The obvious problem that springs to mind is you referred to Hayden Young as a midfielder. He's not; he's a rebound defender with a brilliant long-range kick and is a very good contested mark. This sort of stuff:
Although I do get the confusion since Ross also added Young onto the list for some reason.
Also worth noting that Walters has been used as both a small forward and midfielder. The reason his stats don't look great for either is probably a combination of that and a period of down form after a injury. Ideally I think he returns to being a small forward; with Fyfe, Mundy, Brayshaw, Cerra and Serong in the middle (Tucker returning from injury too) he's more useful up there.
On individual players Setterfield, Brayshaw and Cerra being similar is absurd. Obvious comparison is coaches votes; there were about 3 games that Brayshaw topped it for Freo and another where Cerra did, whereas I don't think Setterfield got any. Brayshaw and Cerra have been far more integral to Freo than Setterfield.
With your overall comparison Fyfe, Mundy, Brayshaw, Cerra and Serong all predominately played in the midfield. Out of the group you named from my understanding it was really Cripps, Murphy and Curnow who were relied on in the centre, with Walsh on the outside. Kennedy, Stocker and Dow didn't really play. Two of those Carlton players are really past their best, and it's hard to see how that midfield improves unless some of your younger players can take that step up, rather than being covered for with some of your older midfielders.
I'm interested in seeing how both teams develop, but I think to compare Freo and Carlton's midfields in the future you need to bring up the ages of the players and question when and how Curnow and Murphy get the boot.
Think you're taking it the wrong way here PT. You've responded and provided comparison with negative context.
Why would coaches votes be the obvious comparison when comparing three young on-ballers playing for two different teams?
Why would a statistical comparison between three young on-ballers be an absurd way to compare?.
Heading in to the season, if you had any understanding of Carltons weaknesses, the need provide inside support to Cripps sat at the top of the list. A role Setterfield began to establish himself in this year.
Providing support to a teams best player whom has carried the team in this capacity for the past few years (and was below his best this year) strikes me as the very definition of integral in context to Carlton's needs?
To imply one teams up and coming young players as more "integral" to that particular team than the other seems a little naff to me.
And you're sleeping on Setterfield if you think his season didn't stack-up to that of Cerra & Brayshaw. Have a bit more of an in-depth look.
Our mids can get it and clear it as well as any, the stats support this, our spread and disposal into the forward 50 is the glaring weakness and the area we need to address.
I've conceded a number of points you raise. Murphy is shot, has been for a while, a liability in the middle. Curnow whilst getting on, has at least a couple more years left due to his fitness levels, need to find a class two-way running replacement in our younger group.
Walsh is an on-baller regardless of where he played this year. I believe its a testament to his ability that he could still have the impact he did whilst playing wider. Think it was a great move to protect him from the bash & crash in his second year.
I also outlined the other requirements needed for the Carlton mid group to move forward next year, continued development of the youngsters & the recruitment of some class support. potentially Williams & another one or two.
For clarity, the context of my posts isn't / wasn't a one is better than the other slag off.