List Mgmt. 2022 Carlton Consensus Best 22

[Justnetime]

Think people are forgetting about rotations, bench or otherwise, when considering if we can't have 3 of 4 tall options in the forward line

Lets not forget a resting Cripps forward. Or even Kennedy who plays third tall forward.

Then our side looks a bit unbalanced for tall forwards as both these players are slow.

Don’t think we need a 4th tall at all with Cripps alone covering.

 

[Bletch]

JSOS & Young to pinch hit as required..

Thanks for being the guy to respond, and yes I was fishing for an answer like this, as it seems that most here are happy with that arrangement.

IMO, it's a recipe for disaster.

As brave as Jack was late in the season, he'll get torn to shreds if asked to do this on a regular basis. TDK isn't ready to ruck 90% of a match - we need more than a "pinch hit" ruck. Young could fill the role, but we've named him at full back, and have no spare tall backman.

Either Pitto or McDonald (or an SSP pick-up) will be in the side. If it's Pitto, he'll be number one ruck, and TDK will play as second tall fwd/ruck, freeing up Curnow. Alternatively, if TDK plays, McDonald (or Young) will play fwd/ruck, the other taking the 2nd tall defence role. I know none of us really like the Pitto/TDK combo - I don't - but we lack viable alternatives.

 

[Justnetime]

Thanks for being the guy to respond, and yes I was fishing for an answer like this, as it seems that most here are happy with that arrangement.

IMO, it's a recipe for disaster.

As brave as Jack was late in the season, he'll get torn to shreds if asked to do this on a regular basis. TDK isn't ready to ruck 90% of a match - we need more than a "pinch hit" ruck. Young could fill the role, but we've named him at full back, and have no spare tall backman.

Either Pitto or McDonald (or an SSP pick-up) will be in the side. If it's Pitto, he'll be number one ruck, and TDK will play as second tall fwd/ruck, freeing up Curnow. Alternatively, if TDK plays, McDonald (or Young) will play fwd/ruck, the other taking the 2nd tall defence role. I know none of us really like the Pitto/TDK combo - I don't - but we lack viable alternatives.

Disaster potentially but maybe Voss can be innovative. I think going down the safe route means we won’t threaten this year. Getting creative and limiting the number of plodders in our best 22 is required.

We won three games last year out of 8 without the ruck support you talk about. so it’s a misnomer we can’t function without the structure. It’s about how smart Voss and his crew are.

Why not let Mckay take forward ruck duties like Geelong do it and why not let Young do defensive duties. Let TDK patrol the arcs and if feeling good push forward or back as he can muster. Keeps the deadwood out of our side.

We are a slow side already with Cripps and Kennedy and JSoS types. We don’t want to get slower.

 

[BLUEALLTHRU]

Are there any Perth based fans that can report on how Motlop played at senior level in the WAFL?? This is generally a good indication of how quickly they will be able to adapt into the senior side, if he only played Colts then he might need longer to develop before he is ready..

Played some senior footy but is imo not up to AFL standard yet.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

Thanks for being the guy to respond, and yes I was fishing for an answer like this, as it seems that most here are happy with that arrangement.

IMO, it's a recipe for disaster.

As brave as Jack was late in the season, he'll get torn to shreds if asked to do this on a regular basis. TDK isn't ready to ruck 90% of a match - we need more than a "pinch hit" ruck. Young could fill the role, but we've named him at full back, and have no spare tall backman.

Either Pitto or McDonald (or an SSP pick-up) will be in the side. If it's Pitto, he'll be number one ruck, and TDK will play as second tall fwd/ruck, freeing up Curnow. Alternatively, if TDK plays, McDonald (or Young) will play fwd/ruck, the other taking the 2nd tall defence role. I know none of us really like the Pitto/TDK combo - I don't - but we lack viable alternatives.

whilst I don’t disagree with this, and it’s why I wanted us to target a genuine #1 ruck in the trade period. It’s a disaster either way.. Jack is not good enough to play as a back up ruck, and TDK or Pittonet are not good enough to play as genuine forwards, so either way we are compromised. IMO we will win more games playing with Jack pinch hitting that having both Pitto and TDK in the same side which we have shown time and time again does not work..

As for Young, my thought would be that McGovern plays of the bench, covers Young at FB which will allow him to relieve TDK in the ruck when required.
It’s far from perfect, but we have the worst ruck division in the comp by some margin, most clubs have 2 ruckmen better than our best option.. We are hoping TDK comes on but if he doesn’t we are in serious trouble until it gets resolved.

 

[BigBreakfast]

Motlop needs time and is not up to AFL yet.

I think he might be. Has Senior experience behind him, solid footy background and is physically developed. More so than some of our 3rd and 4th year players. I’ll back him in to learn, have moments and make some blunders without persecution.

 

[Justnetime]

Thanks for being the guy to respond, and yes I was fishing for an answer like this, as it seems that most here are happy with that arrangement.

IMO, it's a recipe for disaster.

As brave as Jack was late in the season, he'll get torn to shreds if asked to do this on a regular basis. TDK isn't ready to ruck 90% of a match - we need more than a "pinch hit" ruck. Young could fill the role, but we've named him at full back, and have no spare tall backman.

Either Pitto or McDonald (or an SSP pick-up) will be in the side. If it's Pitto, he'll be number one ruck, and TDK will play as second tall fwd/ruck, freeing up Curnow. Alternatively, if TDK plays, McDonald (or Young) will play fwd/ruck, the other taking the 2nd tall defence role. I know none of us really like the Pitto/TDK combo - I don't - but we lack viable alternatives.

Looking at the data in a bit more detail for evidence one way or another. We played 1 ruck with no Casbault support 6 times and won 3 out of 6.

We played Casbault as backup ruck or two rucks, or all three 16 times for 5 wins.

Winning and losing is not just down to rucks but at a basic level this is suggesting your view of disaster is misplaced.

Arrow goes on a lot about Casbault in the side for structural reasons despite being completely out of form. The data suggests it’s not that important. In hindsight, We may have won more games with Teagues attacking style with a faster team without cas/Pitto slowing us down and their free kicks against issues. Not to mention their very poor AFL IQ.

 

[BLUEALLTHRU]

I think he might be. Has Senior experience behind him, solid footy background and is physically developed. More so than some of our 3rd and 4th year players. I’ll back him in to learn, have moments and make some blunders without persecution.

Fair enough I'd rather me be wrong to be honest.

 

[Jeremias]

whikst I don’t disagree with this, and it’s why I wanted us to chance a genuine #1 ruck in the trade period. It’s a disaster either way.. Jack is not good enough to play as a back up ruck, and TDK or Pittoare not good enough to play as genuine forwards, so either way we are compromised. IMO we will win more games playing with Jack pinch hitting that having both Pitto and TDK in the same side which we have shown time and time again does not work..

Not having a ruck who can have an impact forward of centre is a "disaster"?

I wonder if Richmond thought similarly in 2017 when Nankervis and Soldo combined for 12 goals for the year. Or in 2019 when they combined for 10. If not I am sure they were completely panicked when they only managed a whopping 5 goals between them!

Sure, it would be nice if Pitto and/or TDK could play as genuine forwards, but the reality is you've picked a trivial statistic and chosen to put a line through certain players on the back of it. It's completely bizarre.

 

[Arr0w]

Lets not forget a resting Cripps forward. Or even Kennedy who plays third tall forward.

Then our side looks a bit unbalanced for tall forwards as both these players are slow.

Don’t think we need a 4th tall at all with Cripps alone covering.

I just don't get this mindset

If we had 4 tallish forwards, the opposition need to counter that, with similar height players, thus both sides have similar levels of agility that part of the ground

Unless of course, someone like the Dogs want to play Daniel as a sweeper like they did a couple years ago and Harry out marked him on numerous occasions

Harry is incredibly quick on the lead, Charlie and Gov burst speed and TDK for his height isn't slow.

Teams will continue to get taller

 

[BigBreakfast]

I just don't get this mindset

If we had 4 tallish forwards, the opposition need to counter that, with similar height players, thus both sides have similar levels of agility that part of the ground

Unless of course, someone like the Dogs want to play Daniel as a sweeper like they did a couple years ago and Harry out marked him on numerous occasions

Harry is incredibly quick on the lead, Charlie and Gov burst speed and TDK for his height isn't slow.

Teams will continue to get taller

Or they just run it out of our forward line time after time. H is lazy on the chase, Gov gets injured every time he sprints, Charlie is an unknown. Teams are getting faster on the rebound.

Sorry Arrow, I cant go with you on this one.

 

[Arr0w]

Or they just run it out of our forward line time after time. H is lazy on the chase, Gov gets injured every time he sprints, Charlie is an unknown. Teams are getting faster on the rebound.

Sorry Arrow, I cant go with you on this one.

That has nothing to do with the structure, if players are of a similar height and speed and committed to defensive structures

Saw similar when Dogs/Tigers 16/17 won flags, people claiming the trend was smaller forward lines, didn't last long

 

[BigBreakfast]

That has nothing to do with the structure, if players are of a similar height and speed and committed to defensive structures

Saw similar when Dogs/Tigers 16/17 won flags, people claiming the trend was smaller forward lines, didn't last long

It’s not about taller/small, it’s about capacity and willingness. Our forwards have demonstrated a propensity to be lazy and not exhibit pressure consistently. Any structure will fail without willingness and effort.

We also have a tendency to bomb to to tall forward line as a get out option. See Ed Curnow forward 50 entries. I’d like to see us shelve that completely until we have forwards and mids who fight to keep it in.

 

[Justnetime]

I just don't get this mindset

If we had 4 tallish forwards, the opposition need to counter that, with similar height players, thus both sides have similar levels of agility that part of the ground

Unless of course, someone like the Dogs want to play Daniel as a sweeper like they did a couple years ago and Harry out marked him on numerous occasions

Harry is incredibly quick on the lead, Charlie and Gov burst speed and TDK for his height isn't slow.

Teams will continue to get taller

I guess my point is that with Cripps and Kennedy in the side that provides the 4th tall forward option between them. What we don’t need is a 5th forward tall in our match day 22.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

Not having a ruck who can have an impact forward of centre is a "disaster"?

I wonder if Richmond thought similarly in 2017 when Nankervis and Soldo combined for 12 goals for the year. Or in 2019 when they combined for 10. If not I am sure they were completely panicked when they only managed a whopping 5 goals between them!

Sure, it would be nice if Pitto and/or TDK could play as genuine forwards, but the reality is you've picked a trivial statistic and chosen to put a line through certain players on the back of it. It's completely bizarre.

How many games did Saldo & Nank play together, If i recall they preferred to play Grig as the 2nd ruck to support the #1 ruck, similar to what many are suggesting we do with Jack.. Worked out okay for the Tigs..

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

I just don't get this mindset

If we had 4 tallish forwards, the opposition need to counter that, with similar height players, thus both sides have similar levels of agility that part of the ground

Unless of course, someone like the Dogs want to play Daniel as a sweeper like they did a couple years ago and Harry out marked him on numerous occasions

Harry is incredibly quick on the lead, Charlie and Gov burst speed and TDK for his height isn't slow.

Teams will continue to get taller

Our forwards, which are our strength need space to run into, if the opposition counter our 4 players that are 195cm+ with similar players it will be extremely crowded and none of them will take a mark and the ball will get rebounded out as quickly as it comes in, you need a balance of tall and short to function effectively. Also Cripps can not play forward, he is just no good at it, we have tried and failed.. leave him in the guts and if he needs a rest put him on the bench, let him play in spurts like Dane Swan used to..

 

[Arr0w]

It’s not about taller/small, it’s about capacity and willingness. Our forwards have demonstrated a propensity to be lazy and not exhibit pressure consistently. Any structure will fail without willingness and effort.

We also have a tendency to bomb to to tall forward line as a get out option. See Ed Curnow forward 50 entries. I’d like to see us shelve that completely until we have forwards and mids who fight to keep it in.

So if it isn't about height, why are you debating what is a viable structure. As for our willingness, that stemmed from a past tense gameplan, one that was like playing touch footy. While all clubs will look to improve efficiency, that isn't one of our major issues, as once we get it inside 50 we score on average similar to other sides.

Our issue under Teague was contested footy (6 of the top 8 sides lead the averages) and getting it into forward 50 (7 of the top 8 lead the averages), the 2 most important indicators

https://aflratings.com.au/2021/07/07/2021-stats-points-per-inside-50-round-16/

Our scoring efficiency was better than the Demons

I guess my point is that with Cripps and Kennedy in the side that provides the 4th tall forward option between them. What we don’t need is a 5th forward tall in our match day 22.

You are making assumptions that both will play each week and that they will always rest forward rather than on the bench. Also not taking into account that 1 of those 4 tallish forwards will also be resting on the bench

 

[Arr0w]

Our forwards, which are our strength need space to run into, if the opposition counter our 4 players that are 195cm+ with similar players it will be extremely crowded and none of them will take a mark and the ball will get rebounded out as quickly as it comes in, you need a balance of tall and short to function effectively. Also Cripps can not play forward, he is just no good at it, we have tried and failed.. leave him in the guts and if he needs a rest put him on the bench, let him play in spurts like Dane Swan used to..

12 players at 180cm in our forward 50, same speed/agility, will it get rebounded any quicker or slower? Now substitute those players for 195cm equivalents

Also, players push further up the ground, so they would have plenty of space to work

 

[Justnetime]

I just don't get this mindset

If we had 4 tallish forwards, the opposition need to counter that, with similar height players, thus both sides have similar levels of agility that part of the ground

Unless of course, someone like the Dogs want to play Daniel as a sweeper like they did a couple years ago and Harry out marked him on numerous occasions

Harry is incredibly quick on the lead, Charlie and Gov burst speed and TDK for his height isn't slow.

Teams will continue to get taller

This is a circular silly argument. Yes 4 taller players may force an opposition side to counter with 4 tall defenders. But the same point could be made by playing smaller and faster players forcing the opposition to counter. The argument is pointless.

What is important is the quality of your player. last year you mentioned Casbault a lot. This year you are mentioning McDonald. If Carlton want to force an opposition side to match or counter Tall’s or smalls we have, then we want to pick our best 22 Quality wise And let them match that.

You have been arguing for us playing our worse players quality wise and saying opponents will need to, or may match us. Of course they will love that situation. Last year when we played Casbault, they said thanks a lot Carlton, yes we will match you.

When we play GC, I hope Casbault is in their side.

 

[Arr0w]

This is a circular silly argument. Yes 4 taller players may force an opposition side to counter with 4 tall defenders. But the same point could be made by playing smaller and faster players forcing the opposition to counter. The argument is pointless.

What is important is the quality of your player. last year you mentioned Casbault a lot. This year you are mentioning McDonald. If Carlton want to force an opposition side to match or counter Tall’s or smalls we have, then we want to pick our best 22 Quality wise And let them match that.

You have been arguing for us playing our worse players quality wise and saying opponents will need to, or may match us. Of course they will love that situation. Last year when we played Casbault, they said thanks a lot Carlton, yes we will match you.

When we play GC, I hope Casbault is in their side.

I have argued for us to play our worst players?

 

[Justnetime]

I have argued for us to play our worst players?

Lol.

Yes you have.

Casbault last year being a prime example. He was one of our worst players last year and you advocated relief ruck and decoy attributes as to reasons why he should play. In reality, due to a number of reasons (not ready fitness/touch wise), he was a complete liability.

In your favour, Teague also advocated playing him.

 

[Arr0w]

Lol.

Yes you have.

Casbault last year being a prime example. He was one of our worst players last year and you advocated relief ruck and decoy attributes as to reasons why he should play. In reality, due to a number of reasons (not ready fitness/touch wise), he was a complete liability.

In your favour, Teague also advocated playing him.

FMD, why you would bring up Levi in this interaction/thread is beyond me

Will do this once

TDK was out for the 1st half of the season, Pitto the 2nd half, MacDonald injured all year, Gov played 5 games, Jsos 15, Charlie 4

I prefer to run with 2 ruckmen, that can take a mark when resting forward, or provide a decoy for Harry

Harry kicked more goals, took more marks, when Levi was playing(insert any other 2nd KPF/ruckman you like).

Not opinion, fact

Let's get back to the supporters best 22 yeah

 

[Jeremias]

How many games did Saldo & Nank play together, If i recall they preferred to play Grig as the 2nd ruck to support the #1 ruck, similar to what many are suggesting we do with Jack.. Worked out okay for the Tigs..

Played a handful of games together in each of those years, including a victorious grand final.

86% win rate with both on the park together.

And what of the Eagles in 2018? Three rucks - Naitanui, Lycett, Vardy, 23 goals between them from 50 matches, hardly what you would call dangerous up forward.
And yet they had a 74% win rate that season when two played together, and a 100% record when all three played together.

Disastrous, you say? I wish we had results as disastrous as those.

 

[thylacine60]

er, bang.

 

[gandaal]

Interesting 32 people have slotted Jesse into the starting 7 without playing a game .. either our list is cactus or people have extremely high hopes of a 1st year player ...

Is Motlop a worse option than 2nd year Durdin or Cat B rookie Owies?

It'll be a borderline call.