Play Nice The 'all things Carlton' mega-thread

[La Dispute]

I dunno how you could watch a an 18 year old Tom Williamson run around last year and just think ‘meh’

It’s way too early to judge our 1st and 2nd year players, who’ve held up remarkably well given the circumstances.

We won’t see how good these guys will be for another 4 or 5 years, but the glimpses have been positive in spite of a horrendous first half of the season.

 

[Belnakor]

Speaking of ASOS, has anyone ever been simultaneously on the rookie list and in a club's leadership group?

Definitely unusual. Though some clubs have 10+ people in their leadership group don't they ?

 

[Ron The Bear]

Comparing average age is really shallow analysis.

Carlton have sold off the majority of older players with any value for draft picks. This isn't a team being held up by an experienced core - the older players in the team are those we kept because they had no trade value, or DFA's picked up for depth.

Do you think if we weren't hobbled by injuries Matt Shaw / Cam O'Shea / Sam Rowe / Jed Lamb / Nick Graham / etc. would be playing? We'd actually be a better team if the kids could get on the park, and then also have that younger average age you want.

Yes it's simplistic, but it tells a consistent tale. Here's an even more simplistic analysis.

H&A results over the past decade:

Team age|P|W|L|D|Win %
\<22yo|37|3|34|0|8.11
\22yo|154|37|114|3|25.00
\23yo|580|192|384|4|33.45
\24yo|1286|612|664|10|47.98
\25yo|1109|646|451|12|58.79
\26yo|434|283|148|3|65.55
\27yo+|74|48|26|0|64.86
\All|3674|1821|1821|32|50.00

It makes no allowance for teams in the same bracket playing each other, i.e. one winner and one loser. But it's patently obvious that older teams win more often than younger teams.

The demographics can shift, e.g. in the 1950's and 60's, teams were in general much younger than today. But a few rules of thumb can be laid down in the current era.

- teams <24 don't play finals/finals window opens for precocious teams at 24
- teams 25+ should be playing finals or contending very strongly
- teams 26+ should be contending for top four, or the cliff is near
- the 24yo bracket is the most variable

Carlton 2016 7 wins @ 25.32 was no great shakes
Carlton 2017 6 wins @ 24.56 was passable, maybe, given the high number of 25+ teams (11)
Carlton 2018 1 win @ 24.60 is plain bad and suggests something is wrong

Not convinced Carlton would be better or win more games with a younger team from the current list. But it would buy some slack from the critics and make a greater contribution to long-term prosperity, assuming adequate development processes are in place.

And you're misrepresenting my position. I'm not "seeking" a younger average age. Age merely illustrates what is happening at a club. Alone, it must never be used to drive selection.

 

[Scotland]

Definitely unusual. Though some clubs have 10+ people in their leadership group don't they ?

It's the modern way.

GWS appointed De Boer who was a Freo offcast, but he cemented a spot the second half of last year and is at least on the senior list. As a former Freo regular and IIRC leadership group member he could've easily played 150-200+ games there.

 

[Ron The Bear]

the most concerning bit about this table is how from 2016 to 2018 they have only dropped .7 of their average age. In the same time period fremantle have dropped two years worth of experience.

Freo had big problems that demanded drastic action. I'd actually say Ross has been a little slow to make the required changes. He gave the oldies every possible chance.

In saying that, it's difficult for the incumbent to slash the list and retain the trust of his players, hence rebuilds are normally performed by a newcomer. Freo had little option given the length of Lyon's contract.

 

[Juddernaut08]

The pure and utter delusion and arrogance of Carlton fans is startling.
"You can be assured" lol.
This club is constantly stuck at the bottom of the ladder,going absolutely nowhere,but all should be good,Carlton will magically improve while the other 17 clubs will magically get worse.

lol ok calm down, 2.

 

[Belnakor]

It's the modern way.

GWS appointed De Boer who was a Freo offcast, but he cemented a spot the second half of last year and is at least on the senior list. As a former Freo regular and IIRC leadership group member he could've easily played 150-200+ games there.

Yup he was a leadership group member one year and is apparently a ripping bloke. He just can't kick and we already have plenty of them on our list.

 

[Vo Rogue]

The pure and utter delusion and arrogance of Carlton fans is startling.
"You can be assured" lol.
This club is constantly stuck at the bottom of the ladder,going absolutely nowhere,but all should be good,Carlton will magically improve while the other 17 clubs will magically get worse.

They are so stupid. Pretty soon they will probably tell us the earth is flat!


"I guess that's why my teaching has been so successful here.
People are certainly frustrated and confused here though,we have a website called ' the bay' after all for frustrated losers clogging any sort of intelligent thought.
We seem quick to ban any thought that doesn't agree with our own and we seem to play favours,we long titles that don't even belong here.
It's like we all want to be internet gods,banning and suppressing,while ignoring how we really feel,living flat,not spinning,not hurtling,and certainly not upside down."

darthbards, Wednesday at 1:40 AM Report

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Yes it's simplistic, but it tells a consistent tale. Here's an even more simplistic analysis.

H&A results over the past decade:

Team age|P|W|L|D|Win %
\<22yo|37|3|34|0|8.11
\22yo|154|37|114|3|25.00
\23yo|580|192|384|4|33.45
\24yo|1286|612|664|10|47.98
\25yo|1109|646|451|12|58.79
\26yo|434|283|148|3|65.55
\27yo+|74|48|26|0|64.86
\All|3674|1821|1821|32|50.00

It makes no allowance for teams in the same bracket playing each other, i.e. one winner and one loser. But it's patently obvious that older teams win more often than younger teams.

The demographics can shift, e.g. in the 1950's and 60's, teams were in general much younger than today. But a few rules of thumb can be laid down in the current era.

- teams <24 don't play finals/finals window opens for precocious teams at 24
- teams 25+ should be playing finals or contending very strongly
- teams 26+ should be contending for top four, or the cliff is near
- the 24yo bracket is the most variable

Carlton 2016 7 wins @ 25.32 was no great shakes
Carlton 2017 6 wins @ 24.56 was passable, maybe, given the high number of 25+ teams (11)
Carlton 2018 1 win @ 24.60 is plain bad and suggests something is wrong

Not convinced Carlton would be better or win more games with a younger team from the current list. But it would buy some slack from the critics and make a greater contribution to long-term prosperity, assuming adequate development processes are in place.

And you're misrepresenting my position. I'm not "seeking" a younger average age. Age merely illustrates what is happening at a club. Alone, it must never be used to drive selection.

When you realise that the difference between the youngest and oldest average list age this year was about 298 days, it all seems a little irrelevant. Or is this average age of players that are actually played?

 

[doppleganger]

Melbourne actually brought some of these guys in because they realised they done ****** up in getting rid of Green, McDonald, Bruce etc. in the Watts/Scully/Trengove era of putting all their eggs in the draft basket.

I don't know the youngest/least experienced team Melbourne fielded but they were running at at an average age of under 23 and a total games played of sub 1400 for a while. And predictably they were s**t. Carlton started this year 24 & 1800, last year nearly 25 and 1900, the year before that 25 and 1850. I'm really sure what their strategy is... it's like they're trying to avoid being too young so they are cutting their own experienced duds to bring in more.

Yep.

All Carlton have done is bring in 18 new duds to replace duds that the old regime had left.

By doing this the new regime gets to use a lack of continuity as an excuse...it seems 3 years in and plenty of Blues faithful still buying what the new regime is selling and blaming past mistakes for their current woes.

 

[doppleganger]

When you realise that the difference between the youngest and oldest average list age this year was about 298 days, it all seems a little irrelevant. Or is this average age of players that are actually played?

It is about the teams being trotted out each week.

 

[Obeanie1]

We will be smart by drafting the best player in the pool with #1, anything less than that is sheer stupidity !!

And how has that gone for Carlton so far?

Have they been good at drafting over the past 10 years?

Who is the best player is quite subjective and quite a few pick 1s havent cut it.

So you would knock back two firsts and a second rounder?

People put way too much value on pick 1.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Ron The Bear unsure if you can give this but is it possible to compare the number of list changes of Carlton under Bolton each year to what Roos did at Melbourne?

2016
Carlton - out 15 (4 rookies), in 15 (3), upgraded rookies 0
Melbourne - out 8 (0), in 8 (2), upgraded 2

2017
Carlton - out 12 (2), in 12 (2), upgraded 1
Melbourne - out 8 (2), in 10 (3), upgraded 1

2018
Carlton - out 13 (3), in 12 (2), upgraded 0
Melbourne - out 8 (1), in 6 (0), upgraded 1

No question that Carlton has made a mountain of changes in that time. It's a question of what's coming in and Carlton's faith in them.

 

[schmuttt]

2016
Carlton - out 15 (4 rookies), in 15 (3), upgraded rookies 0
Melbourne - out 8 (0), in 8 (2), upgraded 2

2017
Carlton - out 12 (2), in 12 (2), upgraded 1
Melbourne - out 8 (2), in 10 (3), upgraded 1

2018
Carlton - out 13 (3), in 12 (2), upgraded 0
Melbourne - out 8 (1), in 6 (0), upgraded 1

No question that Carlton has made a mountain of changes in that time. It's a question of what's coming in and Carlton's faith in them.

Thanks Ron, despite some posters sooking I genuinely just wanted to see the numbers.

 

[doppleganger]

Vast majority of those names didn't cost anything, and barely played a game. Who's stealing games off kids? Maybe you could say Matt Wright since he actually gets a game, but our young small forwards have been injured all year.

What does cost have to do with anything?

L.Dunn didn’t cost anything, Melbourne picked up Cross and Lewis for nothing. Brisbane added Hodge for nothing.

It is about actually adding quality leadership and experience to the list to help develop the glut of draft picks you were going to bring in.

Carlton added a bunch of dubious 22-26year olds, just because they were 22-26....now they need replacing again.

But unfortunately now Carlton have even less quality senior talent compared to the end of 2015 when bolton took over.

 

[Ron The Bear]

When you realise that the difference between the youngest and oldest average list age this year was about 298 days, it all seems a little irrelevant. Or is this average age of players that are actually played?

Agree that list age is a distraction. I don't deal in it.

 

[LordLucifer]

And how has that gone for Carlton so far?

Who is the best player is quite subjective and quite a few pick 1s havent cut it.

It's going quite well thus far but you, like so many other supporters of opposition clubs cannot or refuse to see it.

The biggest thing that around 85% of the footballing public have absolutely failed to acknowledge is that we are coming from a long, long, long way back. Our people are trying to rectify about twenty years of poor recruiting & near non-existent player development and that takes time to overcome.

Every club has made poor draft and/or trade choices but we have at times, made it an artform. When you throw in a 3-4 year period of virtually no top end draft picks for the salary cap breaches plus the wrong time to be down the bottom end with the GWS & GC drafts and we have brought most of our troubles on ourselves.

It is my view that no club in the history of the competition since the introduction of the draft & salary cap, has entered into such a dramatic & sustained rebuild of their playing list that has been compounded by a distinct lack of older readymade players to provide support & leadership.

There are no shortcuts, I'm okay with that too, we made the bed & we'll sleep in it for now.

We will be back, you can bookmark that as well !!

 

[LordLucifer]

So you would knock back two firsts and a second rounder?

People put way too much value on pick 1.

You edited your original post whilst I was typing my reply so I'll add in a comment to your additions.

Absolutely I would expect the club to knock that back. The only way we should ever consider trading #1 is if we were made the "Mother of all Trade Offers", a completely & utterly ridiculous deal and even then, I'm not sure that we would pass over a potential 200-game superstar.

We need more serious top end talent right now, not just warm bodies to take a seat on the bus. It is that sort of thinking that got us into this dilemma in the first place (eg. #7 for Jaksch, Whiley & #19).

If we are going to be taken seriously & actually get somewhere, then we cannot keep doing the same things as we have in the past and expect a different result.

We do have much better people at the club making the decisions but that doesn't automatically mean they are immune from making errors, every club gets things wrong, it's just that the better club gets less wrong and more often.

 

[Ron The Bear]

It is my view that no club in the history of the competition since the introduction of the draft & salary cap, has entered into such a dramatic & sustained rebuild of their playing list that has been compounded by a distinct lack of older readymade players to provide support & leadership.

Not disputing the rate of turnover, but other clubs have done it tougher with regard to depth of senior players.

Simpson (34) 12 games, Thomas (30) 12, Murphy (30) 4, Rowe (30) 8, Kreuzer 29 (9), Curnow (28) 11, Wright (28) 12, Casboult 28 (8), Jones (12) 12

compares favourably with e.g. 2003 Fremantle who played finals with

Parker (30) 12, Waterhouse 28 (8), Jones (28) 1, McManus (27) 22, Bell (27) 22, Cook (27) 22

Bulldogs 1995 played finals with only

Osborne (31) 22, Wallis (30) 12, McPherson (30) 8, Hunter (29) 8, Liberatore (29) 22

There are others.

 

[Obeanie1]

You edited your original post whilst I was typing my reply so I'll add in a comment to your additions.

Absolutely I would expect the club to knock that back. The only way we should ever consider trading #1 is if we were made the "Mother of all Trade Offers", a completely & utterly ridiculous deal and even then, I'm not sure that we would pass over a potential 200-game superstar.

We need more serious top end talent right now, not just warm bodies to take a seat on the bus. It is that sort of thinking that got us into this dilemma in the first place (eg. #7 for Jaksch, Whiley & #19).

If we are going to be taken seriously & actually get somewhere, then we cannot keep doing the same things as we have in the past and expect a different result.

We do have much better people at the club making the decisions but that doesn't automatically mean they are immune from making errors, every club gets things wrong, it's just that the better club gets less wrong and more often.

Had to have a chuckle. Just reading an article on SEN about Adelaide. If they lost Sloan as a fa and McGovern to a trade they could end up with picks 8, 9, 11, 16 and 20.

Then they quote Liam Pickering saying the Crows miight look to turning two of those picks into pick 1.

In guessing Pickering would know a bit more about the industry than tou or I?

 

[Beer n Skittles]

Yes it's simplistic, but it tells a consistent tale. Here's an even more simplistic analysis.

H&A results over the past decade:

Team age|P|W|L|D|Win %
\<22yo|37|3|34|0|8.11
\22yo|154|37|114|3|25.00
\23yo|580|192|384|4|33.45
\24yo|1286|612|664|10|47.98
\25yo|1109|646|451|12|58.79
\26yo|434|283|148|3|65.55
\27yo+|74|48|26|0|64.86
\All|3674|1821|1821|32|50.00

It makes no allowance for teams in the same bracket playing each other, i.e. one winner and one loser. But it's patently obvious that older teams win more often than younger teams.

The demographics can shift, e.g. in the 1950's and 60's, teams were in general much younger than today. But a few rules of thumb can be laid down in the current era.

- teams <24 don't play finals/finals window opens for precocious teams at 24
- teams 25+ should be playing finals or contending very strongly
- teams 26+ should be contending for top four, or the cliff is near
- the 24yo bracket is the most variable

Carlton 2016 7 wins @ 25.32 was no great shakes
Carlton 2017 6 wins @ 24.56 was passable, maybe, given the high number of 25+ teams (11)
Carlton 2018 1 win @ 24.60 is plain bad and suggests something is wrong

Not convinced Carlton would be better or win more games with a younger team from the current list. But it would buy some slack from the critics and make a greater contribution to long-term prosperity, assuming adequate development processes are in place.

And you're misrepresenting my position. I'm not "seeking" a younger average age. Age merely illustrates what is happening at a club. Alone, it must never be used to drive selection.

It's not even just simplistic, it's just stating trends without even an ounce of consideration put into why these trends exist.

If a team is no good, with generally poor players, it tends to cut players and so doesn't move up into the older average age groups. The more quality players you have, the more you hang on to them, the more games you win & the older your team gets. Carlton don't fit this trend. We haven't hung on to many quality players at all. We have brought in older, short term, relatively poor players just to see if they'd be good enough to use to protect the kids. Hasn't really worked out at all.

 

[Scotland]

Yep.

All Carlton have done is bring in 18 new duds to replace duds that the old regime had left.

By doing this the new regime gets to use a lack of continuity as an excuse...it seems 3 years in and plenty of Blues faithful still buying what the new regime is selling and blaming past mistakes for their current woes.

The more list changes you make, the more you can sell that you are turning over the list.

Gorringe, Sumner, Smedts, Palmer, Gallucci (rookie), Korchek (rookie) have already come in and gone out from the Bolton/SOS era and a few more will follow this year.

List turnover is natural. Adam Simpson is in his 5th year with us and 16/22 players from John Worsfold's last game are no longer on the list. Thankfully most of the turnover is organic through players retiring, the odd one seeking a trade etc. and general replacing old players with new. Excepting Mitchell/Petrie who were by design there hasn't been a lot of churn of players in and out within 1-3 seasons.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Had to have a chuckle. Just reading an article on SEN about Adelaide. If they lost Sloan as a fa and McGovern to a trade they could end up with picks 8, 9, 11, 16 and 20.

Then they quote Liam Pickering saying the Crows miight look to turning two of those picks into pick 1.

In guessing Pickering would know a bit more about the industry than tou or I?

Lukosius is a consensus #1, there's no way Carlton would be stupid enough to trade away draft pick to take a player like him for even #8 and #9 of those hypothetical picks

Imagine trading away Nick Riewoldt for picks 8 and 9 in 2000. I don't even know who those blokes were, which says it all really.

 

[Obeanie1]

Lukosius is a consensus #1, there's no way Carlton would be stupid enough to trade away draft pick to take a player like him for even #8 and #9 of those hypothetical picks

Imagine trading away Nick Riewoldt for picks 8 and 9 in 2000. I don't even know who those blokes were, which says it all really.

Jack Watts says hi!

So does Michael Gardiner, Boyd and Paddy McCartin , Darren Gasper, Jon Patton and Jacob Weitering.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Jack Watts says hi!

So does Michael Gardiner, Boyd and Paddy McCartin , Darren Gasper, Jon Patton and Jacob Weitering.

Which of those guys was a consensus, stand out pick like Riewoldt was or Lukosius is?