Preview Rnd 6 - Carlton v Hawthorn Sunday April 28th 3.20PM @ UTAS - Team Post #1331

[Dadda Dave]

Which is why Cas plays.
We almost have to play Charlie up the ground when he comes back.

I don't mind big Levi playing ..

JSoS over Fasolo

Shit yes..

 

[norway blue]

Yes Charlie up the ground .


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Colonel_Klink]

I thought we have a chance leading into this match.

But once again, we've lost this match at the selection table.

Is Robert Walls the one leading the charge for all these tall forwards to be selected in the same side? The same Robert Walls that said West Coast would win the wooden spoon last year!

The same Robert Walls who coached us to a premiership amongst other things.

Tall or short, whatever plays to our strengths I say.

 

[Michael Jezz]

We are too tall unless Charlie plays on the ball. Kennedy and Cunners should be in that side. Maybe there is a late out.

Hawks by 13 points with this line up
Blues by 5 if kennedy plays

 

[haveago]

More civil in here than usual, everyone feeling alright ?

Definitely interesting conversation and looking like we'll have even more of the same in the future.

Got an unpopular opinion and tough question to put forward.

1. I think cas stays in over Charlie ATM, based on a combination or exposed form and maybe more importantly team balance due to their roles.

2. Does simmo get pushed out soon with returning players ? If so, do we fit him in the squad or is he pushed to the 2's ? Playing better than Newman ATM but may not last and I'd have daisy a fair way ahead.

Simmo in the two,s???? Don't be absurd

 

[Laphroaig]

We are too tall unless Charlie plays on the ball. Kennedy and Cunners should be in that side. Maybe there is a late out.

If Charlie plays on the ball we should have dropped a midfielder for him, not a small forward.

 

[murphster]

A virtually unheard assessment, and important.

The no runners ruling kills less experienced sides who don't have the depth of knowledge to adapt on the run.

Through the pre season and season to date there have been two or three times where the opposition came out either at the start or after a break with an approach we did not handle well. And we got blown away until the next time the coaches got into the players' ears.

Yeah it’s something we have to get better at but I think our use of different tempos at different times last week was really good, we just need our experienced players to really pay attention for all of the 4 quarters.

 

[Soapy V]

The same Robert Walls who coached us to a premiership amongst other things.

Tall or short, whatever plays to our strengths I say.

I think the improvement in form of SPS Gibbons Walsh Fisher Jack with Cripps may also give us some confidence. Against GCS we really struggled to win quality ball in the midfield. Setterfield and a few others really struggled to contribute. Gibbons was up forward. Delivery into the forward line was poor

I reckon we have a better balanced midfield now that along with our improving and impressive defence will result in better delivery up forward especially on the bigger ground

 

[murphster]

Thank you. Do you reckon it'll work?

Quite possibly, who knows, it’s as good as any other theory.

 

[Soapy V]

If Charlie plays on the ball we should have dropped a midfielder for him, not a small forward.

Why if one of the mids goes forward?

 

[blue healer]

Quite possibly, who knows, it’s as good as any other theory.

I actually thought.... better than most.

 

[Bordertoon]

I don’t want to sound patronising (or maybe, out of sheer frustration, I do ), but imo a few of our supporters could benefit from a research methods 101 course - that is, by learning that there is a key difference between correlation and causation. In other words, just because we play a given number of talls and we lose (correlation), it doesn’t follow that because we played a given number of talls we lost (causation).

Obviously, in the game against the Suns there were issues with our forward structures, and with the link-up play between our mids and our forwards. However, these issues were not a part of our gameplan, and they were not denied by our coaches. Rather, the issues were explicitly acknowledged by Bolts and acted upon by our coaches, and the results were evident in our much improved performance against the Dogs.

Beyond this though, as I thought Arr0w and others made crystal clear in the autopsy following the Suns game (using numerous specific examples to build their case), it was primarily poor decision making and poor execution that cost us that game, rather than how many talls we went in with, or the coaches’ gameplan for that matter.

So, instead of us supporters giving up the ghost against the Hawks before the ball is even bounced ffs, on the basis of how many talls have made the “final” 22 (the quotation marks are there because I don’t believe Charlie will end up playing), I think that our concerns could be much better channeled into whether or not our players are switched on psychologically, and prove capable of executing our gameplan on the day.

Sorry, rant over.

 

[Curnivore]

BS, that is clutching at straws

Thats 100% true Arrow. That doesn't mean we currently have said good small forwards, but having decent small forwards is pretty much an AFL requirement.

 

[murphster]

I don’t want to sound patronising (or maybe, out of sheer frustration, I do ), but imo a few of our supporters could benefit from a research methods 101 course - that is, by learning that there is a key difference between correlation and causation. In other words, just because we play a given number of talls and we lose (correlation), it doesn’t follow that because we played a given number of talls we lost (causation).

Obviously, in the game against the Suns there were issues with our forward structures, and with the link-up play between our mids and our forwards. However, these issues were not a part of our gameplan, and they were not denied by our coaches. Rather, the issues were explicitly acknowledged by Bolts and acted upon by our coaches, and the results were evident in our much improved performance against the Dogs.

Beyond this though, as I thought Arr0w and others made crystal clear in the autopsy following the Suns game (using numerous specific examples to build their case), it was primarily poor decision making and poor execution that cost us that game, rather than how many talls we went in with, or the coaches gameplan for that matter.

So, instead of us supporters giving up the ghost against the Hawks before the ball is even bounced ffs, on the basis of how many talls have made the “final” 22 (the quotation marks are there because I don’t believe Charlie will end up playing), I think that our concerns could be much better channeled into whether or not our players are switched on psychologically, and prove capable of executing our gameplan on the day.

Sorry, rant over.

Well ranted Borders

 

[My Hat]

Interesting change.

Given that Polson only played 60% game time last week, it's conceivable that for 40% of this week's game we'll be exactly as tall as we were last week.

 

[Accidental genius]

Our detailed discussions/analysis here make the fox teams lab sessions look like bucket chemistry

 

[Jeremias]

Had a feeling this may be the final side, but we're going in far too tall IMO.

Would like to see a late change for team balance but if this is the final 22 it'll be fascinating to see how we structure up.

 

[Laphroaig]

Why if one of the mids goes forward?

Then they are not mids.....

Two things stood out for me last week. How well the midfield worked, and how well Gibbons did when in there.

Curnow C goes into the midfield, Gibbons is back to being a dedicated forward. And the most successful midfield unit we have seen in a given game for several years is changed.

We shall see how it unfolds. I worry that Hawthorn is a fairly slow side these days. And that slowing ourself down may help them out. Somewhat in the manner of Bevo fielding a backline of short people helped us.

 

[Blue and Blue]

I don’t want to sound patronising (or maybe, out of sheer frustration, I do ), but imo a few of our supporters could benefit from a research methods 101 course - that is, by learning that there is a key difference between correlation and causation. In other words, just because we play a given number of talls and we lose (correlation), it doesn’t follow that because we played a given number of talls we lost (causation).

Obviously, in the game against the Suns there were issues with our forward structures, and with the link-up play between our mids and our forwards. However, these issues were not a part of our gameplan, and they were not denied by our coaches. Rather, the issues were explicitly acknowledged by Bolts and acted upon by our coaches, and the results were evident in our much improved performance against the Dogs.

Beyond this though, as I thought Arr0w and others made crystal clear in the autopsy following the Suns game (using numerous specific examples to build their case), it was primarily poor decision making and poor execution that cost us that game, rather than how many talls we went in with, or the coaches gameplan for that matter.

So, instead of us supporters giving up the ghost against the Hawks before the ball is even bounced ffs, on the basis of how many talls have made the “final” 22 (the quotation marks are there because I don’t believe Charlie will end up playing), I think that our concerns could be much better channeled into whether or not our players are switched on psychologically, and prove capable of executing our gameplan on the day.

Sorry, rant over.

I think despite the excellent post that you have missed one pertinent aspect.
Which is, those posters that dont really care what the team is but love the chance to say it's wrong. Will never miss the chance to criticise, complain and generally know better than anyone employed in football.

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

Charlie in for Polson is a definite upgrade
However if he limps off to the bench halfway through the 2nd qt with a sore knee, I’m gonna be mighty pissed

 

[Colonel_Klink]

I think the improvement in form of SPS Gibbons Walsh Fisher Jack with Cripps may also give us some confidence. Against GCS we really struggled to win quality ball in the midfield. Setterfield and a few others really struggled to contribute. Gibbons was up forward. Delivery into the forward line was poor

I reckon we have a better balanced midfield now that along with our improving and impressive defence will result in better delivery up forward especially on the bigger ground

I agree entirely. The backline was very good as it was the week before, but our midfield to forward line connection was exceptional, and, was the real difference last week.

I believe our midfield is better than Hawthorn's and will dominate on Sunday.

Much more depth to come too, bright future ahead.

 

[Aphrodite]

 

[Soapy V]

Then they are not mids.....

Two things stood out for me last week. How well the midfield worked, and how well Gibbons did when in there.

Curnow C goes into the midfield, Gibbons is back to being a dedicated forward. And the most successful midfield unit we have seen in a given game for several years is changed.

Mids that push through the forward line aren’t mids. Learn something every day [emoji106]

 

[Mondyboy]

Bolton explained the idea of layers in his pre-game presser. The idea that out of the back-line you always have a tall as your get out if we’re structured properly and they’re not all standing next to each other. So kick out to Cas, who then kicks its to Harry on the wing who then gives it off and we have a deep kick to Charlie or Gov.

The only time the forwards will be in the 50 metre arc is at the centre bounce.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Laphroaig]

Mids that push through the forward line aren’t mids. Leave something every day [emoji106]

Willful misinterpretation is an incredibly crass manner of argument.