Autopsy Rd 9 - If only games went for 1 quarter aka Still the Hawks bunnies

[BigBreakfast]

What happened to Setterfield last night? Looked pretty good in the first quarter with 6-7 disposals. Then dropped off a cliff after that.

He's been pretty consistent over the last month, so last night was disappointing.

Regarding our starting midfield of Cripps, Setterfield and Curnow we have some big bodies in there, but is it balanced enough? Do we need to bring in a more mid sized player who can provide a bit of pace outside the centre circle?

Yep: Cuners, SPS, Jack M, Fish... et al.

 

[Jimmyonesix]

SPS is talented. I think he can be a great mid. I think he is a poor defender. If we have better options in the midfield, trade him for an actual defender. We might lose on paper, and class, but the team will improve.

Totally agree -- if he not good enough for us as a mid- fwd let someone else have him maybe he will work for there midfield . Buy a back or the mid you need .. but playing him out of position continually cause you want to keep him isn't helping anyone ..Must of had nearly 12 months training as a back now ..

 

[gab213]

Not sure how my post was construed as being vitriolic, unless you are talking more broadly?

Yes, sorry, I was talking about that broadly, apologies if that wasn't clear.

 

[BigBreakfast]

We have been poor defensively. The numbers don't lie. It seems a by-product of opening our game up and looking to score. We are unable to contain the surge going the other way. Reminds me a bit of Essendon circa Matthew Knights.

Teague is known for his ability to get sides scoring. Did it at Adelaide. But can he get them defending.

Or refer to someone who can. Ratts admits his failing as a first time coach was trying to be across everything. I hope Teague isn't making the same mistake.

 

[HARKER]

... all of which could indeed be the wrong choice. Have I objected to this argument here? Perhaps we all need to engage in less reading between the lines and more reading.

You also haven't demonstrated that I'm wrong, either.

I've defined both (in terms of this argument; I'd be interested if we could extend the thought further, or if you think the definitions fail to work) in my conversation with Arr0w:
You have outcome X, and you have what actually happened (Y). To what extent does X equal Y?

If it's to a large extent, you've succeeded in making the correct choices to get to that point. Therefore, the correct choice is defined thus: the choice you need to make to get the outcome you want.

Extremely general, and doesn't really apply to this conversation Harker. Unless you're being oblique again.

In the last instance I meant from the clubs point of view and not our points of view. My error in not being clear.
I don't recall the genesis of this conversation but if it's about Murphy, then we're on the same plane. If it's a philosophical argument, then that's totally different.
Some clubs and at some times will engage in emotion ahead of rationale, when it comes to the time to pull the plug on a player. We've seen this enough to know and have also seen one club that went hard the other way.
We can engage semantics via this exercise but right call/hard call can be one of the same thing and can be a different thing altogether, for a variety of reasons.

Fisher Cuningham or Samo take your pick .
Murphy has the odd good game but as others have stated including myself his disposal is iffy these days and defensively we are one short on the ground with him in .

There was a reason he was thrown back in the middle after bolts departure last year that time has now passed we've stopped leaking losses.
Pretty sure any of those players could at least replicate or close Murphys output Murph is now getting in the way of the transition in our midfield .
But your right he most likely won't be omitted as its not the Carlton way to make the tough calls ala Hawthorn .

I think we just can't expect more from Murphy than we're seeing right now.
Somewhere in recent years, whether physically or mentally, his lack of attack to the ball has subsided to the point it has become patently obvious.
I raised this here some years ago and no offence to Murphy, I couldn't wait to see him being supplanted in his role as captain of the club. He was not a good role model, nor captain....quite the contrary on what I saw at training, let alone on the field.

 

[BLUEALLTHRU]

It was so good to see the boys live! Gee whiz they need to develop some physicality though. Bullied.

 

[ETET]

Simmo’s experience and nous will eclipse whatever LOB can bring to the table, but the trade off is we’ll be getting minutes into LOB and given his age we should be expecting him to have a decent run of games to see where he is at. He’s still likely to make as many errors as Simmo, but regardless whether he wants to go on this should be his last year as his performance isn’t warranting a spot ongoing.

Murphy frustrates me no end with his lack of pressure and feeble tackling attempts. When we play well he’s usually a good contributor, when we’re under pressure he’s a genuine liability which is unbearably disappointing for a guy of his experience and talent.

Hodge nailed it on radio. For all Simpsons experience and that includes Cripps, Docherty, Jones, Murphy and the other senior players none have been in winnable games enough that they have the experience to know what to do.

Cripps will never make those mistakes again but he had to go through it. As Hodge said when your constantly 30 points down for years and years you can pretty much do what you want but now we are in games we have no idea what to do.

The question is, should we letting Simpson and Murphy learn or should that learning go to a younger player that will be able to use it for the club for years and years?

 

[Colonel_Klink]

I think SPS should play forward rather than back, he seems a little loose.

Fisher onto the wing and Walsh to the middle.

 

[Gethelred]

In the last instance I meant from the clubs point of view and not our points of view. My error in not being clear.
I don't recall the genesis of this conversation but if it's about Murphy, then we're on the same plane. If it's a philosophical argument, then that's totally different.

From my perspective, my issue was philosophically based, and had nothing to do with Murphy. I've actually stated several times in the last month that Murphy should be thanked and given a farewell game, but filtered out.

I don't know that we won't or if we will, and until we do or we don't I'm unwilling to engage with the argument that our sentamentalism is 'soft' or is the path to our ruin. Whether it is either, though, is two completely disparate arguments.

Some clubs and at some times will engage in emotion ahead of rationale, when it comes to the time to pull the plug on a player. We've seen this enough to know and have also seen one club that went hard the other way.
We can engage semantics via this exercise but right call/hard call can be one of the same thing and can be a different thing altogether, for a variety of reasons.

The hardness/difficulty of the decision has no bearing on whether it was the correct move. This is as complex as my argument here gets. I'm not applying it to anything else, there is no subtext here.

 

[La Dispute]

Hodge nailed it on radio. For all Simpsons experience and that includes Cripps, Docherty, Jones, Murphy and the other senior players none have been in winnable games enough that they have the experience to know what to do.

Cripps will never make those mistakes again but he had to go through it. As Hodge said when your constantly 30 points down for years and years you can pretty much do what you want but now we are in games we have no idea what to do.

The question is, should we letting Simpson and Murphy learn or should that learning go to a younger player that will be able to use it for the club for years and years?

It’s a reasonable point. Probably the same reason Cripps telegraphed running around the Hawthorn player 50 out rather than do the obvious thing and put it to the hotspot.

I think there’s also an element of our opponents sensing our agitation and capitalising. There are mistakes you make out of carelessness and others you make because you’re anxious about the state of the game and it’s seemingly impossible to compartmentalise and hit back.

Once we started making some of those basic errors, even on a subconscious level Hawthorn knew we’d been broken and didn’t look like doing anything constructive. There were enough telltale signs: Newnes fumbling in the centre with two teammates parallel, SPS overrunning a ground ball etc. At that point Hawthorn asserted themselves with impunity.

 

[Gethelred]

Hodge nailed it on radio. For all Simpsons experience and that includes Cripps, Docherty, Jones, Murphy and the other senior players none have been in winnable games enough that they have the experience to know what to do.

Cripps will never make those mistakes again but he had to go through it. As Hodge said when your constantly 30 points down for years and years you can pretty much do what you want but now we are in games we have no idea what to do.

The question is, should we letting Simpson and Murphy learn or should that learning go to a younger player that will be able to use it for the club for years and years?

Great post.

 

[carlton2dabone]

Maybe when half the fan base finally get fed up with accepting mediocrity and giving players a pas for everything, then the club and the players might decide to finally pull their fingers out and realise that giving effort for one or two quarters every game isn’t acceptable.

Why would a player Murphy care if he doesn’t run defensively or doesn’t get physical enough to lay tackles, after all he’ll continue to get a spot in the team while half the fan base excuses just because he’s getting older.

Why would a player like SPS give 100% defensively or attack the hard ball when he sees how Murphy is allowed to get away with it.

Why would the team as a whole leave everything out on the field when half the supporter base will always excuse whatever the team does.

 

[HARKER]

From my perspective, my issue was philosophically based, and had nothing to do with Murphy. I've actually stated several times in the last month that Murphy should be thanked and given a farewell game, but filtered out.

I don't know that we won't or if we will, and until we do or we don't I'm unwilling to engage with the argument that our sentamentalism is 'soft' or is the path to our ruin. Whether it is either, though, is two completely disparate arguments.

The hardness/difficulty of the decision has no bearing on whether it was the correct move. This is as complex as my argument here gets. I'm not applying it to anything else, there is no subtext here.

Yes. Good points and well done in conveying them as clearly as that.

The name Murphy can be raised here but it's not all about Murphy but more about this club knowing exactly where it stands in the pecking order.
I've said here some weeks back, that I have no idea as to who we are and this game more than any in recent weeks has again brought this feeling to the fore.

Allow me to be a little more oblique here, but it's ever so difficult to take any measure as to where we stand and given the circumstances around the season, it's been made ever so much more difficult and in our case it's been what we've all had to deal with (covid) and then for injury, form, when to introduce youth and when to address form via these limited scratch matches.

It's all so different and all so much up in the air. It's weird....and so hard to get a handle on from a fans point of view.
I just 'hope' that those in charge have a better filter on circumstances and events.

 

[Gethelred]

Yes. Good points and well done in conveying them as clearly as that.

The name Murphy can be raised here but it's not all about Murphy but more about this club knowing exactly where it stands in the pecking order.
I've said here some weeks back, that I have no idea as to who we are and this game more than any in recent weeks has again brought this feeling to the fore.

Allow me to be a little more oblique here, but it's ever so difficult to take any measure as to where we stand and given the circumstances around the season, it's been made ever so much more difficult and in our case it's been what we've all had to deal with (covid) and then for injury, form, when to introduce youth and when to address form via these limited scratch matches.

It's all so different and all so much up in the air. It's weird....and so hard to get a handle on from a fans point of view.
I just 'hope' that those in charge have a better filter on circumstances and events.

Hmmm...

I'd say what we stand for - at present - is breakneck footy and marking, because that's what we do. This leads to scoring, but so too does it lead to being scored against when it comes awry.

ETET's comment above is extremely pertinent here. We actually need games like yesterdays game, almost as much as we need games like the losses against Port and Melbourne and the win against Nth. We need our players to learn what it is to fight when your colours have been lowered. Weitering's got it, Cripps - despite him having PLENTY to work on from the game - has it, Walsh has it. The key here is we need to avoid what I'm going to call doing a Melbourne: going from poor to contender without the inbetween, when you have to learn to scrap and to fight against like sides. They just clicked for two years, and because the lessons weren't learned they broke when their form did.

Ultimately, we do need to make decisions about the makeup of the list. I do not want Murphy on it as more than depth; I do not want Simpson on it as more than depth; I want Ed's role decreased in terms of distributing; I want Marchbank to replace Jones because someone offered a low second round pick for him; I want Eddie to be phased out for Honey or Owies. We need to replace some of our coaching with defensive talent; Amos is supposedly extremely good, but the others I'd question. I'd be getting into Ross Lyon's ear and asking him to be senior assistant to Teague, with the goal of the position being compromise; how can you attack the way we do without completely murdering ourselves on turnover?

I think the emphasis on head coach is all very well, but the line coaches have played key roles in 6 of the last 7 flags; Caracella at Richmond, Ratts at Hawthorn, Mitchell at WC. We desperately need to look at this, as this is a key part of our setup that requires improvement.

 

[My Hat]

The usual suspects are out in force defending mediocrity, finding any and every excuse under sun to defend individual players or the team as a whole because we have slightly moved up off the bottom of the ladder 5 years into a rebuild.
I or no one I know has any faith that we can win a game no matter how far in front we are:

- up by 13 points with 7min left against Port and failed for the entire 7min to even get the ball out of our backline past the halfway point of the ground even though we had many clear possessions to do so
even worse yet, we were still up by a few points with 40 seconds to go and in possession of the ball ourselves yet let the opposition.

- Up 31-0 against the Hawks in the first quarter only to lose the game by 32 points by end of game.

- 42 points up against Geelong with less than a half to play and we only win because they miss some very easy shots at goal from directly in front.

- Up by 4 points with 50 seconds to go against the Bombers with the opposition having to kick out of our own goal square and only won because their players failed to make the distance by half a metre.

- Up by 5 goals against North who are second last on ladder and only iced the game with a few minutes left on the clock.


Add to the above that:

- down by 40 plus points against the Tigers before we finally woke up.

- down by 5-6 goals against demons before we finally woke up and then found a way to avoid winning the game when we were stream rolling over the top of them.

- down by 5-6 goals against the saints before we finally woke up.

TL;DR: We're inconsistent.

We're not mediocre. Our best is very good. But our worst is still very bad, and right now we're offering a mix of both in just about every game.

A year ago we were consistently bad. Now we are inconsistent: sometimes good, sometimes bad. This is improvement.

We've made progress, but we're not there yet. We need to improve more. And I expect we will.

 

[Murphkreuzmitch]

Anyone of the following on last nights performance alone could be dropped next game, be interesting to see if Teague has the guts to drop a few.

Simmo
Murph
Sps
Cunners
Moore
Setters
Newnes
Betts
Kennedy

personally I would like to see Simmo and Murphy dropped to set an example that it doesn’t matter who you are and what credits are in the bank if you don’t play well your spot is up for grabs..

 

[Davey33]

Coaches should coach and recruiters should recruit.

Is that a fact?
Why did we make Teague coach again?

 

[Accidental genius]

Anyone of the following on last nights performance alone could be dropped next game, be interesting to see if Teague has the guts to drop a few.

Simmo
Murph
Sps
Cunners
Moore
Setters
Newnes
Betts
Kennedy

personally I would like to see Simmo and Murphy dropped to set an example that it doesn’t matter who you are and what credits are in the bank if you don’t play well your spot is up for grabs..

Why do you wanna drop simmo? What did he do wrong? He wasn’t influential but the whole team wasn’t either.

 

[TheReal99prelim]

Is that a fact?
Why did we make Teague coach again?

Because of sooks like Cripps and Docherty who drove the Teague Train narrative.
Did we even pick up the phone and give Ratts a ring?
Now Teague feels indebted to all his supporters on the playing list. Massive conflict of interest
Tail.Wagging.Dog.

 

[Bearded Carpenter]

4b2 just nudged me.
Whispered in my ear.
“Can I come out and play”

 

[blue healer]

Because of sooks like Cripps and Docherty who drove the Teague Train narrative.
Did we even pick up the phone and give Ratts a ring?
Now Teague feels indebted to all his supporters on the playing list. Massive conflict of interest
Tail.Wagging.Dog.

Don't know if this is serious but if so it's outrageous.

 

[murphster]

Because of sooks like Cripps and Docherty who drove the Teague Train narrative.
Did we even pick up the phone and give Ratts a ring?
Now Teague feels indebted to all his supporters on the playing list. Massive conflict of interest
Tail.Wagging.Dog.

I agree completely that the club should have interviewed Ratts and it pissed me off that they didn’t, however how the * can you sit there and call Cripps and Doc sooks do you even watch our team play? That is the most stridently petulant and disrespectful comment I’ve heard and I suggest you think before you write as that is just plain wrong and frankly stupid.

 

[AT97]

SOS wanted Butler, Teague wanted Eddie.

Amazing the different stories you hear. Heard Liddell wanted butler, sos not so much. According to a friend of sos anyway.

 

[BlueView]

Because of sooks like Cripps and Docherty who drove the Teague Train narrative.
Did we even pick up the phone and give Ratts a ring?
Now Teague feels indebted to all his supporters on the playing list. Massive conflict of interest
Tail.Wagging.Dog.

Two reasonable leaders that we’re fortunate to have. Glad they aren’t yes men

 

[Bluesome]

Don't know if this is serious but if so it's outrageous.

Almost the post of the thread...

The poster that talked of Teague being a ‘psychopath’ with ‘dead eyes’ is still in the lead though for mine