Player Watch #35 Charlie Curnow

[zyzzbruh]

If he just kicks better and nails the 3 goals it's not even a discussion .

He wasn't a star yesterday but he did kick 7 last week.

He needs to compete in the air. Our problem isn't and has never been the ability to put a score on the board, we can clearly see we have multiple players that can contribute to a winning score. My concern with Charlie is the how, not the goal tally. I'd be pretty confident one of the main reasons he was recruited was his ability to crash a pack and take a big contested grab, that's what we have lacked.

At the minute he looks too easy to play against. Other than Khamis, none of his defenders have had an issue wearing him down. Whether it be lack of movement or instruction he's just not getting to the drop of the ball, and tbh him standing and waiting under it 15 times a game being successfully outwrestled by his opponent is getting a bit tiring to watch. He used to take big pack marks regularly at the Blues and make goals out of low percentage plays with that ability - of all his goals for us thus far I can't remember any that have been truly difficult or after a big grab, majority have been ones where he's got himself free on the advantage side of his opponent and executed a simple play (which is obviously fine) but we need more of the latter. We didn't pay up as much as we did for a simple forward, his pass mark is to be an exceptional forward, and like a Jezza Cameron be that regular miracle play guy.

I think this whole 'foil' to Amartey thing has been a convenient but not necessarily the primary objective 'side effect'.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

He needs to compete in the air. Our problem isn't and has never been the ability to put a score on the board, we can clearly see we have multiple players that can contribute to a winning score. My concern with Charlie is the how, not the goal tally. I'd be pretty confident one of the main reasons he was recruited was his ability to crash a pack and take a big contested grab, that's what we have lacked.

At the minute he looks too easy to play against. Other than Khamis, none of his defenders have had an issue wearing him down. Whether it be lack of movement or instruction he's just not getting to the drop of the ball, and tbh him standing and waiting under it 15 times a game being successfully outwrestled by his opponent is getting a bit tiring to watch. He used to take big pack marks regularly at the Blues and make goals out of low percentage plays with that ability - of all his goals for us thus far I can't remember any that have been truly difficult or after a big grab, majority have been ones where he's got himself free on the advantage side of his opponent and executed a simple play (which is obviously fine) but we need more of the latter. We didn't pay up as much as we did for a simple forward, his pass mark is to be an exceptional forward, and like a Jezza Cameron be that regular miracle play guy.

I think this whole 'foil' to Amartey thing has been a convenient but not necessarily the primary objective 'side effect'.

That was before Carlton ran him into the ground he may not be able to leap or crash parks like that anymore

 

[Punts]

Just look to struggle yesterday

No tackles and his pressure/chasing was ordinary

 

[Tedeski]

Just look to struggle yesterday

No tackles and his pressure/chasing was ordinary

I noticed he had a black knee bandage on at training during the week. On game day he had a dressing to left of his left knee.
I wonder if Charlie had his knee drained of fluid during week.
He had something.

 

[Kapers]

Ok, I wanted to organise my thoughts, because the Curnow conversation has a lot of emotion tied to it.

When in the match day thread, at half time I said McLean would've had a similar game (2 touches, holding the ball against, one behind I think), yet we gave up a tonne of draft capital for him, and against this critism I got a lot of "he's good for structure" and "he gets the best defender".

I want to start with this, I don't disagree, but for what we gave up I don't think he's that good. Even during his coleman year, I felt he was very relient on weak teams and umpires on his side. IMO this hasn't changed. He only really scores heavily against teams lacking a "best defender" and if we're being honest, has been beaten by defenders more often than winning the battle.

Now, I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing, he still demands the best defender because of how damaging he is IF a team doesn't take him seriously. If a team see's he's out of form, and puts their best on Joel, and second on Charlie, I could imagine Charlie kicking 7. He's not nearly the same calibar of player as Franklin, yet get's the same attention as Franklin would. This leads me to the main advantage of Charlie:

We don't rely on him. He works as part of a forward line that benefits from him taking the big names, by being up the field, being a headache while not really doing anything. I don't think McLean could do what Curnow could, because teams wouldn't have to respect MeLean like they respect Curnow.

However, my biggest negative about Curnow is that I simply don't see him winning a game for us. Bookmark this post (because I hope I'll come to regret it), but I don't think there will be a game this year where we say "we lose that without Curnow".

 

[Jewelsbon]

However, my biggest negative about Curnow is that I simply don't see him winning a game for us. Bookmark this post (because I hope I'll come to regret it), but I don't think there will be a game this year where we say "we lose that without Curnow".

I get what your saying and in principle agree, but is the bolded such a bad thing? Wasn't one of our biggest concerns in 2024 that we were winning games off individual brilliance for one quarter rather than the whole team contributing for four quarters like this year?
CC had a mare on Sunday and definitely not his first for the year, but I don't think Jnr would be kicking 7 goals if the likes of Turner and Lever (I think it was those two mainly on him) didn't have to give CC the respect he deserves, so in that sense we really can say "we lose that without Curnow".
It's a bit like the arguments last week about Logan, we are so much more a team this year than in the recent past that it's more about the whole unit.

 

[FreeAgent1]

Ok, I wanted to organise my thoughts, because the Curnow conversation has a lot of emotion tied to it.

When in the match day thread, at half time I said McLean would've had a similar game (2 touches, holding the ball against, one behind I think), yet we gave up a tonne of draft capital for him, and against this critism I got a lot of "he's good for structure" and "he gets the best defender".

I want to start with this, I don't disagree, but for what we gave up I don't think he's that good. Even during his coleman year, I felt he was very relient on weak teams and umpires on his side. IMO this hasn't changed. He only really scores heavily against teams lacking a "best defender" and if we're being honest, has been beaten by defenders more often than winning the battle.

Now, I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing, he still demands the best defender because of how damaging he is IF a team doesn't take him seriously. If a team see's he's out of form, and puts their best on Joel, and second on Charlie, I could imagine Charlie kicking 7. He's not nearly the same calibar of player as Franklin, yet get's the same attention as Franklin would. This leads me to the main advantage of Charlie:

We don't rely on him. He works as part of a forward line that benefits from him taking the big names, by being up the field, being a headache while not really doing anything. I don't think McLean could do what Curnow could, because teams wouldn't have to respect MeLean like they respect Curnow.

However, my biggest negative about Curnow is that I simply don't see him winning a game for us. Bookmark this post (because I hope I'll come to regret it), but I don't think there will be a game this year where we say "we lose that without Curnow".

I think they will do a stat in upcoming weeks how much space he creates when leading and is ignored.

Amartey has never looked so good and it isn’t the 2nd defender thing.

Kinda what we should have done more with buddy, use the KPP to stuff their structure.

 

[Nuggetz]

Charlie and Joel have kicked 20 goals each, Charlie with an extra 9 shots at goal. His goal accuracy needs to improve but that's pretty good output in a team where he gets the no.1 oppo defender and we have a genuine spread of goal kickers (talls/smalls/mids).

If we're going to use the argument 'oh he kicked goals against poor defence' then lets remove the games against 'good' defence too. He's contributing us to putting on scoreboard pressure which imo has been an issue in the past.

 

[KTT]

Charlie and Joel have kicked 20 goals each, Charlie with an extra 9 shots at goal. His goal accuracy needs to improve but that's pretty good output in a team where he gets the no.1 oppo defender and we have a genuine spread of goal kickers (talls/smalls/mids).

If we're going to use the argument 'oh he kicked goals against poor defence' then lets remove the games against 'good' defence too. He's contributing us to putting on scoreboard pressure which imo has been an issue in the past.

The three talls combined for 8 goals last week.. that averages out to 184 goals across 23 rounds and 63 goals each for the home and away season.
After 8 games (52 goals), the three talls are on track for 150 goals this season, or 50 goals each.
Ask any coach at the beginning of the season if he'd be happy with those numbers (plus a 2nd ruck).. the answer would be ecstatic!
They work as a team.

I think the idea that we 'sold the farm' for Curnow is misleading..
2025 draft - we traded Hayward (part salary cap mgt - part freeing up the forward line for a spot for Curnow & Rosas - part Cox refreshing the list).. We traded our 1st for 2 x 2nd round picks and gained a few hundred points to match bid on Kyle and draft Phillipou and Cootee and King
2026 draft - gave our 1st
2027 draft - will be a pick slide from (likely) late 20's to late 30's
So.. Curnow plus a few hundred points in 2025 for Hayward + a future 1st + a future future pick slide
Ive zero problem with that deal
Carlton would've been better off taking Geelongs offer of 2025, 26 & 27 1st round picks

 

[Kiama Chris]

The three talls combined for 8 goals last week.. that averages out to 184 goals across 23 rounds and 63 goals each for the home and away season.
After 8 games (52 goals), the three talls are on track for 150 goals this season, or 50 goals each.
Ask any coach at the beginning of the season if he'd be happy with those numbers (plus a 2nd ruck).. the answer would be ecstatic!
They work as a team.

I think the idea that we 'sold the farm' for Curnow is misleading..
2025 draft - we traded Hayward (part salary cap mgt - part freeing up the forward line for a spot for Curnow & Rosas - part Cox refreshing the list).. We traded our 1st for 2 x 2nd round picks and gained a few hundred points to match bid on Kyle and draft Phillipou and Cootee and King
2026 draft - gave our 1st
2027 draft - will be a pick slide from (likely) late 20's to late 30's
So.. Curnow plus a few hundred points in 2025 for Hayward + a future 1st + a future future pick slide
Ive zero problem with that deal
Carlton would've been better off taking Geelongs offer of 2025, 26 & 27 1st round picks

Carlton death riding us for 3 years

 

[ashep]

Ok, I wanted to organise my thoughts, because the Curnow conversation has a lot of emotion tied to it.

When in the match day thread, at half time I said McLean would've had a similar game (2 touches, holding the ball against, one behind I think), yet we gave up a tonne of draft capital for him, and against this critism I got a lot of "he's good for structure" and "he gets the best defender".

I want to start with this, I don't disagree, but for what we gave up I don't think he's that good. Even during his coleman year, I felt he was very relient on weak teams and umpires on his side. IMO this hasn't changed. He only really scores heavily against teams lacking a "best defender" and if we're being honest, has been beaten by defenders more often than winning the battle.

Now, I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing, he still demands the best defender because of how damaging he is IF a team doesn't take him seriously. If a team see's he's out of form, and puts their best on Joel, and second on Charlie, I could imagine Charlie kicking 7. He's not nearly the same calibar of player as Franklin, yet get's the same attention as Franklin would. This leads me to the main advantage of Charlie:

We don't rely on him. He works as part of a forward line that benefits from him taking the big names, by being up the field, being a headache while not really doing anything. I don't think McLean could do what Curnow could, because teams wouldn't have to respect MeLean like they respect Curnow.

However, my biggest negative about Curnow is that I simply don't see him winning a game for us. Bookmark this post (because I hope I'll come to regret it), but I don't think there will be a game this year where we say "we lose that without Curnow".

I think this is pretty even handed apart from the suggestion that McLean would offer a similar contribution. I like McLean, but if you look at the disposal and scoring stats, you also need to look at some of the numbers around 1v1 contests, as well as the way that every Curnow contest creates an opportunity for Papley or Rosas nipping at his heels. He just rarely gets beat.

I do concede that other than getting on the end of a few last week he's yet to really break a game open but I'm confident that his class will shine by the end of the season.

But yeah, your viewpoint is very fair at the moment.

 

[robbieando]

I think the idea that we 'sold the farm' for Curnow is misleading..

100%

Our first round pick last year we had to trade last year regardless to help match academy bids so we got full value from this pick and in the end the pick was used by Carlton to match a bid on Harry Dean so they wasted the value of the pick.

This years pick is all in on Curnow and as you pointed out next year is a slide back in Tasmania's entry draft and is already looking like an inspired swap.

 

[Kapers]

I get what your saying and in principle agree, but is the bolded such a bad thing? Wasn't one of our biggest concerns in 2024 that we were winning games off individual brilliance for one quarter rather than the whole team contributing for four quarters like this year?
CC had a mare on Sunday and definitely not his first for the year, but I don't think Jnr would be kicking 7 goals if the likes of Turner and Lever (I think it was those two mainly on him) didn't have to give CC the respect he deserves, so in that sense we really can say "we lose that without Curnow".
It's a bit like the arguments last week about Logan, we are so much more a team this year than in the recent past that it's more about the whole unit.

I think I look at the finals series of Geelong vs Collingwood in 2022 with Cameron. Geelong didn't need Cameron all the time, and definitely didn't win the grandfinal because of him, but when they needed him in a close final he kicks 3.

I don't think they win that game without him, and that's what I want from Curnow. There are going to be games when we need brilliance for one quarter, and I just don't think he'll ever be that guy (once again, hope I'm proved wrong).

 

[bedford]

I think I look at the finals series of Geelong vs Collingwood in 2022 with Cameron. Geelong didn't need Cameron all the time, and definitely didn't win the grandfinal because of him, but when they needed him in a close final he kicks 3.

I don't think they win that game without him, and that's what I want from Curnow. There are going to be games when we need brilliance for one quarter, and I just don't think he'll ever be that guy (once again, hope I'm proved wrong).

Good post i like it

 

[Kapers]

Charlie and Joel have kicked 20 goals each, Charlie with an extra 9 shots at goal. His goal accuracy needs to improve but that's pretty good output in a team where he gets the no.1 oppo defender and we have a genuine spread of goal kickers (talls/smalls/mids).

If we're going to use the argument 'oh he kicked goals against poor defence' then lets remove the games against 'good' defence too. He's contributing us to putting on scoreboard pressure which imo has been an issue in the past.

huh? sorry this doesn't make much sense to me. We're only going to be playing against good defence's when come finals, so what we see against a good defence is what we'll get in finals.

When you look at the finals series in 2023, he kicks 3 goals for the entire 3 games. That's what I expect will happen in finals with us as well, he'll kick a goal game. What I hope, is that with our team structure, we can use him to create more. But the narrative of "he only kicks goals against bad teams" is definitely a big issue when it comes to finals.

 

[heeney2curnow]

Charlie and Joel have kicked 20 goals each, Charlie with an extra 9 shots at goal. His goal accuracy needs to improve but that's pretty good output in a team where he gets the no.1 oppo defender and we have a genuine spread of goal kickers (talls/smalls/mids).

If we're going to use the argument 'oh he kicked goals against poor defence' then lets remove the games against 'good' defence too. He's contributing us to putting on scoreboard pressure which imo has been an issue in the past.

Can't be unhappy with those numbers after 8 rounds... he has definitely made us more potent in attack...

 

[NinjaSwan]

Amartey, Curnow, and Logan have the most goals of any key forward trio in the league (and 2nd overall for trios behind only Gunston/Watson/Lewis), and we are by far the #1 scoring side in the AFL, so I'd say it's definitely been worth it so far even if he hasn't won us a game yet.

 

[Jewelsbon]

I think I look at the finals series of Geelong vs Collingwood in 2022 with Cameron. Geelong didn't need Cameron all the time, and definitely didn't win the grandfinal because of him, but when they needed him in a close final he kicks 3.

I don't think they win that game without him, and that's what I want from Curnow. There are going to be games when we need brilliance for one quarter, and I just don't think he'll ever be that guy (once again, hope I'm proved wrong).

Yeah can't say I disagree and if I remember correctly, that was the knock on him from Carlton fans. I guess time will tell.

 

[melbournehammer]

im not sure that charlie couldnt be doing better if we didnt have quite such a determination to lengthen the ground.

he is playing at least ten metres foal side of the last defender. its making it very difficult for him to get any marks on the lead because the defender is able to cut off the lead. his only realistic marking opportunity is when we kick it over the head of the defender and as we get closer to goal charlie is almost inevitably competing in the square itself.

the positioning is intentional to create a lot more space up the ground which allows the forward handball to work because defenders are being pulled further and further away from the contest.

its the exact opposite of longmires game plan where everyone was within a single kick of the ball and the whole game was compressed and we relied on the backwards handball to exit a stoppage

i see whoever is playing deepest - its usually curnow but sometimes mcdonald as well as as basically a sacrifice to allow blakey and co to run through the middle

the question that we are going to need to answer is whether the structure will work when we cant run it and are sucked into the same contest we had against hawthorn where we couldnt exit by hand and we needed someone to win or even halve a contest at centre wing. that's when he will earn the big bucks

 

[tombomb]

Ok, I wanted to organise my thoughts, because the Curnow conversation has a lot of emotion tied to it.

When in the match day thread, at half time I said McLean would've had a similar game (2 touches, holding the ball against, one behind I think), yet we gave up a tonne of draft capital for him, and against this critism I got a lot of "he's good for structure" and "he gets the best defender".

I want to start with this, I don't disagree, but for what we gave up I don't think he's that good. Even during his coleman year, I felt he was very relient on weak teams and umpires on his side. IMO this hasn't changed. He only really scores heavily against teams lacking a "best defender" and if we're being honest, has been beaten by defenders more often than winning the battle.

Now, I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing, he still demands the best defender because of how damaging he is IF a team doesn't take him seriously. If a team see's he's out of form, and puts their best on Joel, and second on Charlie, I could imagine Charlie kicking 7. He's not nearly the same calibar of player as Franklin, yet get's the same attention as Franklin would. This leads me to the main advantage of Charlie:

We don't rely on him. He works as part of a forward line that benefits from him taking the big names, by being up the field, being a headache while not really doing anything. I don't think McLean could do what Curnow could, because teams wouldn't have to respect MeLean like they respect Curnow.

However, my biggest negative about Curnow is that I simply don't see him winning a game for us. Bookmark this post (because I hope I'll come to regret it), but I don't think there will be a game this year where we say "we lose that without Curnow".

The outside criticism of him goes way over the top, and then our own supporters go over the top pushing back the other way.

I don't think it is that big of a deal to acknowledge that Curnow has only be fair so fair.

 

[bedford]

The outside criticism of him goes way over the top, and then our own supporters go over the top pushing back the other way.

I don't think it is that big of a deal to acknowledge that Curnow has only be fair so fair.

Yes but a big part of our success so far

 

[tombomb]

Yes but a big part of our success so far

Hmmm, maybe. I am not sure I agree with that though.

I think if we have McLean and Hayward in the team instead of Curnow, we are probably still 7-1.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Hmmm, maybe. I am not sure I agree with that though.

I think if we have McLean and Hayward in the team instead of Curnow, we are probably still 7-1.

I mean there is no way to know for sure you can confidently say we would be 7-1 without him.

 

[tombomb]

I mean there is no way to know for sure you can confidently say we would be 7-1 without him.

Yeah, we could be 8-0, given how poor he was against Hawthorn.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Yeah, we could be 8-0, given how poor he was against Hawthorn.

With that delivery? come on all our talls were bad that game