Malthouse - under the pump.

[Gone Critical]

Not sure what any of this has to do with Malthouse, but you need to apply ur own logic here.

If you are potting MK about T.Shaw then you can't pump up Wright or Willo.

Wright, yeah he was a jet in the early 90s, but after 95 he was a shadow of the player he was, after his knee he never was as good. Daisy in 10-11 was better than anything Wright produced post 95.

Williams didn't win any BnFs, Premierships of AA jumpers when playing for Collingwood. Think his best finish in the BnF was 3rd in 97 and that was his only top3 finish. He was my fav player as a kid, but was a massive tease and quite simply didn't deliver consistently at the Pies. He was better for Sydney. Sidey is a consistent big finals performer for us, no problem with listing him ahead of Willo either.

Sneak Burns into MK team instead of T.Shaw, perhaps put Rowdy on a HBF and Clement in pocket but the rest was fine.

Can we get back to talking about how sh1te Carlton of 2014 are

Didnt pot MK re T Shaw just said he didn't play in the last 20 years which was the criteria MK put up. Willow and Wright did play in that time. Loved Tony Shaw as a player.

. Agree have gone on too much about this. Suffice to say I consider it reasonable to have Burns rated as one of the best few players of his generation at Copllingwood. This makes him better than a good honest type for me. I will drop this now.

 

[STFU Donnie]

seriously, where do you guys find the time?

Or the interest?

 

[Gone Critical]

Or the interest?

Then again I have always wondered where people get the time or interest to become involved in threads and discussions they have no interest in.

 

[STFU Donnie]

Then again I have always wondered where people get the time or interest to become involved in threads and discussions they have no interest in.

MM is one of the most significant figures of the last 25 years, like him or loathe him. So a thread explicitly dedicated to him, his philosophy and his future should descend into a pointless pissing contest about whether Burns or Murphy is the better player? Please?

For the record, here's my take: By any measurable criterion Murphy is the better player. But I'd pick Burns in my team every time, based on the intangibles. Good leaders do more than toss the coin, they lift their teammates by doing the things that matter, when they matter most.

Remove the captaincy from Murphy and watch his performance lift almost immediately. Some people can't handle the burden; it's not a failing, it's just their personality.

 

[forwardflanker]

So why wasn't it my day of reckoning last season when Carlton were 0-3? And we ended up finishing the season placed higher than Collingwood. It's an opportunistic moment for you to claim some sort of victory, but it's just a moment in time and at this point, the reality is that we sit just two wins behind the Pies. Moments move on and form changes. Your post as about as melodramatic as I've ever seen.

Last seasons losses:
Round 1 - Richmond: finished higher on the h&a ladder, lost by 5 points
Round 2 - Collingwood: finished higher on the h&a ladder, lost by 3 goals
Round 3 - Geelong: finished in the 4 and made the prelim, lost by 3 goals.

This seasons losses:
Round 1 - Port, top 8 team but went down by 5 goals
Round 2 - Richmond, top 8 side last year but been terrible this season, lost by 2 goals
Round 3 - Essendon, top 8 side, lost 80 points
Round 4 - Melbourne, the basket case of the competition, lost by 4 goals.

Monkey I think the quoted post is easily the worst one you've made this year but I thought I'd spell it out to you. Last season you lost to 2 top 8 sides and a top 4 side. This season you've been thrashed by a top 8 side, beaten by a terribly out of form side that probably won't make the 8 (Richmond) and been beaten convincingly by a team that has been the basket case of the competition for the last 1/2 decade. To justify the losses this season because of last seasons results is laughable though I'm not surprised you tried something like this. Almost everything you post is slanted and unbalanced to equate to Carlton good other guy bad.

 

[Monkey King]

As usual a lot of wriggle and moving of goal posts MK. Your criteria here was last 20 seasons, 95-2014 and "It's a best 22 based on position"

Get over yourself. These were my original selections; nothing sudden about it. If you don't want to believe me, then that's your problem, not mine. I would not put Nathan Brown a best 22. Hell, I don't really rate the guy tbh. So why then would I give him a gig firstly over Pert and then Wakelin? And then leave Gavin Brown out of the team? Staggering that you think your half-arsed take on that selection makes more sense. Brown spent a fair chunk of his career in defense. If you want to swap Brown to a HBF with Clement to a pocket go for it. If you want to put Brown on a wing, then we move someone like Crosisca into defense and Beams or Thomas go to a HFF or the bench; which either pushes Burns out further, or perhaps opens a spot for him on the bench in place of Sidebottom, who was in the side on the virtue of him playing HF and midfield.

Same thing goes with selecting Rhyce Shaw. I mean seriously? Who the hell would select Rhyce Shaw? If you stop and think, the last 20 seasons are 1994-2013. Season 2014 has only just commenced. I think you've tripped yourself up here on where the goal posts originally sat.

Wright was a 200 game goal kicking winger who finished 2nd in a Brownlow. I love Daisy as a player but he took a much longer time than Wright to establish himself as a top AFL player and lasted there a much shorter time. Williams is a 300 game/ 300 goal wingman-forward. AA, Premiership player and multiple B&Fs. Leon was a mercurial inconsistent forward who unfortunately let himself down on the big stage. I loved him but his flaws leave him way behind Willo. Sidebottom is a good 5th to sixth midfielder in our current rotation but suddenly he goes ahead of not only Burns but Williams, Wright and Crosisca.

And how long was Wright a top AFL player for? Had a good start to his career, but for most of the 90's I would not have rated him anywhere near a top player. And yes, Paul Williams was an premiership winning All Australian wingman ... but Beams and Thomas are also premiership winning All Australians. And while Willams won B&F's, the competition in-club for that award was not as strong as what Beams and Thomas faced in their top years. I rate those two ahead of Willams hand down. You could fairly ditch Sidebottom on a HFF and replace him with Williams if you wanted to though; but none of Burns, Crosisca or Wright would displace him from a HFF/Mid role. As for Davis, he's a forward pocket and is the best forward pocket you had over that 20 year period. I don't see an issue with his selection.

Again I state, my best 22 is not definitive, but sure as hell it's not unreasonable either.

 

[Monkey King]

Here we go again. Justifying that Carlton are in no worse a position than they were at this time last year.

I've never said they're not in a worse position than last year. Clearly they are. But that doesn't equate to my day of reckoning. That's just you blokes being overly excited.

 

[Monkey King]

Sneak Burns into MK team instead of T.Shaw, perhaps put Rowdy on a HBF and Clement in pocket but the rest was fine.

Yeah thanks. I didn't think my team was all that bad tbh. And as I stated when I posted it, Burns could sneak on to the bench at best, but would go no further. And I haven't seen anything that suggests otherwise.

I'm sorry, but if you can't fit Burns in that side then you didn't watch the bloke play footy.
And Brown bp, wtf
A.Rocca on the bench when you have Tarrant,Sav and Cloke in the side?
Shaw?
give it a rest MK, Burns would be in there in a heartbeat.

Fair point on A Rocca. Perhaps it's a bit tall. I put Rocca on the bench as he used to cut out in the ruck. I figured that with Tarrant being a decent defender late in his career, he could slide back as a third tall in defense as needed, while Brown went on a wing and Rocca could ruck/forward at times during the game. As I said though, might be a bit tall, but it's not like it was an unreasonable selection.

If Rocca went out then Burns might come in. Which as I said in my original post ... Burns would be on the bench or an emergency at best.

 

[Gone Critical]

MM is one of the most significant figures of the last 25 years, like him or loathe him. So a thread explicitly dedicated to him, his philosophy and his future should descend into a pointless pissing contest about whether Burns or Murphy is the better player? Please?

For the record, here's my take: By any measurable criterion Murphy is the better player. But I'd pick Burns in my team every time, based on the intangibles. Good leaders do more than toss the coin, they lift their teammates by doing the things that matter, when they matter most.

Remove the captaincy from Murphy and watch his performance lift almost immediately. Some people can't handle the burden; it's not a failing, it's just their personality.

Granted we got a bit sidetracked. Discussion began around the merits of MM coached teams at Collingwood and Carlton. That was the context. I haven't been involved in any talk putting Murphy down. He is an elite midfielder and better than Burns.

 

[Monkey King]

To justify the losses this season because of last seasons results is laughable though I'm not surprised you tried something like this.

Your comment was that we are 0-4 and it's my day of reckoning. So it's a fair question as to why it wasn't my day of reckoning when we were 0-3 last season. And so now you add a qualifier and start carrying on as though that qualifier was part of your original comment. Now I won't argue Carlton aren't in horrible form. We are. But I will argue that we are a better team than that formlime indicates. So while you take this moment to be an opportunistic hater, I take this moment for what it is ... a moment. I've followed footy long enough to know that things can change pretty quickly from the first month of the season. So while you may be overly excited, I'm not overly pessimistic. And you're just going to have to deal with that mate, coz four rounds doesn't mean s**t in the overall scheme of things and to me, you just look silly when trying to pretend that it does.

 

[STFU Donnie]

Granted we got a bit sidetracked. Discussion began around the merits of MM coached teams at Collingwood and Carlton. That was the context. I haven't been involved in any talk putting Murphy down. He is an elite midfielder and better than Burns.

Do you agree that the captaincy is a burden too far him? That he would return to his best without it?

 

[Gone Critical]

Do you agree that the captaincy is a burden too far him? That he would return to his best without it?

Agree it looks a burden at the moment but I suspect that would be the case for whoever was the new captain having a team start like Carlton has this year. He is a class player and I reckon will come good and be a good captain. Thought he was the right choice at the time and haven't changed that view. It would be a bad look to change now. Much better he toughs it out.

 

[blue healer]

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

I reckon should be Burns vs 2013 Carlton list

 

[jimmy35]

I reckon should be Burns vs 2013 Carlton list

One of those is full of heart and one isn't.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Your comment was that we are 0-4 and it's my day of reckoning. So it's a fair question as to why it wasn't my day of reckoning when we were 0-3 last season.

Last season you lost to three good teams
Last season your defeats were honorable
Four is 33% more than three.
Carlton did not make finals on their merits
Early last season Mick was finding his feet and the Blues players were adjusting to his game plan (or thats the story we heard)

 

[Shatterpoint]

The coach can't do much when the team are a bunch of soft utensils, with no passion or pride.

 

[Gone Critical]

Your comment was that we are 0-4 and it's my day of reckoning. So it's a fair question as to why it wasn't my day of reckoning when we were 0-3 last season. And so now you add a qualifier and start carrying on as though that qualifier was part of your original comment. Now I won't argue Carlton aren't in horrible form. We are. But I will argue that we are a better team than that formlime indicates. So while you take this moment to be an opportunistic hater, I take this moment for what it is ... a moment. I've followed footy long enough to know that things can change pretty quickly from the first month of the season. So while you may be overly excited, I'm not overly pessimistic. And you're just going to have to deal with that mate, coz four rounds doesn't mean s**t in the overall scheme of things and to me, you just look silly when trying to pretend that it does.

I am a fan of holding your line on footy opinions. Too many blow in the wind. So congats MK for sticking to your guns. Carlton of the last few seasosns have been a hard team to gauge and maybe they will bring it back. Win the next 2-3 and people will quickly change their view. It's a reasonable chance of happening.

Still I don't agree "4 rounds means s**t in the overall scheme of things". As a marker it is a rare occurance for a team to start 0-4 and make the finals. This week becomes very big though. The Dogs are improved but not a realistic finals side. Carlton have to win this week. A loss would make finals a mathematical possibility but not a realistic one. It would be season over re finals chances. Looking at the ladder over the last 10 + years very few teams that are not in the 8 by round 7 make it so 0-5 means gonski.

It will be interesting over the next few weeks to see how much of Carltons form is a temporary slip or a sign that the current list has slipped to the lower parts of the ladder.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I am a fan of holding your line on footy opinions. Too many blow in the wind. So congats MK for sticking to your guns.

If only it were true that he had stuck to his guns. The only constant has been his staunch support of Carlton but his actual arguments have been flip-flopping all over the place. Early last year it was all about honorable losses and improved defence. Then it was the second half "trend" of winning slightly more games than they lost....in inverted commas because his "trend" had a start date and an end date. Then there was the denial that Carlton made finals on their merits. Now its denial that the club is in freefall. And now he seems to have gone quiet on the "Collingwood shouldnt have sacked Malthouse argument, seeing our transition and mini rebuild is starting to take shape while Malthouse is proving that hes no messiah at his new club.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

A loss would make finals a mathematical possibility but not a realistic one. It would be season over re finals chances.

They probably need to win 12 out of 18 as it is. No team has made finals winning 11 since 2010 which incidentally was also Carlton

 

[Bosun]

If only it were true that he had stuck to his guns. The only constant has been his staunch support of Carlton but his actual arguments have been flip-flopping all over the place. Early last year it was all about honorable losses and improved defence. Then it was the second half "trend" of winning slightly more games than they lost....in inverted commas because his "trend" had a start date and an end date. Then there was the denial that Carlton made finals on their merits. Now its denial that the club is in freefall. And now he seems to have gone quiet on the "Collingwood shouldnt have sacked Malthouse argument, seeing our transition and mini rebuild is starting to take shape while Malthouse is proving that hes no messiah at his new club.

To be honest there's a fair % of supporters that didn't see Malthouse as the messiah, the board did. Decision has been made, he really now needs to get the blokes playing for him and he needs to adjust his gameplan to suit their strengths and get the confidence back.

Daisy hasn't set the world alight yet however I am happy to give him a bit of time, if he can produce his best form it will be a massive boost.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

To be honest there's a fair % of supporters that didn't see Malthouse as the messiah, the board did. Decision has been made, he really now needs to get the blokes playing for him and he needs to adjust his gameplan to suit their strengths and get the confidence back.

Daisy hasn't set the world alight yet however I am happy to give him a bit of time, if he can produce his best form it will be a massive boost.

Totally. My comments were directed at one poster not the general Carlton population, many of whom are quite pragmatic.

Daisy is a gun, we all know that. But its been a few years now since he consistently produced his best. And whether or not he was the type of player CArtlon needed is another question. Butyes you have no choice but to give him time.

 

[Monkey King]

If only it were true that he had stuck to his guns. The only constant has been his staunch support of Carlton but his actual arguments have been flip-flopping all over the place. Early last year it was all about honorable losses and improved defence. Then it was the second half "trend" of winning slightly more games than they lost....in inverted commas because his "trend" had a start date and an end date. Then there was the denial that Carlton made finals on their merits. Now its denial that the club is in freefall. And now he seems to have gone quiet on the "Collingwood shouldnt have sacked Malthouse argument, seeing our transition and mini rebuild is starting to take shape while Malthouse is proving that hes no messiah at his new club.

LOL. That doesn't even make sense. The points you raise aren't even contradictory.

Honourable losses - Never used the term. You've just made this up. I did note over the preseason that win-loss records alone deliver a poor insight into actual performances. And I haven't once taken a contrary stance to that position.

The "trend" you speak of was a back end comparison across a whole season. Not sure how you look for a trend on anything other having a start date and end date. Bizarre little comment. And again, nothing contradictory about it at all.

Carlton made the finals on their merits. Once Essendon were ruled to be illegitimate contenders, there were a number of teams in line to take 8th spot going into the last round. Carlton, on their merits, were among them. And on their merits, they won their final game to secure the spot. This was no arbitrary gift. But again, I'm confused ... how is this not sticking to my guns???

Denial the club are in free-fall. Yes. Absolutely. The team has had a shocking start to the season. Does that mean we're back to where we were before Judd arrived as you claimed. No. That would just be a stupid over-exaggeration. But again ... how is this not sticking to my guns?

Haven't changed my thoughts on Collingwood's mistake in getting rid of Malthouse at a time the team were primed for further success. It was a dumb move. And now you say your mini-rebuild is starting to take shape. LOL. All you've done so far this year is slip further down the ladder.

Clearly none of this has anything to do with not sticking to my guns. It's just waffle, waffle and more waffle.

 

[Monkey King]

I am a fan of holding your line on footy opinions. Too many blow in the wind. So congats MK for sticking to your guns. Carlton of the last few seasosns have been a hard team to gauge and maybe they will bring it back. Win the next 2-3 and people will quickly change their view. It's a reasonable chance of happening.

Thanks GC. I've seen too much football over the course to let four rounds of footy blow up into meaning more than it does. All it tells me, is that we're playing some god awful football at the moment. It doesn't tell me we've got a god awful list, or that we'll have a god awful season. I mean, it may turn out that way, but certainly I need a bit more than four rounds of feedback to get that worked up. I'll leave such things to the more excitable on this forum.

Still I don't agree "4 rounds means s**t in the overall scheme of things". As a marker it is a rare occurance for a team to start 0-4 and make the finals. This week becomes very big though.

I'm not just talking about this season. Coming from four down is going to be a challenge in anyone's books to make finals. In saying the overall scheme of things, I'm talking not just about this season though, but the list and the years ahead. Four rounds of poor footy doesn't dictate how that's going to play out. And yet that's what some are claiming in this thread. I'm a far more patient and reflective person than that, so I'm not going to swallow that line in a hurry.

 

[Lockyer24]

Gibbs isn't in Burns postcode as an effective footballer. More skilled yeah better nahhh.

 

[Fadge]

Carlton made the finals on their merits. Once Essendon were ruled to be illegitimate contenders, there were a number of teams in line to take 8th spot going into the last round. Carlton, on their merits, were among them. And on their merits, they won their final game to secure the spot. This was no arbitrary gift. But again, I'm confused ... how is this not sticking to my guns???

'Carlton made the finals on their merits'* (though it took the 1 in 117 year event of a team being disqualified from the finals series to enable this).

'Carlton won their final game on their merits'* (though the team they were playing had put their cue in the rack in preparation for their final the following week).

Why does every Carlton do seem to have an asterisk associated with it?