Game Day Official Practice Match - Carlton v Sydney Game Day

[ItsAllAboutMe]

I have a question: how the utter * is that disappointing?

At no point prior to last season has LOB had any selection pressure. He had Newnes, then bunk; Setterfield wasn't a wing, Cottrell (who I have hopes for, but would take a decent amount of improvement for him to come one) and no-one else on the list except Walsh could play the role.

If the idea is that we want good performance on the wing, it really shouldn't matter whether it's LOB or Hollands providing it so long as someone is performing at a decent level. Hollands putting his best foot forwards isn't even terribly surprising; it was in his predraft notes that he was nearly AFL ready in terms of competitiveness, running, disposal; it was noted that other clubs were surprised no-one took him before us; a great many draft watchers had him as the best prospect to play wing at AFL level in the draft.

The idea that Player X failing to capitalize on an opportunity in a preseason scratch match is disappointing is kind of silly in only the way that sports fans can be silly. The reason why we have practice matches is to see how players are tracking, not only for selection purposes but preparation. If a player is not performing they can check out why, try and work through it.

But no, gotta leave it all out on the park, pride in the jumper, hard nosed, squared jawed, socks pulled up, mud on the shorts otherwise you don't look like you got your hands dirty performative stuff.

Mmmm interesting post and a lot to digest.. The reason i thought LOB was disappointing is that I like a lot of the Carlton fans had backed him in to come good on the natural skills and the football ability we thought he possessed, that we hoped would help the team in a clear area of weakness for the side. Acres was always going to be first choice on the wing and the other side to be made up from LOB, Cotters & Hollands.. I thought LOB was the natural fit, however in 2 practice matches Hollands has shown more desire and ability, which is great for Hollands but not so great for LOB.... People could say the same about the poor showing from Dow, however I personally had already put a line through him being an AFL standard player.

 

[Coops93]

I think we saw in the span of 2 practice games similar issues that have dogged us for years. That's why there's been so much discussion despite them just being practice games.

We hope for LOB to finally come on, yet in the space of 2 practice games he's shown exactly as he always does. Looks promising one week then looks miles and miles off the next. Plowman looked ok last week and then boneheaded mistakes. Young looks physically not up to it and lacks aggression when pushed. Our ruckmen are limited, TDK cannot play forward, I've said it since the Suns game last yr, glad others are finally noticing it too, Pitt also can't play forward. Our smalls look dangerous one week then non existent the next.

None of these are new things and I think that's what has generated so much angst. We hoped these things had turned a corner but in the space of 2 games it looks like same old.

They are practice games, and yes we were missing a lot of our best players, but that to me is why there's at least cause for discussion. Again the tale of us being dependent on our stars and our mid carders not being up to it comes to the fore. Our best players go out, or don't perform, and then the guys we need to step up show they can't. You can dismiss it as a practice game and say guys were saving themselves - and maybe that's true - but guys are fighting for positions in rd 1 and put up an effort like that? The likes of Plowman and LOB are fighting for their careers, they can't afford to half arse anything, let alone gametime. It's really not a good enough excuse. In the absence of your best players the next level should be falling over themselves to show something, particularly in pre-season when spots are up for grabs in rd 1. Instead our guys coasted through.

Apologies for beating up on the same guys everyone does (Plow, LOB) but they're the clearest examples of the point I'm trying to make. It's not just them, a collective effort like that isn't just down to 2 guys.

Also, as an aside to the individuals, it certainly doesn't do anything to quell the rumblings of us being poor travellers, either. A definite watch as a collective this season is interstate form.

 

[TENACIOUS]

Ahead of what i think is going to be a disappointing start to the year...

If the players on the disappointing list are the guys who are 16-22 on the depth chart, the problem is coaching and team structure, not the players. The young blokes who haven't played a game often outperform them because they just play a bit more on instinct, put in triple the effort out of excitement, etc. IMO it is a huge worry if the debatants look decent and the fringe guys suck...

Those fringe types are by definition going to have some weaknesses. It's up to the coaching staff to put together a structure that hides them - puts them in spots where they can succeed, makes sure the ball ends up with the 'right' players at the right time, makes their role and positioning clear.

We do NOT have that in place. Now, this was a practice game, with key parts of the team rested and new things being tried, so hopefully it just reflects that. I'm very worried about Voss though (his record at Brisbane was very unimpressive after year 1) and this sort of thing is a huge alarm bell for me.

IMO, Voss is fine...
We have an experienced assistant coaching group + Sayers & Cook, that have nothing but praise for Voss...

Problem is, our list isn't complete yet...
The second half of our list is either extremely young or for different reasons not as good as the top teams...

 

[Blue__Balls]

Mmmm interesting post and a lot to digest.. The reason i thought LOB was disappointing is that I like a lot of the Carlton fans had backed him in to come good on the natural skills and the football ability we thought he possessed, that we hoped would help the team in a clear area of weakness for the side. Acres was always going to be first choice on the wing and the other side to be made up from LOB, Cotters & Hollands.. I thought LOB was the natural fit, however in 2 practice matches Hollands has shown more desire and ability, which is great for Hollands but not so great for LOB.... People could say the same about the poor showing from Dow, however I personally had already put a line through him being an AFL standard player.

Go back and watch the Pies game and I think you'll find LOB was much more impactful than Hollands. Ollie was fine for a first year player, no concerns there, but we played through LOB regularly and he looked like he'd taken a big step forward.

In the Sydney game I don't think we targeted him at all. Sydney dictated most of the first quarter, by the second quarter the rain had started to set in. LOB held his width most of the day as he'd be instructed to, and any time we won the ball we dump-kicked it forward to try and claim territory instead of peeling off the back of the stoppage and using the width of the ground to manufacture an entry. Transition play was usually via long kicks to talls down the line and we rarely made any effort to switch the play across half back or give off to a passing runner.

Hollands isn't just a winger, he's a lot like Walsh in that he has the game to operate around the contest as well, which is what he was doing and why he found a bit of the ball.

That Sydney game looked, if we're being honest, like a captain's run for the senior blokes and an audition for the young guys. Cripps, McKay and Newman rested. Saad, Weiters, Young, LOB, Acres, Fisher, Kennedy, Cerra, and Hewett all coasting. TDK and Pitto just getting some minutes. The only established players I reckon you could say were giving it their all were Doc, SOS and Charlie, and I'm not sure those guys ever turn it off. Comparatively we had Cowan, Hollands, Cincotta, Owies, Dow, Plowman and Ed all working hard to try and impress. Motlop and Honey looked like they were working too, but just didn't have the structure around them to help them at all.

The objective of that Sydney game wasn't to try and bed down the gameplan or play senior guys into form. It was to give some kids a run with senior bodies around them and play in a way that ensured we didn't lose any more key personnel before the important games start.

 

[FitzroyBlueBagger]

As disappointing as the Swans practice game was for a number of reasons, burning a certain player for a bad showing isn’t quite fair when most of the players on the night were ordinary or non sited, let’s see how Round 1 goes first before throwing players under the bus…

 

[The Return of the Paf]

Ahead of what i think is going to be a disappointing start to the year...

If the players on the disappointing list are the guys who are 16-22 on the depth chart, the problem is coaching and team structure, not the players. The young blokes who haven't played a game often outperform them because they just play a bit more on instinct, put in triple the effort out of excitement, etc. IMO it is a huge worry if the debatants look decent and the fringe guys suck...

Those fringe types are by definition going to have some weaknesses. It's up to the coaching staff to put together a structure that hides them - puts them in spots where they can succeed, makes sure the ball ends up with the 'right' players at the right time, makes their role and positioning clear.

We do NOT have that in place. Now, this was a practice game, with key parts of the team rested and new things being tried, so hopefully it just reflects that. I'm very worried about Voss though (his record at Brisbane was very unimpressive after year 1) and this sort of thing is a huge alarm bell for me.

If it's as many as seven players that you have to "hide" by 'coaching and structures' then it's a list management problem. Lesser-name players performing to the required level (and sometimes beyond) because they have found a niche at a club in form is not the same thing as 'hiding' players. You can have a pocket player or two that you can work around, or a bench player who you can bring on mostly when the sting is out of the game but that's about it.

 

[charred_fate]

Go back and watch the Pies game and I think you'll find LOB was much more impactful than Hollands. Ollie was fine for a first year player, no concerns there, but we played through LOB regularly and he looked like he'd taken a big step forward.

In the Sydney game I don't think we targeted him at all. Sydney dictated most of the first quarter, by the second quarter the rain had started to set in. LOB held his width most of the day as he'd be instructed to, and any time we won the ball we dump-kicked it forward to try and claim territory instead of peeling off the back of the stoppage and using the width of the ground to manufacture an entry. Transition play was usually via long kicks to talls down the line and we rarely made any effort to switch the play across half back or give off to a passing runner.

Hollands isn't just a winger, he's a lot like Walsh in that he has the game to operate around the contest as well, which is what he was doing and why he found a bit of the ball.

That Sydney game looked, if we're being honest, like a captain's run for the senior blokes and an audition for the young guys. Cripps, McKay and Newman rested. Saad, Weiters, Young, LOB, Acres, Fisher, Kennedy, Cerra, and Hewett all coasting. TDK and Pitto just getting some minutes. The only established players I reckon you could say were giving it their all were Doc, SOS and Charlie, and I'm not sure those guys ever turn it off. Comparatively we had Cowan, Hollands, Cincotta, Owies, Dow, Plowman and Ed all working hard to try and impress. Motlop and Honey looked like they were working too, but just didn't have the structure around them to help them at all.

The objective of that Sydney game wasn't to try and bed down the gameplan or play senior guys into form. It was to give some kids a run with senior bodies around them and play in a way that ensured we didn't lose any more key personnel before the important games start.

In no way is LOB in any position to coast, nor deserving of being grouped with the players mentioned. He is as vulnerable as any player in the 22.

Having watched most of the game against Swans again (and the Tiggers’ game), I regained some confidence. We did control the game/territory for significant periods, which wasn’t a bad result considering we’ll be getting 6 very good players back for round 1.

 

[Blue__Balls]

In no way is LOB in any position to coast, nor deserving of being grouped with the players mentioned. He is as vulnerable as any player in the 22.

Having watched most of the game against Swans again (and the Tiggers’ game), I regained some confidence. We did control the game/territory for significant periods, which wasn’t a bad result considering we’ll be getting 6 very good players back for round 1.

See, I don't believe he is. Not based on his preseason and the first practice match, anyway, I'm sure some will hold lingering bias from previous seasons. I think LOB is firmly entrenched in the best 22 for the start of this season, and he didn't need to go kamikaze-ing into contests last week to prove a point. Combine that with the way the game unfolded (wet weather, territory game) and he simply didn't have much of an opportunity to get involved. If he had decided to wander across the field to try and get some cheap selfish handballs out the back, he'd probably have been reamed by the coaches for glory-hunting instead of holding his width as he's been coached to do.

It continues to baffle me how much stock many posters put into that practice match. That being said, I'm glad you've taken the time for a rewatch and seen a bit of what I saw.

 

[FRUMPY]

See, I don't believe he is. Not based on his preseason and the first practice match, anyway, I'm sure some will hold lingering bias from previous seasons. I think LOB is firmly entrenched in the best 22 for the start of this season, and he didn't need to go kamikaze-ing into contests last week to prove a point. Combine that with the way the game unfolded (wet weather, territory game) and he simply didn't have much of an opportunity to get involved. If he had decided to wander across the field to try and get some cheap selfish handballs out the back, he'd probably have been reamed by the coaches for glory-hunting instead of holding his width as he's been coached to do.

It continues to baffle me how much stock many posters put into that practice match. That being said, I'm glad you've taken the time for a rewatch and seen a bit of what I saw.

I think he will be in the 22 round 1.

Issue with players like him, is his best isn't that good. He is an ok AFL player at his best.

So when he isn't at his best he is not AFL standard. Couple of games like that in a row and he'll find himself in the VFL (especially with more depth on the wings)

On CPH2005 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[JustaBattler]

It continues to baffle me how much stock many posters put into that practice match. That being said, I'm glad you've taken the time for a rewatch and seen a bit of what I saw.

TDK was shown to be nowhere near the effectiveness of what a bloke of his height and size should be in the forward line. Harry's absence made it easy for teh Sydney talls to cover Charlie - but TDK's marking ineffectiveness throughout the game was a real concern to me - especially if we are looking at him as a forward /ruck rotation. To add to his poor showing - his ruck work was pedestrian.

The inability of the Carlton forwards to stymie Sydney's easy transition was also disappointing.


No one cares about a praccy match result - but the areas of interest and concern were just highlighted and worthy of mention. As were the areas of positives - Hollands/Cowan/Cincotta all acquitted themselves well - to my eye even Dow did some good things - especially in the first half- but his running capacity is still below what it should be and I wish he had more dare when in posession.

Pretty obvious Vossy wanted to go long and around the wings and not surprising when you have two taller targets in Cripps and Harry not playing that some of the marks were just not taken or spoils to boundary not executed- TDK was notable in pretty much always being second to the ball in those scenarios - rarely did any Carlton player look for a centering kick- maybe that is all being kept up the sleeve for the real thing.

 

[skadoosh]

I think he will be in the 22 round 1.

Issue with players like him, is his best isn't that good. He is an ok AFL player at his best.

So when he isn't at his best he is not AFL standard. Couple of games like that in a row and he'll find himself in the VFL (especially with more depth on the wings)

On CPH2005 using BigFooty.com mobile app

I have a feeling we will go with 3 wingers/runners in Acres, LOB and Hollands.

 

[Blue__Balls]

TDK was shown to be nowhere near the effectiveness of what a bloke of his height and size should be in the forward line. Harry's absence made it easy for teh Sydney talls to cover Charlie - but TDK's marking ineffectiveness throughout the game was a real concern to me - especially if we are looking at him as a forward /ruck rotation. To add to his poor showing - his ruck work was pedestrian.

The inability of the Carlton forwards to stymie Sydney's easy transition was also disappointing.


No one cares about a praccy match result - but the areas of interest and concern were just highlighted and worthy of mention. As were the areas of positives - Hollands/Cowan/Cincotta all acquitted themselves well - to my eye even Dow did some good things - especially in the first half- but his running capacity is still below what it should be and I wish he had more dare when in posession.

Pretty obvious Vossy wanted to go long and around the wings and not surprising when you have two taller targets in Cripps and Harry not playing that some of the marks were just not taken or spoils to boundary not executed- TDK was notable in pretty much always being second to the ball in those scenarios - rarely did any Carlton player look for a centering kick- maybe that is all being kept up the sleeve for the real thing.

Agreed, TDK (or the ruck battle in general) was a bit of a worry in that game. Part of me thinks that TDK may have been told not to go jumping all over people's heads given that the only other AFL-ready ruck we have (Pittonet) is being managed back into the start of the season. But at the same time, TDK's issue has always been inconsistency of timing, both in the ruck and marking in general. When he sticks it, it looks freaking incredible, when he doesn't it's either an easy tap/mark for the opponent or, at times, a free kick for blocking/unrealistic attempt. Gut feel is that he gets caught up watching his opponent instead of the ball too much. Opposition gets the early read, TDK is trying to time his run/jump on where his opponent is going but because he's reacting to their reaction he's just that second or two too late.

Probably shouldn't be surprised. He's 23, has played 40ish senior games. Question will be whether continuing to invest senior game time and ruck responsibility into him will have him breaking out in the next couple of years. Suspect we'll know more by year's end, and ultimately it may not even be our call as to whether we persist with him or have to look at other options. Still wish we'd made a play for Goldstein in the off-season (maybe we did, I dunno?). Obviously Kreuzer seems to be highly rated by our ruck division, but I can't help but think that looking outside our own stable for a quality short-term player who could also act as a coach/mentor would have been smart.

 

[Sector 7G]

TDK was shown to be nowhere near the effectiveness of what a bloke of his height and size should be in the forward line. Harry's absence made it easy for teh Sydney talls to cover Charlie - but TDK's marking ineffectiveness throughout the game was a real concern to me - especially if we are looking at him as a forward /ruck rotation. To add to his poor showing - his ruck work was pedestrian.

The inability of the Carlton forwards to stymie Sydney's easy transition was also disappointing.


No one cares about a praccy match result - but the areas of interest and concern were just highlighted and worthy of mention. As were the areas of positives - Hollands/Cowan/Cincotta all acquitted themselves well - to my eye even Dow did some good things - especially in the first half- but his running capacity is still below what it should be and I wish he had more dare when in posession.

Pretty obvious Vossy wanted to go long and around the wings and not surprising when you have two taller targets in Cripps and Harry not playing that some of the marks were just not taken or spoils to boundary not executed- TDK was notable in pretty much always being second to the ball in those scenarios - rarely did any Carlton player look for a centering kick- maybe that is all being kept up the sleeve for the real thing.

Carltons slow ball movement didn't do TDK or any of our forwards any favours. That said it was disappointing after last weeks good showing

The ease at which the Swans moved the ball out of defence especially after one of our numerous points was concerning, especially compared to our kickins. Was hoping this would be an area for improvement this season.

Dow was on Guilden for a decent chunk of the game and was terrible defensively (and I am a believer Dow needs more of a go but not on that form) In a real game one would expect Voss to do more. Warner was unsighted so I guess you can only concentrate on so many players

Hard to make anything of LOB's game from the TV. Barely sighted. Had low tog at about 64% while Acres and Hollands were over 80%. It is not as if he lost contests or turned the ball over badly