Autopsy 2024 Rd 11 Leaders let Blues down in season defining loss to Giants

[JustaBattler]

I'd love to hear the club's explanation as to our game plan and how we use our players. It seems that the entire AFL world thinks our game plan is outdated.

I don't see anyone except on BF saying that game plan is "outdated" let alone the entire AFL world'....

But we do know that game plans change, and come back into style. It's just a matter of personnel. If it suddenly changed midseason, we'd be in the box seat.

that pretty much segues into the real issue....

You think we are tweaks away from winning more consistently?

I think we have to win contested ball and clearance the majority of the time, but we also have to change our forward 50 entries, and who delivers the ball. We then have to change the way we lead, and have small forwards who can rove the ball off packs at pace. The only way contested ball allows us to score is if we get the ball to ground and we have enough contested ball winners to keep it in there until we can scrap through a goal.

yep - but why ?

Because we don't take a lot of ground through running to leave opposition midfielders unable to get back to help in time, we don't have an open forward line very often, at least not as much as opposition teams do against us.

yep - but why?

When a team is matching us for contested ball and clearance, we don't have the ability to break lines in order to find different paths to goal. Take away our one wood, and we are in big trouble. Even with our one wood, it relies on contested marking inside 50.

yep and the bottom line is that Carlton lacks the requisite class in kickers between the arcs and then the final kick into a target in the forward fifty ...

this is partially rectified when Williams , E Hollands and Fantasia are playing - unfortunately all of them have never played together if at all....

The team looks good breaking out the front of CBB and kicking fast to a Charlie or Harry and teh team as you say looks bog slow and ordinary when having to make a decent kick - especially teh last one into the forward fifty. The solution to this is not difficult to compute-= but requires players available thayt can execute into the forward fifty ( every team defends by flooding back) - which requires good small forwards that are not just crumbers and good outside mids and HF who can kick into targets.

the question is - who are they?

 

[The Bighouse]

You think we are tweaks away from winning more consistently?

I think we have to win contested ball and clearance the majority of the time, but we also have to change our forward 50 entries, and who delivers the ball. We then have to change the way we lead, and have small forwards who can rove the ball off packs at pace. The only way contested ball allows us to score is if we get the ball to ground and we have enough contested ball winners to keep it in there until we can scrap through a goal.

Because we don't take a lot of ground through running to leave opposition midfielders unable to get back to help in time, we don't have an open forward line very often, at least not as much as opposition teams do against us.

When a team is matching us for contested ball and clearance, we don't have the ability to break lines in order to find different paths to goal. Take away our one wood, and we are in big trouble. Even with our one wood, it relies on contested marking inside 50.

I’m in the boat that we don’t use the best options, handball chains have gone missing, our execution regularly fails us, as does our forward line.
Forward line has been an issue for years, with the hired specialist coaches (Teague, Hansen and now JR) not fixing it.
System and space needs to be found. Goal accuracy would assist.
A lot of players have thrown up below average seasons, from the top of the tree unfortunately.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I don't see anyone except on BF saying that game plan is "outdated" let alone the entire AFL world'....

The football shows are highlighting how we are the only team who plays this way. It's not just BigFooty either. We are not the centre of the footballing universe. There are other Carlton vehicles out there, such as Blue Abroad and the thought is growing. At the very least, if we are to play this way, we have to be able to switch it up when required.

that pretty much segues into the real issue....


yep - but why ?


yep - but why?

yep and the bottom line is that Carlton lacks the requisite class in kickers between the arcs and then the final kick into a target in the forward fifty ...

this is partially rectified when Williams , E Hollands and Fantasia are playing - unfortunately all of them have never played together if at all....

The team looks good breaking out the front of CBB and kicking fast to a Charlie or Harry and teh team as you say looks bog slow and ordinary when having to make a decent kick - especially teh last one into the forward fifty. The solution to this is not difficult to compute-= but requires players available thayt can execute into the forward fifty ( every team defends by flooding back) - which requires good small forwards that are not just crumbers and good outside mids and HF who can kick into targets.

the question is - who are they?

We're in a bit of trouble if we are waiting for Williams and Fantasia to get us to win. They are part of the perenially injured brigade that we cut deep into last offseason. Elijah is a decent kick, but I don't think he can play permanent midfield, and he's pretty slow himself. Walsh and Cripps are not known for their disposal, although Cripps has improved. Cerra is but isn't busting lines or appearing through the guts to launch a worm burner pass before the defence is set. He's also slow and usually gets his chances trying to spot up a piece of turf amongst 20 players.

I don't subscribe to the theory some have that the ball moves faster by foot, so leg speed isn't everything. The whole idea of taking ground with the legs, breaking up defences by having them in two minds, and then being able to go long, short or handpass to another runner, is something all teams want.

You asked a lot of whys. My contention is that it is bloody hard to get a team full of good users, and that an average kick can still have a place in a team that has pace weapons that will break apart a defence as they don't have to be pin point with their passes, just close enough.

 

[Blue Pulse]

There’s some guys out there going through the motions, ticking the KPI’s with no impact & happy enough to take the pay checks.

Of that lot, Cerra was very good.

There’s an hours decent footy in us & that simply isn’t enough.

We just do not hurt opposition sides physically or run & they know that.

Did like Lords game today, thought Carroll battled hard, HOF is raw, but there’s signs, White gets it enough, has to get greedy around the sticks.

That’s about it.

100%. Sides know we aren't physical and therefore will do what they want without any consequences. The only ice they need after a game is for their drinks.

 

[slashin_velvet]

There weren't many positives but after a dismal first half McGovern with 2 goal assists when moved forward (equal highest on the ground) was something. Think he needs to play forward for the rest of the year now. If he performs then he earns an extension. If not then move him on.

Counterpoint - first half we scored 6.6, second half after the switch we scored 6.4

Lewis Young had 1 goal assist in the first half, so not a significant difference between the two players.

The opposition had 8.4 in the first half and 9.4 in the second half.

Summary - McGovern is around the same level as Young....take from that whatever you must

Edit: when JSOS is back I'd move Gov forward and Young drops out.

 

[JustaBattler]

The football shows are highlighting how we are the only team who plays this way. It's not just BigFooty either. We are not the centre of the footballing universe. There are other Carlton vehicles out there, such as Blue Abroad and the thought is growing. At the very least, if we are to play this way, we have to be able to switch it up when required.



We're in a bit of trouble if we are waiting for Williams and Fantasia to get us to win. They are part of the perenially injured brigade that we cut deep into last offseason. Elijah is a decent kick, but I don't think he can play permanent midfield, and he's pretty slow himself. Walsh and Cripps are not known for their disposal, although Cripps has improved. Cerra is but isn't busting lines or appearing through the guts to launch a worm burner pass before the defence is set. He's also slow and usually gets his chances trying to spot up a piece of turf amongst 20 players.

I don't subscribe to the theory some have that the ball moves faster by foot, so leg speed isn't everything. The whole idea of taking ground with the legs, breaking up defences by having them in two minds, and then being able to go long, short or handpass to another runner, is something all teams want.

You asked a lot of whys. My contention is that it is bloody hard to get a team full of good users, and that an average kick can still have a place in a team that has pace weapons that will break apart a defence as they don't have to be pin point with their passes, just close enough.

I agree with what you are saying especially the bolded bits - and have been saying that we don't have a contending list for long time now....for all the reasons you point out above....

it is fixable though - no need for a massive rebuild either...

 

[WyntersGame_]

McGovern stays forward and HOF stays in the team in defence.

I disagree with the idea of keeping McGovern forward. He didn’t seem to consider other options in the forward line—his instincts were clearly to just get the ball to Charlie, no matter what.

One of our biggest issues up forward is decision-making—specifically, picking the right pass to the open player. McGovern repeatedly ignored free teammates because he was fixated on giving it to Charlie. It became so obvious that even the commentators pointed it out, highlighting Durdin sitting unmarked and being overlooked, while Charlie had three defenders on him. The fact that Charlie managed to mark it was pure luck, not good play.

Let's not forget he is a failed forward after many years of attempting to play him there to negative effect

 

[WyntersGame_]

Forward line has been an issue for years, with the hired specialist coaches (Teague, Hansen and now JR) not fixing it.

It raises the question: why is it failing? Each of these coaches arrived with strong reputations as assistant coaches, yet we're not seeing the expected results.

Is it a case of their coaching abilities being overstated, or is it more to do with what's happening further up the field?

 

[AB_Blue]

McGovern showed more lead up ability in a half (with it bombed on his head) than Charlie and Harry combined

Im more than happy for Gov to stay forward as he’s that hybrid sized 3rd tall who can get up ground

Young is a limited stop gap footballer him being picked as a forward sums up where we are at (as a forward line and) as club

 

[bluesfever16]

I disagree with the idea of keeping McGovern forward. He didn’t seem to consider other options in the forward line—his instincts were clearly to just get the ball to Charlie, no matter what.

One of our biggest issues up forward is decision-making—specifically, picking the right pass to the open player. McGovern repeatedly ignored free teammates because he was fixated on giving it to Charlie. It became so obvious that even the commentators pointed it out, highlighting Durdin sitting unmarked and being overlooked, while Charlie had three defenders on him. The fact that Charlie managed to mark it was pure luck, not good play.

Let's not forget he is a failed forward after many years of attempting to play him there to negative effect

The kick was to Charlie's advantage hence he marked it, there's nothing lucky about anything that Charlie does. And who cares if durdin was free, he would've kicked from deep on the boundary which is much more of a low percentage shot compared to where charlie was. As long as you hit your target either option would've been fine.

 

[Broadside]

If Charlie worked harder he wouldn’t have 3 defenders hanging off him in the first place. He should use his supposedly elite running capacity to burn defenders like Richo used to (and Jeremy Cameron

5

Jeremy Cameron

Age

32

Ht

196cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.5

3star

K

9.0

3star

HB

3.4

3star

M

5.4

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

2.6

5star

D

10.0

3star

K

7.1

3star

HB

2.9

2star

M

4.6

4star

T

2.0

3star

G

1.9

5star

D

8.2

2star

K

5.0

2star

HB

3.2

3star

M

4.6

5star

T

2.4

4star

G

2.0

5star

still does)

 

[BigFrizz36]

I don't see anyone except on BF saying that game plan is "outdated" let alone the entire AFL world'....

that pretty much segues into the real issue....


yep - but why ?


yep - but why?

yep and the bottom line is that Carlton lacks the requisite class in kickers between the arcs and then the final kick into a target in the forward fifty ...

this is partially rectified when Williams , E Hollands and Fantasia are playing - unfortunately all of them have never played together if at all....

The team looks good breaking out the front of CBB and kicking fast to a Charlie or Harry and teh team as you say looks bog slow and ordinary when having to make a decent kick - especially teh last one into the forward fifty. The solution to this is not difficult to compute-= but requires players available thayt can execute into the forward fifty ( every team defends by flooding back) - which requires good small forwards that are not just crumbers and good outside mids and HF who can kick into targets.

the question is - who are they?

Absolutely spot on. The difference yesterday was the connection going into the 50 (along with Weitering having a strange day where a dropped mark, a fumble and a free kick directly cost us 3 goals) .

A couple of times Will White (who had a good game and is progressing nicely) completely botched what should have been lay down misere goals by not identifying the correct option. Trying hard to get back into it late, 15 points down, Cooper Lord (another progressing well) missed a Charlie lead from 20 metres and the game was effectively over.

We work so hard to create opportunities and can't afford to burn them. It's been a common thread this year, we don't have enough players either who can identify the most obvious option as the play unfolds or can make the play cleanly. We huff and puff but can't blow the opposition away. We have been a bit stiff that those most likely to get the job done (Newman, Fantasia, E. Hollands and even Jagga) haven't been available all that often. But we're just going to be a middle of the road team if we squander gilt edge opportunities as often as we have had.

It might be opportune that I'm off to Europe for a holiday this week, culminating in the midnight sun half marathon in Tromso, Norway. Our place is hardly chez Curnow but if they need somewhere to have a team meeting/golf day I'll leave the keys under the mat .

 

[Just Kreuzing]

Don’t get beaten by the obvious or what you know….

2 weeks in a row we knew what had to be done to win against depleted opposition and couldn’t get it done!!

Swans- Quell the influence of Warner & Heeney- FAIL x2!

Giants- Quell the influence of Greene, Hogan, Whitfield & Ash- FAIL x4! (2 of 4 would of been enough)

We are either not scouting well enough or players are not following instruction or disciplines if we are!

 

[JustaBattler]

Absolutely spot on. The difference yesterday was the connection going into the 50 (along with Weitering having a strange day where a dropped mark, a fumble and a free kick directly cost us 3 goals) .

A couple of times Will White (who had a good game and is progressing nicely) completely botched what should have been lay down misere goals by not identifying the correct option. Trying hard to get back into it late, 15 points down, Cooper Lord (another progressing well) missed a Charlie lead from 20 metres and the game was effectively over.

We work so hard to create opportunities and can't afford to burn them. It's been a common thread this year, we don't have enough players either who can identify the most obvious option as the play unfolds or can make the play cleanly. We huff and puff but can't blow the opposition away. We have been a bit stiff that those most likely to get the job done (Newman, Fantasia, E. Hollands and even Jagga) haven't been available all that often. But we're just going to be a middle of the road team if we squander gilt edge opportunities as often as we have had.

It might be opportune that I'm off to Europe for a holiday this week, culminating in the midnight sun half marathon in Tromso, Norway. Our place is hardly chez Curnow but if they need somewhere to have a team meeting/golf day I'll leave the keys under the mat .

Enjoy the trip to Norway - one of my fav places on the planet and also home to my biggest client. You'd know from running - perseverance is everything.

 

[TrueQldBlue]

The club really stuffed up getting rid of Owies....what a debacle...we needed another good crumbing forward to compliment him ...NOT GET RID OF HIM !
Then we go and get Frankie....what was the point...
I'm not even watching anymore...if we win I watch the replay, otherwise it just depresses me too much now days...

 

[WyntersGame_]

The kick was to Charlie's advantage hence he marked it, there's nothing lucky about anything that Charlie does. And who cares if durdin was free, he would've kicked from deep on the boundary which is much more of a low percentage shot compared to where charlie was. As long as you hit your target either option would've been fine.

So you're saying that kicking to a 1v3 contest is a better option than hitting the wide-open player in the forward 50?

Got it. With that kind of logic, you'd fit right in with our current coaching group.

No wonder our forward entry's are winning us games...

 

[bluesfever16]

So you're saying that kicking to a 1v3 contest is a better option than hitting the wide-open player in the forward 50?

Got it. With that kind of logic, you'd fit right in with our current coaching group.

No wonder our forward entry's are winning us games...

You're complaining about a specific incident that literally was not an issue. If he kicked it to durdin I would've had no issue provided he hit his target. He chose to go to charlie (probably because charlie was more likely to score from his position than durdin), backed himself to take on the kick and executed it and we scored from it. If he shanked the kick and the giants transitioned the ball to their F50 then you can criticise, but McGovern is one of our best kicks inside 50 hence I think he should be left forward for the remainder of the year.

 

[WyntersGame_]

You're complaining about a specific incident that literally was not an issue. If he kicked it to durdin I would've had no issue provided he hit his target. He chose to go to charlie (probably because charlie was more likely to score from his position than durdin), backed himself to take on the kick and executed it and we scored from it. If he shanked the kick and the giants transitioned the ball to their F50 then you can criticise, but McGovern is one of our best kicks inside 50 hence I think he should be left forward for the remainder of the year.

I’d suggest re-reading what I actually said.

My point was that when McGovern was moved forward, he didn’t look beyond Curnow as a target. That specific “incident” was just one example of his forward-half decision-making—he didn’t lift his head to assess options, he just threw it on the boot toward Charlie.

So the question remains: do we take the dump kick to Curnow every time, hoping he pulls down a mark, or do we start identifying and hitting the open player?

Isn’t poor forward entry a constant complaint in every game thread? It’s a recurring issue.

Your argument seems to be that because Curnow marked it on that occasion, McGovern’s decision was justified and he should continue as a forward. My counter is that we should be making the smarter play—hitting the free player—which gives us a higher chance of scoring rather than risking a rebound the other way.

Personally, I’ve seen enough of McGovern as a forward to last a lifetime. History shows it hasn’t worked. He found his best form as a defender, and I genuinely believe if he stays forward for the rest of the season, we’ll be worse off because of it.

 

[sosos]

Like I keep saying mate... thank SOS for our failure at the draft...

Current list management is also culpable for not extracting adequate value for some of Sos's high picks we moved on.

I think SOS did a reasonable job, and was ditched before he could complete the mission.

Agree he missed with a few, but will argue his long term vision was squished before it came to full fruition.

I can guarantee we wouldn't have the same list profile schemozzle, dollar wise if he'd been retained.

 

[SOS Rules]

Agree. The problem is, I don’t trust anyone in charge to indentify the issue(s) and implement the correct aggressive change(s). Not one person!

I'm placing a bit of faith in Graham Wright. He would be the Carlton CEO with the most playing and footy ops experience that we've ever had except Ian Collins - not sure about his footy ops experience. Regardless, Wright has massive experience in list management and talent ID so I'm hoping he can have a direct influence in these areas. We still need to improve big time in relation to development coaching so I'm hoping he has some ideas about who are the best in the business.

 

[bluesfever16]

I’d suggest re-reading what I actually said.

My point was that when McGovern was moved forward, he didn’t look beyond Curnow as a target. That specific “incident” was just one example of his forward-half decision-making—he didn’t lift his head to assess options, he just threw it on the boot toward Charlie.

So the question remains: do we take the dump kick to Curnow every time, hoping he pulls down a mark, or do we start identifying and hitting the open player?

Isn’t poor forward entry a constant complaint in every game thread? It’s a recurring issue.

Your argument seems to be that because Curnow marked it on that occasion, McGovern’s decision was justified and he should continue as a forward. My counter is that we should be making the smarter play—hitting the free player—which gives us a higher chance of scoring rather than risking a rebound the other way.

Personally, I’ve seen enough of McGovern as a forward to last a lifetime. History shows it hasn’t worked. He found his best form as a defender, and I genuinely believe if he stays forward for the rest of the season, we’ll be worse off because of it.

Absolutely not the case, literally more than half of my posts are about how McGovern should never have been moved back in 2021.

Look at where Jesse Hogan has most of his shots. They are all closer to goal and mostly with little angle. If you want to have a higher probability of kicking accurate in front of goal then where you are taking your shots matters. Maybe Durdin would've kicked it, who knows, but McGovern didn't throw it on the boot like you said, he carried the ball forward a bit and then picked out charlie. There are many instances in all games where players will bite off the corridor kick instead of taking a more conservative chip kick to the wing. If they get it right it can lead to a goal, if not it can burn them going the other way. Its very much a risk vs reward thing. Surely there are more meaningful things to talk about from the game rather than one of our best passages of play which led to a great team goal from the back half.

 

[Broadside]

Current list management is also culpable for not extracting adequate value for some of Sos's high picks we moved on.

I think SOS did a reasonable job, and was ditched before he could complete the mission.

Agree he missed with a few, but will argue his long term vision was squished before it came to full fruition.

I can guarantee we wouldn't have the same list profile schemozzle, dollar wise if he'd been retained.

He had one great draft and also TDK was a great pick. But the amount of high picks he burned on midfielders who didn’t make it has hurt us badly.

 

[Gointocarlton]

He had one great draft and also TDK was a great pick. But the amount of high picks he burned on midfielders who didn’t make it has hurt us badly.

Im sure if you put that to SOS, he would tell you they weren't developed properly by our coaches. Finger pointing 101.

 

[blues4flag]

I disagree with the idea of keeping McGovern forward. He didn’t seem to consider other options in the forward line—his instincts were clearly to just get the ball to Charlie, no matter what.

One of our biggest issues up forward is decision-making—specifically, picking the right pass to the open player. McGovern repeatedly ignored free teammates because he was fixated on giving it to Charlie. It became so obvious that even the commentators pointed it out, highlighting Durdin sitting unmarked and being overlooked, while Charlie had three defenders on him. The fact that Charlie managed to mark it was pure luck, not good play.

Let's not forget he is a failed forward after many years of attempting to play him there to negative effect

Assuming it is an issue, perhaps the better approach is to start by coaching him to take the better option?

 

[slashin_velvet]

I'm placing a bit of faith in Graham Wright. He would be the Carlton CEO with the most playing and footy ops experience that we've ever had except Ian Collins - not sure about his footy ops experience. Regardless, Wright has massive experience in list management and talent ID so I'm hoping he can have a direct influence in these areas. We still need to improve big time in relation to development coaching so I'm hoping he has some ideas about who are the best in the business.

So I'm aligned with the perspective that Wright has runs on the board with regards to footy operations - but that begs the question.....why have we appointed him as CEO?

Reel off the names of the best CEOs in the industry. How many of them have come from a football management background vs business management background.

The last big blow up we had as a club required a new president to step in because the CEO was interfering in the football side of the business. Have we learned nothing from that external review/report - or do we just throw the reports in the bin once delivered?