Analysis Carlton list history & rebuilding comparisons

[The Old Dark Navy's]

It's interesting that we have over 200 games from our 21 and unders this year, but could have had so much more if Williamson had played instead of Mullett and O'Shea, or if Fisher and Cuningham weren't injured.

Interestingly we did have a lot of young players under Ratten at one point with our age profile fairly good. They weren't quality youth however but the way teams build these days, we had the makings of a successful side with a good age profile and just needed the tweaks that we hired Malthouse to add. Unfortunately the players did not respond to him and a heap of quality played dead and left.

We never should have gone backwards as much as we did in those Malthouse years, knowing what we know now.

 

[BLUEALLTHRU]

To think I was a Malthouse backer and even defended him early in the piece

 

[Juddernaut08]

To think I was a Malthouse backer and even defended him early in the piece

same here mate. drank the mick kool aid as badly as anybody.

shouldve been clear when we lost eddie jeffy etc for peanuts

 

[BLUEALLTHRU]

same here mate. drank the mick kool aid as badly as anybody.

shouldve been clear when we lost eddie jeffy etc for peanuts

I would wager a bet there would be a lot more posters than just us cobber. It feels good to own up to one's mistakes.

 

[therubbernub]

Unfortunately the players did not respond to him and a heap of quality played dead and left.

an indictment on those players.

 

[thylacine60]

To think I was a Malthouse backer and even defended him early in the piece

same - Windhover was speaking from the mount but I wasn't listening.......

 

[BLUEALLTHRU]

Ensure the volume is in the ON position..

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

an indictment on those players.

I agree. No tolerance for playing dead at all. I do recognise that in all likelihood Malthouse's style and inability to plan to the strengths of the list, decimated that list.

 

[HARKER]

To think I was a Malthouse backer and even defended him early in the piece

Problem wasn't with Malthouse though, as much we'd like to pin the tail on the one donkey.
Malthouse, Hughes, Ratten, McKay, Kernahan, Swann, Rogers etc etc were simply pawns at a club that didn't know what it was doing.

Maybe we made Malthouse shithouse.
We certainly made him more shithouse than he used to be. How exactly did that come about?

 

[Doro]

It's interesting that we have over 200 games from our 21 and unders this year, but could have had so much more if Williamson had played instead of Mullett and O'Shea, or if Fisher and Cuningham weren't injured.

Interestingly we did have a lot of young players under Ratten at one point with our age profile fairly good. They weren't quality youth however but the way teams build these days, we had the makings of a successful side with a good age profile and just needed the tweaks that we hired Malthouse to add. Unfortunately the players did not respond to him and a heap of quality played dead and left.

We never should have gone backwards as much as we did in those Malthouse years, knowing what we know now.

I can't agree with this point. This side had Judd, Murphy with a body beginning to unravel and a support cast that wasn't close to the top teams at the time. Rogers was failing with pretty much every selection at the draft table, following on from Hughes who fared little better. The club was selling kool aid at the time and we drank heavily.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I can't agree with this point. This side had Judd, Murphy with a body beginning to unravel and a support cast that wasn't close to the top teams at the time. Rogers was failing with pretty much every selection at the draft table, following on from Hughes who fared little better. The club was selling kool aid at the time and we drank heavily.

Go back and look at that list and compare it to some of the sides of today in terms of quality. Look at the age profile and the spread of talent across the age profile.

Yes, we failed with our recruiting. This was a fork in the road. If we did better, that side could have contended.

Changing coaches killed it stone dead though.

 

[Doro]

Go back and look at that list and compare it to some of the sides of today in terms of quality. Look at the age profile and the spread of talent across the age profile.

Yes, we failed with our recruiting. This was a fork in the road. If we did better, that side could have contended.

Changing coaches killed it stone dead though.

The side was competing against the Hawks ,Swans, Cats of the era not now, so why compare now? Too thin for top end talent and too vanilla at the bottom end to contend. The quality in it is long since gone. Ratten squeezed the most out of it in 2011, and Malthouse flukes something similar in 2013 from 9th. It was a 5-8 side, nothing more.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The side was competing against the Hawks ,Swans, Cats of the era not now, so why compare now? Too thin for top end talent and too vanilla at the bottom end to contend. The quality in it is long since gone. Ratten squeezed the most out of it in 2011, and Malthouse flukes something similar in 2013 from 9th. It was a 5-8 side, nothing more.

I'm not saying that side was going to win a flag as it was, but they had many of the parts, a decent age profile and needed some fine tuning. A couple of strategic trades here and there, and we definitely would have been a destination club at the time, and you never know. Of course we needed to get the drafting right. There is no way in hell we needed to turn over the whole list until Malthouse showed up.

There is a hell of a lot of vanilla in some well coached sides that win a lot.

Of course the quality in the side is long since gone. We are talking 6-7 years ago.

We can agree to disagree but I'm looking at how quickly it can happen if you add a couple of players from where we were, rather than turn over the list and start again. Other sides are 5-8 sides and they become top 4 sides by getting something right. Don't look at just the side, look at the side and consider how easily we could have improved it.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Problem wasn't with Malthouse though, as much we'd like to pin the tail on the one donkey.
Malthouse, Hughes, Ratten, McKay, Kernahan, Swann, Rogers etc etc were simply pawns at a club that didn't know what it was doing.

Maybe we made Malthouse shithouse.
We certainly made him more shithouse than he used to be. How exactly did that come about?

The proof is in the pudding with the game plan, the types of players Mick had a hand in bringing over, and the players that were good under Ratten, either losing form or leaving.

The board didn't magically make everyone s**t as much as you want to fly that flag. Not going down this silly road again, but there is blame to go around, and Mick can have his share, like it or not.

 

[footyfan1978]

To think I was a Malthouse backer and even defended him early in the piece

Idiot!!!
Least you finally come to your senses. Never too late to learn in life.

 

[Bearded Carpenter]

I can't agree with this point. This side had Judd, Murphy with a body beginning to unravel and a support cast that wasn't close to the top teams at the time. Rogers was failing with pretty much every selection at the draft table, following on from Hughes who fared little better. The club was selling kool aid at the time and we drank heavily.

My liver is still giving me grief

 

[Doro]

I'm not saying that side was going to win a flag as it was, but they had many of the parts, a decent age profile and needed some fine tuning. A couple of strategic trades here and there, and we definitely would have been a destination club at the time, and you never know. Of course we needed to get the drafting right. There is no way in hell we needed to turn over the whole list until Malthouse showed up.

There is a hell of a lot of vanilla in some well coached sides that win a lot.

Of course the quality in the side is long since gone. We are talking 6-7 years ago.

We can agree to disagree but I'm looking at how quickly it can happen if you add a couple of players from where we were, rather than turn over the list and start again. Other sides are 5-8 sides and they become top 4 sides by getting something right. Don't look at just the side, look at the side and consider how easily we could have improved it.

We had some of the parts, but made too many mistakes with list management and at the draft table. Watson, Lucas, Bootsma, McLean, Warnock etc. If we'd made the change from Hughes to SOS or someone competent in 2010 then history may have been re-written. It was a whole lot deeper than Malthouse chopping Jeffy, Mitch and Laidler though.

 

[HARKER]

The proof is in the pudding with the game plan, the types of players Mick had a hand in bringing over, and the players that were good under Ratten, either losing form or leaving.
The board didn't magically make everyone s**t as much as you want to fly that flag. Not going down this silly road again, but there is blame to go around, and Mick can have his share, like it or not.

Don't go down this 'silly' road. May I though have the liberty to express my opinion?

I'd sooner go after the cartel, than the dealer.
Our cartel simply didn't do their job and didn't exercise 'due diligence' in the way they went about their appointments and if they did, Malthouse may never have been on the agenda in the first place. This is not a difficult thing to understand.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Don't go down this 'silly' road. May I though have the liberty to express my opinion?

I'd sooner go after the cartel, than the dealer.
Our cartel simply didn't do their job and didn't exercise 'due diligence' in the way they went about their appointments and if they did, Malthouse may never have been on the agenda in the first place. This is not a difficult thing to understand.

Mick's appointment being right or wrong, does not absolve him of things he did poorly. This is the wrong thread for it though.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

We had some of the parts, but made too many mistakes with list management and at the draft table. Watson, Lucas, Bootsma, McLean, Warnock etc. If we'd made the change from Hughes to SOS or someone competent in 2010 then history may have been re-written. It was a whole lot deeper than Malthouse chopping Jeffy, Mitch and Laidler though.

That's what I'm saying about the fork in the road as far as recruiting goes. Some real head scratchers and hail mary plays in there.

Wasn't just Jeff, Mitch and Laidler either. Lost Betts, Waite, Henderson, Yarran as far as their motivation and happiness goes. How it affected other players who did stick it out, I'm not sure we can measure.

Again though, I'm looking at the age profile and the talent scattered throughout, aside from the really poor quality youth coming through because we made no moves to improve our draft position and topped up with 18 year old rookies.

Some decent decision making at the time, and that side still stood a chance. The decision making was mostly poor.

It has taken a while for Bolton and Silvagni to flush out the woefully lopsided list and they are still not there. When I look at those changes in profile and how many games we have got into each age group along the way, and compare it to previous coaches, I can see why this is taking longer than our best case scenario.

 

[HARKER]

2018 List- Bolton 45 players - 12 in, 13 out
4 x 18, 7 x 19, 8 x 20, 3 x 21, 2 x 22, 3 x 23, 2 x 24, 4 x 25, 2 x 26, 1 x 27, 4 x 28, 0 x 29, 5 x 30+

Most teams would be stacked with their best players at this end of the age group, yet this is where most of our de-listing will come from.
16 players here, but already now without ASilvagni, O'Shea, Shaw, Mullett = 12 players.

Out of the 12 players left, only Kreuzer, Simpson, ECurnow and Murphy can genuinely be considered best 22, going into next year and even one or two of them can be questioned.
Then we have Rowe, Thomas, Kerridge, Lamb, Casboult, Lobbe, Phillips and possibly Jones not making up our first squad.

Our main team is going to be very, very young next year, regardless of how many 24y.o. we recruit.

 

[JustaBattler]

Meh - anyone with half a brain or an ounce of care knows what went wrong at Carlton, little point in going over history now - we are in the dark pit of despair which is the reality of a full rebuild trying to play catchup with 2 decades of mismanagement. As long as the Club has learned from the errors of its past - something good will come out of it all.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Most teams would be stacked with their best players at this end of the age group, yet this is where most of our de-listing will come from.
16 players here, but already now without ASilvagni, O'Shea, Shaw, Mullett = 12 players.

Out of the 12 players left, only Kreuzer, Simpson, ECurnow and Murphy can genuinely be considered best 22, going into next year and even one or two of them can be questioned.
Then we have Rowe, Thomas, Kerridge, Lamb, Casboult, Lobbe, Phillips and possibly Jones not making up our first squad.

Our main team is going to be very, very young next year, regardless of how many 24y.o. we recruit.

It's not all lost though. Check out the 2006 Hawthorn list, Clarkson's second year.

List

Peter Everitt 31, Shane Crawford 31, John Barker 30
Joel Smith 28, Ben Dixon 28, Richard Vandenberg 28
Danny Jacobs 25, Chance Bateman 25, Trent Croad 25
Brent Guerra 24
Sam Mitchell 23, Tim Clarke 23, Michael Osborne 23, Nick Ries 23, Robert Campbell 23, Simon Taylor 23, Matthew Ball 23
Mark Williams 22, Ben Kane 22, Campbell Brown 22
Luke Hodge 21, Rick Ladson 21, Brad Sewell 21, Tim Boyle 21, Stephen Gilham 21
Harry Miller 20, Luke Brennan 20, Josh Thurgood 20, Ben McGlynn 20
Zac Dawson 19, Jordan Lewis 19, Thomas Murphy 19, Matt Little 19, Clinton Young 19, Max Bailey 19
Jarryd Roughead 18, Lance Franklin 18, Beau Muston 18, Travis Tuck 18, Luke McEntee 18,
Lukas Markovic 18, Beau Dowler 18
Xavier Ellis 17, Grant Birchall 17

2006 Ages 44 players 11 in, 10 out
9 x 18 or under, 6 x 19, 4 x 20, 5 x 21, 3 x 22, 7 x 23, 1 x 24, 3 x 25, 3 x 28, 3 x 30+

34 players out of 44 aged 23 and under. This is the wave we are creating under Docherty who turns 25 next year. The other 10 players for the Hawks had a club champion, decent mature ruck and some handy foot soliders but not a lot getting lost when they finally tip over the edge. Quite a few hit and miss players amongst the youth too. Just have to find the balance and the spark.

 

[Doro]

That's what I'm saying about the fork in the road as far as recruiting goes. Some real head scratchers and hail mary plays in there.

Wasn't just Jeff, Mitch and Laidler either. Lost Betts, Waite, Henderson, Yarran as far as their motivation and happiness goes. How it affected other players who did stick it out, I'm not sure we can measure.

Again though, I'm looking at the age profile and the talent scattered throughout, aside from the really poor quality youth coming through because we made no moves to improve our draft position and topped up with 18 year old rookies.

Some decent decision making at the time, and that side still stood a chance. The decision making was mostly poor.

It has taken a while for Bolton and Silvagni to flush out the woefully lopsided list and they are still not there. When I look at those changes in profile and how many games we have got into each age group along the way, and compare it to previous coaches, I can see why this is taking longer than our best case scenario.

That's the thing. Can you think of any clever list management decision making by the club between Ratten taking over and Malthouse departing? They are hard to find, that's why we didn't challenge.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

That's the thing. Can you think of any clever list management decision making by the club between Ratten taking over and Malthouse departing? They are hard to find, that's why we didn't challenge.

Oh I agree. My opinion is that we could have gone somewhere with that list as the nucleus but we got nearly everything wrong and killed any chance.