPharlin. But freo went from last in 2001 to finals in 2003.

Things are interesting with hindsight aren't they? I'd probably do that deal again if I could have 19 year old versions of those 2 players again.
There's your backline lynchpins for 10 years.

 

[Freomaniac]

Things are interesting with hindsight aren't they? I'd probably do that deal again if I could have 19 year old versions of those 2 players again.
There's your backline lynchpins for 10 years.

We also traded pick 17 for Jeff Farmer in 2001. He had some good years as well.

 

[Tragic sainter]

Things are interesting with hindsight aren't they? I'd probably do that deal again if I could have 19 year old versions of those 2 players again.
There's your backline lynchpins for 10 years.

If you had hindsight you wouldn't do the deal and you would take Chris Judd with 1.

 

[Falchoon]

Murphys best is better than Burns best but youd expect that from a number one draft pick.

...post Josh Fraser

 

[PendlesPremiers]

When we take a look at it objectively though ...

Murphy 2013 versus Burns best ever season in 2003

Disposals
Murphy - 512
Burns - 505
Contested Possession
Murphy - 228
Burns - 228

Goals
Murphy - 18
Burns - 28

Goal Assists
Murphy - 12
Burns - 16

Inside 50
Murphy - 79
Burns - 78

Tackles
Murphy - 79
Burns - 78

1%ers
Murphy - 21
Burns - 24

Rebound 50
Murphy - 21
Burns - 26

Brownlow Votes
Murphy - 10
Burns - 10


So what we see, is what you call pathetic from Murphy matches up very well against the best Burns ever produced. Yes Murphy of 2013 was a pale comparison on what he was in 2011 when he was one of the best in the comp, so what does that say for Burns career?

What tops this off nicely is that Murphy battled through last year with knee issues and played with a broken jaw at one point. He was also tagged incessantly, while for Burns this was likely a rarity. And despite all this, Murphy's pathetic season comes up pretty good in a comparison.

At this point, all your derision of Murphy essentially equate to you trolling Burns as a player.

Oh MK, even the most basic statistical analysis would lead you to abandon this foolish reasoning.

Did you consider, for example, that the way football was played in 2003 is very different to how it was played in 2013?

2003: The Bulldogs led the league in average disposals per game, with 310.
2013: Hawthorn with 373.

Essentially a 20% increase- so surely you'd increase Burns' disposals up to 591 to be fair to compare with Murphy's 512

2003: Hawthorn led the league with 46 tackles per game.
2013: Sydney with 71!

A 35% increase, so lets bump Burns' tackles up to 105, once again with fairness in mind, to compare to Murphy's 79.

Suddenly Scott Burns is a mightily impressive player, don't you think?

 

[E Shed]

If you had hindsight you wouldn't do the deal and you would take Chris Judd with 1.

Nah, he'd just bugger off to Carlton for reasons known only to himself

 

[yaco55]

Another? Its a myth that Carlton had a big cleanout last year. They barely have started. They cleaned out some VFL players who were never going to make the grade and lost Betts who they didnt really want to lose in the first place (although it probably suited Malthouse as he could make room for Thomas). The only players remotely who could be considered "cleanout" delistings were Laidler who has limited skills but a fantastic attitude, and Hampson who was a third option ruckman that was getting paid way too much to be playing in the VFL.

Whatever way you spin it when you let 10 players go it's a clean out. You can't delist 20 players in a year.

 

[yaco55]

You like so many others are over complicating a very very simple game. You either have the players or you don't and Carlton don't and Carlton don't. Malthouse may have been "sold" the list a bit by Carlton and may have expected/been told it would be better but you can never judge a clubs list until you get in there and have a good look under the hood.

No coach can walk up to any list with a magic wand and turn them all into stars. No coach can be handed a list at the last minute and make the big calls, especially as he wouldn't have seen half of them play. How can you delist players you haven't seen play? Is this some sort of magic that he's meant to possess? This is just crap the media make up and fans out there believe. Get a good recruiter under a coach who is a good list manager and the coach all of a sudden is labeled as good at getting the best out of his players or turning guys into stars and all credit goes to the coach. People have no idea just how simple and basic football is, there is no magic in it, players who can play generally do, those who can't, can't.

Because the coach has a minor, rather than a major influence in list management. The major planks of the Footy department would have advised Malthouse about the strength of the list.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I'm not interested in silver linings. I'm interested in next week and the week after. No point throwing in the towel at round 4. That would be mindblowingly pissweak. What I will do is back my club to turn it around, just as I would back myself to turn it around if in a similarly shitty situation. If they can't, then there will come a time when serious changes have to made. Round 4 is not that time IMO.

Granted, round 4 is still too soon to turn out everyone at the club. I remember in 2010 we were 1 - 6 but still managed to make finals.

The question is how long do you give the club to turn it around? When there's no mathematical chance of making finals?

 

[the distributer]

Burns was pretty overrated as a mid IMO, those who know (as in really know) will tell you he wasn't the hardest runner going around, IMO he was played out of position for most of his career, if he was around today he'd be a half back-back pocket type who could pinch hit as a small fwd-mid, jack of all trades master of none type, he was a fairly good leader.

Simpson has a way to go before being compared to him IMO.

 

[Crankyhawk]

+1. Carlton are suffering a genuine identity crisis. There whole ideology of buying stuff isn't compatible with the modern game. There are two very difficult problems facing Carlton:
1. Is to actually accept that what worked 20 years ago doesn't work now.
2. Then actually finding a new club identity that can take create a culture of success at the club.

Isn't that what free agency is about?

 

[Crankyhawk]

Getting Judd was a dead end for Carlton.

No, Carlton was a dead end for Judd. Fortunately for him one with a large bag of $.

 

[HirdyLannister]

Shouldn't this thread be moves to the polls board?
Burns vs Murphy

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

...post Josh Fraser

We expected more from Fraser too but Malthouse destroyed him. Not that its particularly relevant to a comparison of a couple of on-ballers.

More than happy to engage with Blues fans on a Kreuzer vs Fraser discussion though.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Whatever way you spin it when you let 10 players go it's a clean out. You can't delist 20 players in a year.

Lots of clubs cleaned out ten players last year. It doesnt mean a lot.

 

[Monkey King]

Oh MK, even the most basic statistical analysis would lead you to abandon this foolish reasoning.

Did you consider, for example, that the way football was played in 2003 is very different to how it was played in 2013?

2003: The Bulldogs led the league in average disposals per game, with 310.
2013: Hawthorn with 373.

Essentially a 20% increase- so surely you'd increase Burns' disposals up to 591 to be fair to compare with Murphy's 512

2003: Hawthorn led the league with 46 tackles per game.
2013: Sydney with 71!

Not so interested in team totals, but you have a valid point in noting the difference in the game between now and then. I'd prefer to look at individual players myself though, so for your two examples of disposals and tackles let's look at the league leaders in those years. No.1 in disposals 2013 = 717. No.1 in disposals 2003 = 650. That's a 10% increase. No.1 in tackles 2013 = 163. No.1 in tackles 2003 = 140. A 16% increase.

Suddenly Scott Burns is a mightily impressive player, don't you think?

This part of your post I found most amusing; forwardflanker is claiming Murphy's season in 2013 was pathetic. And we're comparing this pathetic season with the best season Burns ever produced in his whole career. And now suddenly, with just a 10-16% increase on these stats, we go from pathetic to mightily impressive, when actually, if we're going off the original comment, you could say the best Burns ever produced was 16% above pathetic and more so, his career generally bordered on being pathetic. (note: I'm not actually claiming this myself, but it seems to be what ff is saying going by his logic)

 

[Monkey King]

If Murphys career ended tomorrow the answer would be no. Fair chance he will eventually return to his AA form of 2011 before he retires and the answer will be yes. Impossible to call while he's mid career.

The question was "do you think Burns is better than Murphy?" I'm not sure of your answer. Did you get it backwards?

As it stands now, Murphy is an All Australian, Best & Fairest winner and AFLCA award winner who has had a significantly better career statistically as well. If Murphy's career was cut short tomorrow, he'd be remembered as the better player. And rightly so. Suggesting otherwise is a joke.

Put it this way, last time Collingwood had a run close to as good as Carlton did in 2011, we won a flag.

Yeah nah. If you were without your No.1 ruckman, No.1 forward and most in-form midfielder for that final game, you wouldn't have won a flag. You're living in a dream world.

 

[Monkey King]

Sorry don't try and screw what I have said.

Likewise with Simpson who I also admire I have pegged him in the Burns level. Am happy for you to have him higher and me Burns higher but that is splitting hairs. They belong roughly together.

Not screwing with what you said. When I nominated Simpson as a pretty good match, you started going on about me lacking balance, being biased and ranking down Collingwood players, before saying "I agree Simpson has similarities to him but is fairly clearly a lesser version when you stack their careers".

I haven't denigrated your Carlton group with cries of soft, pathetic and front runners. Not sure why you want to involve me in that.

Not you. But being a forum, there's plenty who cut into discussions with such comments. That's who I was cuing.

Maybe it all comes down to definition of what a good honest player is.

Perhaps it does. Being a good honest player is not an insult and I think it actually describes Burns quite well. That there's been a few Collingwood posters who agree with the assessment, shows me I'm not all that far off.

I don't disagree too much with your assessment of players from 1985-2005 - I'd say 12-13 players I'd rate ahead of him or arguable from your list - however I would note other players who played (not debuted) during this time like Millane, Daicos, Shaw. And another like Heath Shaw who did. Although, given Burns played between 1995-2008, I think it would be better to make this period of assessment from say 1990-2010, in which case the list becomes a little different, with players like Beams, Pendlebury, Reid and co coming into play. I think when you look at his standing among such a group, calling him a good honest player is pretty much bang on.

 

[Fadge]

Yeah nah. If you were without your No.1 ruckman, No.1 forward and most in-form midfielder for that final game, you wouldn't have won a flag. You're living in a dream world.

If you were any good you would have comfortably been in the top four in 2011, given the run you had. Zero from seven against top four teams suggests a fair gap, despite you being 'less than a kick from a Prelim'.

Kreuzer, Gibbs and Waite would have been sitting in the stands with the likes of Fraser, John Anthony, Lockyer and O'Bree had they have been on Collingwood's list in 2010.

 

[forwardflanker]

Yeah nah. If you were without your No.1 ruckman, No.1 forward and most in-form midfielder for that final game, you wouldn't have won a flag. You're living in a dream world.

I guess that's the difference between a flag team and a mid tier team of honest battlers who've overachieved and had a great run with injury. Waite, Kreuzer and and Gibbs would not have got games in our best 22 in 2010. Actually the fact you rate Gibbs as the form midfielder says everything about where Carlton were at then. Right now the decision to shaft Ratten is looking pretty awful. On the other hand, the decision to shaft MM is looking pretty darn good.

 

[forwardflanker]

Whatever way you spin it when you let 10 players go it's a clean out. You can't delist 20 players in a year.

It's a pretty awful clean out then considering they had 3 picks and only one of them in the top 38. I mean the Pies have been finishing in the 8 for years and we still managed to have significantly better picks than Carlton in 2013, something must be wrong with the system.

MM was a great coach at the Pies but the work of the people around him often go unrecognized. The fact he is struggling so much at Carlton illustrates to me how vast the gulf is between the top Victorian clubs and the mid-lower tier clubs. Bad players, bad staff, bad recruiters, disunity etc - I mean there is literally nothing to work with there. I think it will take them at least 5 years to get out of this mess. I cite Melbourne as an example who I think were in a very similar situation to the Blues quite a while ago.

 

[Monkey King]

If you were any good you would have comfortably been in the top four in 2011, given the run you had. Zero from seven against top four teams suggests a fair gap, despite you being 'less than a kick from a Prelim'.

Kreuzer, Gibbs and Waite would have been sitting in the stands with the likes of Fraser, John Anthony, Lockyer and O'Bree had they have been on Collingwood's list in 2010.

Blab, blab, blab. "If you were any good ..." blab blab blab. Anthony, Lockley and O'Bree. LMAO!

No mate. No.1 ruckman. No.1 KPF. And No.1 in-form midfielder. Didn't all go right for the Blues. You're just talking crap, even you're unaware of it.

 

[Monkey King]

I guess that's the difference between a flag team and a mid tier team of honest battlers who've overachieved and had a great run with injury. Waite, Kreuzer and and Gibbs would not have got games in our best 22 in 2010. Actually the fact you rate Gibbs as the form midfielder says everything about where Carlton were at then. Right now the decision to shaft Ratten is looking pretty awful. On the other hand, the decision to shaft MM is looking pretty darn good.

Ah. The old circular logic. Nah. Let's keep this straight up. If you'd lost your No.1 ruckman, No.1 forward and most in-form mid for the Grand Final you would not be saying everything clicked and it's doubtful you would have won. Saying everything clicked for the Blues that season is just ignorant.

FWIW though, you're kidding yourself if you don't think a fit Waite and in-form Gibbs wouldn't have a got a gig in that side. Gibbs averaged 25 touches and 2 goals a games over his last couple of months of that season and was influencing games. And Waite took more contested marks than Dawes despite playing half the games. The only one who wouldn't have likely played is Kreuzer, although he was one of the in-form rucks in the comp prior to going down with injury, so who knows; he may have got Leigh Brown's spot come finals. A really foolish comment here when you had guys like Goldsack and Blair in your team.

 

[Monkey King]

It's a pretty awful clean out then considering they had 3 picks and only one of them in the top 38.

It's called trading Ironic that lack of trading is what you criticised Carlton for last year. This year it is seems to be active trading.

Let's face it; you're a hater and will hate no matter what's actually going on.

I mean the Pies have been finishing in the 8 for years and we still managed to have significantly better picks than Carlton in 2013, something must be wrong with the system.

Umm ... you finished below Carlton last year right? Not sure you understand how this draft thingy works

 

[Gone Critical]

Perhaps it does. Being a good honest player is not an insult and I think it actually describes Burns quite well. That there's been a few Collingwood posters who agree with the assessment, shows me I'm not all that far off.

I don't disagree too much with your assessment of players from 1985-2005 - I'd say 12-13 players I'd rate ahead of him or arguable from your list - however I would note other players who played (not debuted) during this time like Millane, Daicos, Shaw. And another like Heath Shaw who did. Although, given Burns played between 1995-2008, I think it would be better to make this period of assessment from say 1990-2010, in which case the list becomes a little different, with players like Beams, Pendlebury, Reid and co coming into play. I think when you look at his standing among such a group, calling him a good honest player is pretty much bang on.

Of course using he description of "a good honest player " can be an insult. If you said GAJ is just a good honset player you are clearly running him down. No matter what definition you apply GAJ doesn't fit that. My 1st thought is you were selling Burns short but it depends on definition. If you say you apply such a term to all bar club champions Burns fits the bill. In his generation he is considered in the top 5-6 or if you stretch it out to 20 years we agree he is around 10-15 in the order. So a club like the Collingwood teams Burns played in, rated as a good but not great side, would expect to get maybe 1 player who is a good honest type or better every 2 years or so. The other 15 or so players that might enter a club over that time would be in the average to poor level.

Means you have a very strct definition of what a good player is, I would be more relaxed than you.

As to Daicos, Millane and T Shaw I didn't include them as I was looking at the cohort of players who crossed careers over with Burns. They were of an earlier generation. Heath Shaw just does cross over and could conceivably fit just into your definition of a good honest type. However his career to date is well behind the one Burns produced so I didn't really see him as relevent.